Millions of innocent people die every year. Many of these deaths are caused by war and natural disaster, but an unacceptable amount of lives are taken annually by mass shootings, especially in the developed nation of the United States. Mass shootings seem to happen every few months in recent years, the most recent Orlando nightclub shooting being the largest mass shooting in U.S. history. Fifty lives were lost that night, with 53 people sustaining injuries. Those fifty included a cancer survivor and many college students. This is not an issue that plagues every corner of the planet, and its current severity is not something unavoidable. There were over a dozen mass shootings in America in 2012 alone, and four of those featured assault weapons, including the two deadliest (DeGrazia 1-3). The recent epidemic of mass shootings in America signifies a need for policy change. Although guns in the hands of the public can be a good thing, due to commonplace nature of mass shootings in America, there is a need for policy change involving universal background checks, banning assault weapons, and properly training those who plan to own guns. 

To understand the direction U.S. policy needs to take, one must first understand current U.S. gun regulation laws. First and foremost, competent, law-abiding adults in America have the right to own guns such as handguns and long guns, and this right comes from the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. constitution’s Bill of Rights. Although the 2nd Amendment itself refers to a well-regulated militia, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment so that it does protect an individual’s right to have a firearm for lawful purposes (DeGrazia 2). The most common examples of lawful purpose for gun use are self-defense and hunting. 

The US Federal Law for firearms decides the minimum regulations a state must have in place, but individual states can have more strict laws (Masters). The first relevant change was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1968. This prohibited the creation of a national registry of gun owners, prohibits inspecting gun dealers more than once a year, and does not allow the background checks of those looking to buy a gun to be preserved (DeGrazia 3). In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted (DeGrazia 2). This required background checks of guns purchased through licensed dealers, however this allowed for individuals to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check (Rosen 20). Due to rising gun violence in the early 1990’s, Congress enacted the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban. This started a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, however it did not apply to weapons and magazines produced before September 13th 1994, leaving 1.5 million assault weapons and 25 million guns with large capacity magazines in the U.S. public arena (Rosen 20). The Bush administration allowed that to expire in 2004, allowing the U.S. public to legally obtain assault weapons and high capacity ammunition. Data showing where criminals purchased firearms is prohibited from being released to the public due to an amendment to a 2003 spending bill (DeGrazia 3). One of the most monumental cases in gun control was the District of Columbia v. Heller case of 2008. This case confirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and struck down laws that either banned handguns or required those in the home to be locked or disassembled (Masters). Jonathan Masters spoke of the most recent time gun legislation was at the center of the conversation in an article comparing gun control policies around the world, saying, “Compromise legislation that would have banned semiautomatic assault weapons and expanded background checks was defeated in the Senate in 2013, despite extensive public support.” (Masters). Although much of the public was in support of these legislative measures that do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights to use guns for lawful weapons, they never came into being. 

Gun crime in the US has been plunging over the past two decades, but that does not mean it is being eradicated. The US is still number one among developed nations for homicides-committed-by-firearm annually (Masters). There were over 100,000 homicides and 300,000 gun deaths in the US between 2007 and 2016 (French 60).  This is not surprising considering the US leads the world in firearms per capita (Masters). In 2013, the US had about 36 million more guns than it had people, and this number is steadily increasing (Issitt 85). The number of firearms in the US increases by about 10 million every year, despite the fact that only 40% of households own these guns that already outnumber the population (Davidson 79). These households make up less than 1.25% of the world’s population, but they still own 35-50% of all the civilian owned guns on this planet (Masters). It is no coincidence that America has both the most guns of any developed nation and the most gun homicides of any developed nation.

Due to the excess of guns in America, many who consider themselves pro-gun would be unopposed to more strict gun legislation. Perhaps the most supported idea is universal background checks, with 92% of Americans agreeing that all gun purchases should require them (Christiano 15). There is reason to believe that background checks do reduce gun violence. Some states have laws barring those whose background checks reveal domestic violence offences from buying guns, and those saw 10% less intimate partner homicides compared to states lacking such a law. Similar laws that keep those under domestic violence restraining orders from purchasing firearms saw 19% less intimate partner homicides (Rosen 21). Opponents of universal background checks for firearm purchases often point out that the weapons obtained for some notable mass shootings, including Newton Elementary and Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, were purchased from gun stores with full background checks (Elliott 50). However, there is no conclusive evidence that full background checks would increase the likelihood of those deserving of gun access being denied a gun, and it is unacceptable to imply that simply because some things went unflagged that an entire system is not beneficial. It is also important to note, in these cases, that the perpetrator of the Newton Elementary School shooting would have been unable to attain a gun and stole his mother’s, and the perpetrator of the Orlando shooting had recently been removed from the US Terror Watch list. 

The Orlando shooter was on the suspected terrorists list for ten months (Elliott 51). The fact that those on the terror watch list are still legally allowed to purchase firearms is often referred to as the ‘terror gap’. Between 2009 and 2014, 91% of gun purchases attempted by someone who was being investigated for terrorist activity were successful. Although it is not guaranteed that someone is a terrorist for them to be placed on the terror  watch list, this is concerning to many Americans. The NRA, among others, fear that not allowing anyone on the terror watch list to purchase firearms would give the government too much power. In the past, certain government organizations have placed people on the No-Fly list without informing them, and some placed on the list are never given an explanation. However, some legislators have tried to propose compromises. Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic California senator, and Peter King, a Republican New York congressman, have proposed allowing the FBI to allow certain individuals on the suspected terrorist list to purchase guns and not allow others the same, proposing the reasoning that the FBI is most aware of the cases. Although government overreach is a real possibility when talking about policies like these, the increase in terrorist activity around the globe and pro tempore nature of being on the terrorist watch list call for reasonable involvement when people’s lives are at stake (Gumbel 55-57). Extra caution must be taken when things like mass shootings are so commonplace. 

The availability of assault weapons is unnecessary for any lawful purpose of a firearm, and without access them, some mass shootings would not have taken as many lives. The term assault weapon typically refers to any semi-automatic or high capacity gun, or any combination thereof, and that is what it refers to throughout this paper. A semi-automatic weapon will fire as fast as one can pull a trigger; if the shooter can pull the trigger four times per second, that gun will shoot four bullets per second (Cooper 45). They have been used in countless mass shootings around the world, and they have been used in almost every mass shooting that has caught the public eye, such as the Orlando night club, Aurora movie theater, Sandy Hook elementary, San Bernardino regional center, and many more. Ron Cooper, a self-described gun enthusiast, summed it up in a piece about the unnecessity of assault weapons when he said, “People can kill far more people in a shorter amount of time with assault weapons.” (Cooper 46). If guns are embedded in American culture and politics the way they are, why not make it so that if someone misuses the gun they cannot misuse it as badly? Every individual human life holds value, and in any of the mass shootings in which an assault weapon was used, less people would have died had it been a more standard gun. FBI data on mass shootings from January 2009 to July 2015 shows 47% more people died when just high capacity magazines were used; the data does not say if they were semi-automatic weapons. For the lawful purposes of using a gun such as self-defense and hunting, an assault weapon is unnecessary (DeGrazia 17). There is no self-defense situation in which someone would need to fire hundreds of rounds in a short amount of time, and a large part of hunting in the 21st century is the sport, which assault weapons take away (Cooper 47). Taking assault weapons off the market would spare innocent lives in the future.

Some opponents to limiting what kinds of guns’ people can get make the argument that the ‘bad’ people will find ways to get the guns they are looking for. However, none of the shootings thus far have used heavily restricted fully-automatic weapons, and have opted for more accessible, legal options (Cooper 46). It has been seen in countries across the world that people find ways to terrorize with things legal enough to be mostly accessible, and although that is an unfortunate fact, the government must do what it can when it can to prevent terror from having power, no matter what name that terror hides behind. 

There are many frankly ridiculous holes in current policy, however, guns in the hands of the public are not a bad thing. It just needs to be reasonably powered guns in the hands of trained individuals, and not a step down from a machine gun in the hands of someone who bought it at a gun show because they were not sure they would pass a background check. There is not a proven correlation between gun ownership and higher crime rates (Hsiao 315). The public has also become more responsible with guns. Gun murders are about half of what they were in 1993 (Elliott 50). It is true that people are at higher risk for homicide in American areas where there are more guns, however this could be due to the fact that people who are more likely to be assaulted are also more likely to own a gun (DeGrazia 14 and Hsiao 319). Guns with limited power are a reasonable thing to own.

Training gun owners is important to guarantee they have the skill set that would allow for effective self-defense and defense of others with a gun. Although some gun advocates feel as though making people take a course before they can own a gun violates their second amendment rights, but all rights, including that of free speech, have limits. Making someone take a course before they can use a gun is not a violation of their rights. Plenty of Americans live happy lives without guns because they are not a necessity in America. However, using a car is something that has a large utility to someone’s life. Everyone in America is required to go through a rigorous process to be able to drive a car alone, and often the process takes a minimum of 6 months, and includes one written and one driving test. Most people would agree that this system is in place because driving is a large responsibility, and it is important to ensure people are going to drive properly. Much like driving, holding a gun is a big responsibility. Better trained gun owners means less gun incidents (Degrazia 8). 

Israel’s gun policy would be a good policy for American lawmakers to look at. Their citizens claim a “gun culture”, and many Israelis love guns in the way Americans do. A large amount of the citizens own guns, but they have a relatively low gun-related homicide rate that is less than a third of America’s. Assault weapons are banned in Israel; however, it is seen as easy to get a standard gun. Israel has compulsory military service of 18-year-old citizens, and this does include psychological screening and weapon training. Israel has found a way to keep guns a part of life without keeping gun violence a part of life (Masters).

Gun control does not need to feel like a divided issue. Many of the most effective policies are those that are a meeting in the middle of the ‘sides’ people decide to stand on. Many people desire the same thing, and that is a feeling of safety. Some people want that feeling of safety from knowing someone is not going to have a military grade weapon in their bag, while others want safety knowing that if someone did have that, they would have something to fight back with. Everyone could breath easy if they knew that no one had these military grade weapons, but that there is most likely someone around who has been approved for gun use, trained for gun use, and has a simple gun to use in the case of an emergency. Guns are one of the most powerful objects on our planet, and there is a big responsibility not only in individuals using them, but in society bringing them in to society. If people can respect the history of guns, then they can respect the power of guns and the fragility of human life to do what they can to protect it. 
