• Home

need help 4 full pages

Please follow the instructions as it is outlined


State and federal governments should focus on Gun Control because the safety of American citizens should be priority, policy makers need strive to ensure they come up with more effective gun control laws by banning assault weapons, and focus on the merits of enacting more gun control laws to reduce the high number of incidents of gun violence and deaths in the United States.

need help 4 full pages

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Terms and Conditions and by using the
machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of
the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives
Editor: Christine Watkins
Date: 2012
From: Guns and Crime
Publisher: Gale, a Cengage Company
Series: At Issue
Document Type: Viewpoint essay
Length: 1,932 words
Content Level: (Level 5)
Lexile Measure: 1350L

Full Text:
Article Commentary

“Ten Myths About Gun Violence in America,” LCAV.org, 2009. Copyright © 2009 by Legal Community Against Violence. All rights
reserved. Reproduced by permission.

The Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) is a national public interest law center dedicated to preventing gun violence and to
providing legal assistance in support of gun violence prevention.

With nearly 400,000 gun crimes committed every year, the United States has the highest rate of firearm deaths (more than 30,000
each year) among twenty-five high-income nations. Clearly, stronger and more effective gun control laws are needed to keep guns
out of the wrong hands and to better protect the public. Furthermore, despite what the gun lobby claims, most Americans are in favor
of common-sense gun laws because they understand that such laws will, in fact, help reduce gun violence.
If guns really kept us safe, the United States would be the safest nation in the world, since we own an estimated 270 million
firearms—approximately 90 guns for every 100 people. Far from keeping us safe, guns are used to kill more than 30,000 Americans
each year and injure approximately 70,000. Guns are also used to commit nearly 400,000 crimes each year. The rate of firearm
violence in America far exceeds that of other industrialized nations, where gun ownership is strictly regulated.

Although many people own guns for self-protection, studies have repeatedly shown that a gun in the home increases the risk of
firearm-related death or injury to a household member. According to those studies, a gun kept in the home is more likely to be
involved in an accidental shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill an intruder in self-defense.

Convicted felons and other prohibited persons are able to buy guns easily from unlicensed sellers in undocumented

In addition, no evidence exists to support the claim that society would be safer if more people carried concealed guns in public.
Evidence shows that permissive concealed carry laws may increase crime. Moreover, common sense tells us that putting more guns
into more hands does not make anyone safer: it merely increases the odds that everyday disputes will escalate into deadly

The fact is that very few federal laws regulate the manufacture, sale or possession of firearms, and those currently on the books are
filled with loopholes or significantly tie the hands of law enforcement. The Brady Act, for example, which requires licensed firearms
dealers to perform background checks on gun purchasers, does not apply to private sellers, responsible for an estimated 40 percent
of all gun sales. Because of this “private sale” loophole, convicted felons and other prohibited persons are able to buy guns easily
from unlicensed sellers in undocumented transactions.

Even when a gun is purchased through a firearms dealer, another loophole permits the dealer to transfer the gun to the purchaser if
the background check isn’t completed within three days. These “default proceeds” allowed nearly 4,000 prohibited persons to
purchase guns between November 1998 and November 1999 alone. In addition:

Federal law doesn’t ban military-style assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large capacity ammunition magazines. Congress
allowed the 1994 ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines to expire in 2004, despite overwhelming public
support for the law. As a result, assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles and large capacity magazines have proliferated on the
civilian market.
Because federal law exempts guns from the Consumer Product Safety Act, no federal health and safety standards exist for

domestically manufactured firearms, though such standards do exist for all other consumer products manufactured in

Given the loopholes and unreasonable restrictions in our nation’s gun laws, it makes no sense to argue that we should merely
“enforce the laws we already have.” We need to strengthen existing laws to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep guns
out of the wrong hands, and to ensure that firearms do not endanger public safety.

The sad reality is that gun violence affects all segments of our society. As newspaper headlines regularly show, deadly shootings
occur in areas which are supposed to be the safest—including schools, places of worship, office buildings, shopping centers and
nursing homes. In addition, unintentional shootings and suicides, while less publicized, occur every day nationwide. No one is
immune from the devastation caused by the easy access to guns.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court held, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment
protects the right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment permits a wide
variety of strong gun laws. The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively valid,” including those which:

Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Court noted that this list is not exhaustive, and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning
“dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms for military service. In
addition, the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to
prevent accidents.”

Finally, because the Heller case involved a law enacted by Washington, D.C., a federal enclave, the Court did not address the issue
of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Sensible gun laws can and do work. Since the Brady Act went into effect in 1994, for example, background checks on prospective
gun purchasers have prevented the sale of firearms to more than 1.6 million prohibited purchasers, notwithstanding that law’s “private
sale” loophole. In addition, studies have shown that a variety of state laws have had a positive impact and can serve as “best
practices” for other states:

Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law, enacted to address gun trafficking, significantly reduced the number of out of state crime
guns traced back to Virginia dealers.
In 12 states where child access prevention laws had been in effect for at least one year, unintentional firearm deaths fell by
23% from 1990-94 among children under age 15.
Following Maryland’s adoption of a ban on “junk guns,” firearm homicides dropped by 8.6% in the state—an average of 40
lives saved per year—between 1990 and 1998.

Two recent studies looked at the impact of gun laws more broadly. The first report, released by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG)
in 2008, focused on the relationship between a state’s gun laws and the likelihood the state would be a source of guns recovered in
out-of-state crimes.

The MAIG report found that states with the highest crime gun export rates—i.e., states that were the top sources of guns recovered in
crime across state lines—had the weakest gun laws. That report also found that states that export crime guns at a high rate have a
significantly higher rate of gun murders than states with low export rates; and a significantly higher rate of fatal police shootings than
states with low export rates.

The second study, released by The Violence Policy Center in 2009, found that states with weak gun laws and high rates of gun
ownership have the highest rates of gun death. Conversely, the study found that states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun
ownership had significantly lower rates of firearm-related death.

Sensible gun laws do not “punish” law abiding citizens—they save lives. Legislators nationwide have enacted laws to protect public
safety, despite the fact they may impose a small burden on law-abiding citizens and despite the fact that some people will ignore
them. For example, we have laws regulating automobiles and automobile drivers (such as speed limits and the use of seat belts),
even though some people may find those laws inconvenient and others will violate them. Similarly, laws regulating guns and gun
owners (such as requiring buyers to undergo a background check or banning the sale of assault weapons) protect the public, despite
the fact that some may find them burdensome and others may ignore them. The reality is that most Americans support sensible gun
laws because they realize those laws help reduce gun violence.

U.S. gun laws are among the most lax in the world.

Although our society has become desensitized to high levels of gun deaths and injuries, gun violence is not normal and should not be
accepted as an unavoidable part of life in an industrialized country. Gun violence is, in fact, relatively rare in other industrialized
nations. Studies have shown that:

The U.S. has the highest rate of firearm deaths among 25 high-income nations.
The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children under the age of 15 is nearly 12 times higher than that among
children in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

The reasons for this great disparity are clear: Americans own far more civilian firearms—particularly handguns—than people in other
industrialized nations, and U.S. gun laws are among the most lax in the world.

Although some opponents of strong gun laws—particularly those requiring gun owners to register their firearms or obtain a
license—claim these laws will lead to governmental confiscation, there is simply no evidence to support this claim. If it were true,
confiscation of lawfully-owned guns would have taken place in jurisdictions that already require gun owners to register their guns or
obtain a license (e.g. Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Cleveland and Omaha). The gun lobby can
point to no such evidence, however. Moreover, the “slippery slope/confiscation” argument has been taken off the table by the
Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Although many elected officials are reluctant to support rational gun laws because they fear voter rejection, that fear is unfounded. A
report by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence following the 2008 elections found “no evidence that any candidate, at any
level, lost because of support for sensible gun laws. Supporters of common sense gun laws won in Senate, House and state races
across the country.”

These findings are consistent with nationwide polling data, which show overwhelming public support for rational gun laws. Those
polls show, for example, that:

92% of respondents, including 91% of gun owners, favor mandatory criminal background checks for all gun purchasers.
83% of respondents, including 72% of gun owners, favor registration for newly-purchased handguns, and 85% of
respondents, including 73% of gun owners, favor laws requiring handgun purchasers to obtain a permit.
65% of respondents favor banning military style assault weapons, and 74.9% favor governmental safety standards for

This is the grand-daddy of all gun myths. It is used by opponents of sensible gun laws to convey the idea that it is somehow unfair to
regulate guns, since human intervention is generally required to fire a gun. That fact, while generally true, does not lead to the
conclusion that guns should be free from governmental regulation. Indeed, our laws regulate the sale and possession of other
dangerous instrumentalities, such as automobiles, despite the fact that one could also say that “cars don’t kill people, people kill
people.” Automobiles, unlike guns, are subject to a myriad of federal health and safety standards to protect their owners and the

To the extent it is accurate to say that “people kill people” with guns, the gun lobby should actually be supportive of laws that require
gun buyers and owners to demonstrate they are able to possess firearms lawfully and responsibly, such as those requiring
purchasers to pass a background check, obtain a license and register their firearms.


Ben Agger There Is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Pjeter D. Baldridge, editor Gun Ownership and the Second Amendment. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2009.
Chris Bird Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense. San Antonio, TX: Privateer Publications, 2006.
Joan Burbick Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy. New York: New Press, 2006.
Brian Doherty Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Washington, DC: Cato
Institute, 2008.
Richard Feldman Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
Kristin A. Goss Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age. Bellevue, WA: Merril Press,
Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns. Bellevue, WA: Merril Press, 2008.
Stephen P. Halbrook The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008.
Bernard E. Harcourt Language of the Gun: Youth, Crime, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Dennis A. Henigan Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy. Washington, DC: Potomac Books,
Kathy Jackson The Cornered Cat: A Woman’s Guide to Concealed Carry. Hamilton, MI: White Feather Press, LLC, 2010.
David B. Kopel Aiming for Liberty: The Past, Present, and Future of Freedom and Self Defense. Bellevue, WA: Merril Press,
Mark Pogrebin, N. Prabha Unnithan, Paul Stretesky Guns, Violence, and Criminal Behavior: The Offender’s Perspective.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2009.
John A. Rich Wrong Place, Wrong Time: Trauma and Violence in the Lives of Young Black Men. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2009.
Lucinda Roy No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech. Van Nuys, CA: Harmony, 2009.
Robert J. Spitzer The Politics of Gun Control, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008.
Mark Walters and Kathy Jackson Lessons from Armed America. Hamilton, MI: White Feather Press, LLC, 2009.
Timothy Wheeler and E. John Wipfler Keeping Your Family Safe: The Responsibilities of Firearm Ownership. Bellevue, WA:
Merril Press, 2009.

Periodicals and Internet Sources

Ben Adler “Conservatives Make Inaccurate Arguments Against Gun Control,” Newsweek, January 18, 2011.
Ellen S. Alberding “Philanthropy Must Challenge the Idea that Gun Violence Can’t Be Stopped,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy,
January 14, 2011.
Frida Berrigan “Too Many Guns,” Huffington Post, October 23, 2008. www.huffingtonpost.com.

Jimmy Carter “What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?” New York Times, April 26, 2009.
Steve Chapman “The Unconcealed Truth about Carrying Guns,” Reason, March 31, 2011. www.reason.com.
Saul Cornell “What the ‘Right to Bear Arms’ Really Means,” Salon, January 15, 2011. www.salon.com.
Diane Dimond “Packing Heat at College,” Huffington Post, March 1, 2011. www.huffingtonpost.com.
John J. Donohue “It Takes Laws to Control the Bad Guys,” New York Times, January 12, 2011.
James Alan Fox “More Guns Means More Guns,” New York Times, January 12, 2011.
Morris Goodman “Gun Violence in America Calls for Gun Control,” The News-Herald, January 17, 2011.
Michael Grunwald “Tucson Tragedy: Is Gun Control a Dead Issue?” Time, January 24, 2011.
Thomas L. Harnisch “Concealed Weapons on State College Campuses: In Pursuit of Individual Liberty and Collective Security,”
American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), November 2008. www.aascu.org.
Bob Herbert “How Many Deaths Are Enough?” New York Times, January 17, 2011.
Joshua E. Keating “Armed, But Not Necessarily Dangerous,” Foreign Policy, January 11, 2011. www.foreignpolicy.com.
Nicholas D. Kristof “Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?” New York Times, January 12, 2011.
Juliet A. Leftwich “Worse than Iraq: Guns Kill More Americans at Home in Six Weeks than in Four Years of War,” The Recorder,
October 12, 2007.
W. Scott Lewis “Empty Holsters on Campus,” The Washington Times, October 24, 2007.
Sylvia Longmire “Guns in Mexico: A Challenge to Obama and the NRA,” San Diego Union-Tribune, June 23, 2011.
John R. Lott, Jr. “More Guns, Less Crime?: The Case for Arming Yourself,” New York Times, January 12, 2011.
Michael Luo “Mental Health and Guns: Do Background Checks Do Enough?” New York Times, April 19, 2007.
Heather Martens “When Background Checks Are Given a Chance, They Work,” Minnesota Public Radio, March 23, 2011.
Roger Simon “The Everyday Crisis of Gun Violence,” Politico, April 7, 2009. www.politico.com.
Ron Smith “Face the Facts: Gun Control Laws Don’t Save Lives,” The Baltimore Sun, January 20, 2011.
Robert J. Spitzer “Campuses Just Say ‘No’ to Guns,” Huffington Post, February 27, 2011. www.huffingtonpost.com.
Daniel Stone “Is Gun Violence the Cost of Freedom?” Newsweek, January 13, 2011.
John Stossel “Guns Save Lives: Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Is Essential in a Free Society,” Reason, June 24, 2010.
Mike Stuckey “Record Numbers Licensed to Pack Heat,” MSNBC.com, June 24, 2010. www.msnbc.msn.com.
Janalee Tobias “Columbine Was an Easy Target—Guns Protect Schools from Criminals,” US News & World Report, April 20,

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2012 Greenhaven Press, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
“Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives.” Guns and Crime, edited by Christine Watkins, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Gale

In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010015248/OVIC?u=txshracd2557&sid=bookmark-
OVIC&xid=2e0338cb. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022. Originally published as “Ten Myths About Gun Violence in America,” LCAV.org,

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010015248

need help 4 full pages

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Terms and Conditions and by using the
machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of
the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Gun Control
Date: 2022
From: Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection
Publisher: Gale, a Cengage Company
Document Type: Topic overview
Length: 2,613 words
Content Level: (Level 5)
Lexile Measure: 1410L

Full Text:
Gun control refers to legislation and regulations that place controls on the ownership of firearms, restrict certain types of firearms, or
determine where they may be carried. In the United States, gun control is a highly controversial topic that engenders debate
surrounding public safety, state and federal government oversight, and individual rights. Supporters of gun control seek tighter
restrictions on the sale and circulation of firearms to decrease the high incidence of gun-related violence and deaths in the United
States, while opponents argue they have a constitutional right to own and bear firearms.

Data from 2020 showed there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States, as reported by the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). Among firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020, about 54 percent were suicides and about
43 percent were homicides. Firearm-related injuries rank in the top five causes of death for United States citizens up to age sixty-four.
Assault by firearm accounts for 70 percent of nonfatal firearm-related injuries, while unintentional injury accounts for twenty percent.
The vast majority of victims (86 percent) are male.

Many Americans support the right to bear arms but also believe that the government has the right to regulate firearms in the interest
of public safety. Though there are differences along party lines, a 2021 Pew Research poll found that 53 percent of Americans
believe gun control laws should be more strict, and 14 percent believe they should be less strict. Gun rights groups, such as the
National Rifle Association (NRA), aim to prevent new gun control legislation and, if possible, roll back existing legislation. In the late
twentieth century, the NRA began to wield significant political influence at the national and state levels, especially among
conservative politicians. In response, gun control advocacy organizations such as Brady, Giffords, and Everytown for Gun Safety
have worked to enact legislation designed to better regulate gun ownership, such as requiring waiting periods, background checks,
gun permits, gun safety training, and restrictions on the possession of assault weapons.

Pros and Cons of Banning Assault Weapons

Though many gun rights proponents state guns are necessary for self-defense and hunting, such activities do not require the
efficiency and firepower of automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Assault weapons are known to be
capable of injuring and killing large groups of people in mass shootings.
Most Americans support a federal ban on military-style assault weapons. For politicians in many jurisdictions, supporting
such legislation would reflect the will of the people.
While the accidental discharge of a firearm always carries the risk of injury, the accidental discharge of an automatic weapon
can result in much greater damage.


Banning any type of firearm would be interpreted by some as a violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
Because federal law forbids the importation of foreign-made assault weapons, all such weapons sold legally are
manufactured domestically, thus helping local economies and encouraging further innovation.
A federal assault weapons ban would have minimal impact on gun deaths, as the majority of gun deaths are self-inflicted and
do not involve automatic weapons.

The Second Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms is included as the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights ratified on

December 15, 1791. It states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The precise meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment have been subjects of frequent
debate in the early twenty-first century. At the time it was enacted, each state maintained a militia composed of ordinary citizens who
served as part-time soldiers to protect settlers on land contested by Native Americans and defend against any attacks by foreign
entities, some of which still held territories later claimed by the United States. In addition, some of the authors of the Second
Amendment feared the federal government would use its standing army to force its will on the states and intended to protect the state
militias’ right to take up arms against the federal government.

Opponents of gun control interpret the Second Amendment as guaranteeing individual citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. They
assert the amendment protects the rights of the general population because colonial law required every household to possess arms
and every white male of military age to be ready for self-defense and military emergencies. Therefore, by guaranteeing arms for the
militia, the amendment simultaneously guaranteed arms for every citizen. Opponents of gun control further maintain the term “right of
the people” in the Second Amendment holds the same meaning as it does in the First Amendment, which guarantees such individual
liberties as the freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

Proponents of gun control debate some of these interpretations and argue that much has changed since the amendment was written.
Some twenty-first-century gun control supporters argue the amendment was meant to protect only a state’s right to arm citizens for
the common defense, not private citizen’s rights to possess and carry any firearm in any space. They also argue that, according to
the amendment, such militias were “well regulated,” meaning they were subject to state requirements concerning training, firearms,
and periodic military exercises.

Major Legislation and Court Cases in the Twentieth Century

The US Congress has created laws regarding gun regulations and the Supreme Court has ruled on several cases. The National
Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was the country’s first major federal gun control legislation. The law required the registration of certain
firearms, imposed taxes on the sale and manufacture of firearms, and restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk weapons, such
as machine guns. The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 provided additional regulations, requiring federal licenses for firearm
manufacturers and dealers and prohibiting certain people from buying firearms. The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Miller
(1939) upheld the NFA and set a precedent that the right to bear arms applied to citizens in active, controlled state guard or militia

The next major piece of federal firearms legislation was the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, passed in the wake of the assassinations
of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The GCA expanded both the NFA and the FFA. The law ended mail-
order sales of all firearms and ammunition and banned the sale of guns to minors, felons, fugitives from justice, people who use
illegal drugs, persons with mental illness, and those dishonorably discharged from the armed forces. The Supreme Court bolstered
controls when it upheld New Jersey’s strict gun control law in Burton v. Sills (1969) and the federal ban on possession of firearms by
felons in Lewis v. United States (1980).

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), however, eased many GCA restrictions. Opponents of gun control lauded
FOPA for expanding where firearms could be sold and who could sell them but continued to object to prohibitions on the manufacture
and possession of machine guns for civilian use. In 1989 the administration of President George H. W. Bush announced a permanent
ban on importing assault rifles. With passage of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (also called
the Federal Assault Weapons Ban), Congress banned the manufacture and sale of specific assault weapons. The ban expired in

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 passed as an amendment to the GCA. The Brady Act addressed several key
concerns of gun control proponents by requiring a five-day waiting period for all handgun sales, during which a background check
would be run on all prospective purchasers. This provision expired in 1998 and was replaced by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS), a database used to verify the eligibility of a buyer to possess a firearm.

Legislation and Court Cases in the Early Twenty-First Century

After several victims and families of victims of gun violence and others sued gun manufacturers and dealers whose weapons were
used to commit a crime, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and the Child Safety Lock Act of
2005. The first act limited the liability of gun manufacturers and dealers when their firearms were used in crimes. The second act
required anyone licensed to transfer or sell firearms to provide gun storage or safety devices. During his 2020 campaign for
president, Democratic candidate Joe Biden supported repeal of the PLCAA.

Congress enacted the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007. It was meant to improve failures in the NICS system that
allowed a shooter to acquire a gun despite a disqualifying mental health status which was not submitted to NICS by the state of
Virginia. He killed thirty-two people and himself on a Virginia college campus.

Gun rights proponents have used legislation as well as the federal courts to challenge gun restrictions. The US Supreme Court ruled
in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from making it illegal for private
individuals to keep loaded handguns in their homes. It was the first Supreme Court decision to explicitly rule that the right to keep and
bear arms is an individual right. The Court’s decision also clarified that the Second Amendment allows for limits on the types of arms
that can be kept and how they are used. The Heller decision has been used as the basis for several city, county, and state bans on
assault weapons and specific arms such as the AR-15 rifle.

State and local laws regarding licensing, registration, and possession of firearms vary widely. For instance, in some states a permit to
carry a concealed weapon in public is only issued if the applicant demonstrates a need and is found to have the capacity to safely
and responsibly handle firearms. In other states a concealed carry permit is guaranteed to any citizen legally allowed to own a
weapon. As of January 2022, twenty-one states allowed concealed carry without a permit. Several courts have used the Heller
decision as a basis to allow concealed carry of firearms.

Loopholes in Legislation

Gaps in legislation can enable people to obtain guns who may not otherwise meet the legal requirements for purchase. The
background check requirement, for example, can be avoided by purchasing firearms from an unlicensed seller who does not perform
these checks. While referred to as the “gun show loophole,” such sales can take place elsewhere, including online. Temporary loans
of firearms are typically allowed as are transfers of weapons that are inherited or given as gifts. While unlicensed gun transfers are
acceptable within one’s own state, interstate sales are prohibited.

Federal law and some states allow juveniles to purchase long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, from an unlicensed firearms dealer.
Child safety advocates have long campaigned for federal legislation that would raise the minimum age to own any type of firearm and
have also called for regulations aimed at preventing children from accessing guns in the home.

An amendment passed in 1996 known as the Lautenberg Amendment prevents people who have been convicted of domestic abuse
or are the subject of a protective order prohibiting contact from owning guns. However, abusers who are not a parent, guardian, or
legal spouse to their victims face no such restrictions. This gap has become known as the “boyfriend loophole.”

Underreporting and underfunding have contributed to the NICS database lacking substantial data in many categories. Lapses in
NICS reporting resulted in multiple instances of sales of weapons to unauthorized persons who then used the weapons to commit
crimes. For example, a former member of the US Air Force legally purchased a firearm and killed twenty-six people at a church in
Sutherland Springs, Texas. Following the shooting, the Air Force acknowledged that they failed to report the shooter’s military court-
martial conviction for domestic violence to civilian authorities. In response, Congress passed the Fix NICS Act of 2017 to penalize
federal agencies that do not meet NICS reporting requirements.

In 2015 a gunman shot and killed nine Black worshippers at a Charleston, South Carolina, church. Authorities later discovered the
perpetrator had purchased the murder weapon while still undergoing a background check. Sellers are allowed to give a buyer the
weapon if the check takes more than three days. The House of Representatives passed a bill in 2021 to extend background checks
from three days to ten days, allowing more time for a full check to be completed. Known as the “Charleston loophole” bill, as of
January 2022 the Senate had not voted on the legislation.

Critical Thinking Questions
Do you interpret the text of the Second Amendment to allow for an individual or a collective right to own weapons? Explain
your reasoning.
Do you agree with Supreme Court rulings establishing that the Second Amendment allows for certain gun control measures?
Why or why not?
In your opinion, are existing gun control regulations sufficient to ensure public safety? What other types of measures, if any,
do you think are needed, and why?

Twenty-First-Century Approaches to Gun Control

Several mass shootings occurred during the presidency of Barack Obama, including the murders of twenty-seven children and
teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 and forty-nine people at a Florida nightclub in 2016. Congressional inaction led Obama
to issue executive orders that expanded background checks to cover firearms sold at gun shows and online, sought more federal
agents to process background checks, advocated greater use of smart-gun technology, and required states to provide more
information on people disqualified from purchasing guns. The last order was rescinded by the subsequent Donald Trump

The largest mass shooting in US history, in which sixty people were killed in Las Vegas in 2017, and the February 14, 2018, shooting
of fourteen students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, renewed debate over
access to assault weapons. Student survivors of the massacre joined other gun control advocates in calling for reform. On March 9,
the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act was signed into law in Florida. The law placed some limits on gun
sales while expanding resources for law enforcement and safety personnel. On March 24, a group of survivors and student activists
organized a nationwide school walkout alongside the March for Our Lives to voice their demands for gun control legislative reform. An
estimated one to two million people participated.

Leading up to the 2020 elections lobbying organizations and political groups again invested large amounts of money in political
campaigns aimed at electing candidates favorable to their stance on gun control. For example, the NRA gun rights lobbying group
alone spent approximately $28.5 million dollars to back the political campaigns of Republican candidates during the 2020 election
cycle. Gun control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords collectively spent about $21.6 million in support of
Democratic candidates in 2020.

In 2021, with Congressional action on gun control unlikely, President Joe Biden also issued a series of executive orders. Biden’s
orders focused on regulating specific types of firearms and gun modifications; funding research on firearms trafficking in the United

States; and encouraging states to pass “red flag” laws. Red flag laws allow for the temporary removal of firearms from a person
identified as a potential danger by law enforcement or family members, who can petition for a court order. Biden’s executive orders
also sought to ban sales of firearms bought through private sellers online and assembled at home. Referred to as “ghost guns,” these
firearms do not have serial numbers and are untraceable.

Gun control advocates were heartened by Biden’s nomination of David Chipman to head the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives. Chipman’s nomination was withdrawn, however, following political opposition from gun rights organizations
over Chipman’s past work with gun control organizations Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2022 Gale, a Cengage Company
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
“Gun Control.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999212/OVIC?u=txshracd2557&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=6e8d1ce0. Accessed 23 Mar. 2022.
Gale Document Number: GALE|PC3010999212

need help 4 full pages

English 1302

Instructor: Tureva Osburn Research Essay Assignment

Format: MLA (Times New Roman, 12-point font, 1” margins, double-spaced)

Total Points Possible: 150 (50 points for peer review; 100 points for essay)

Due Dates: Upload draft of Essay to Eduflow for Peer-Review by Thursday, April 28th

Return to Peer-Review on Friday, April 29th – Saturday, April 30th

Peer-Review Draft must have at least two full pages with quotations, at least

two entries on the Works Cited page

Upload Research Essay to Dropbox for the Research Essay by

Monday, May 2nd by 11:59pm

Length: Research Essay must be a minimum of four (4) full pages and a

Works Cited on fifth page. Essay may be longer but must meet the minimum

requirement of four full pages. These pages must be full page length.

Must use the four sources from your Annotated Bibliography.

Instructions: The student should compose an argumentative, research essay that builds on

the foundation of the AB. To receive maximum points on this assignment, the student

writer should work to follow these instructions for composing the argument essay:

Introductory paragraph:

First, the student should provide an introductory paragraph that opens the

conversation and provides a focused thesis as the last sentence of this paragraph.

The thesis must include the issue as well as the student’s stand on the issue.

Example: Community college should be free because the costs for college prevent

many people from attending, grants and student loans do not cover all college

expenses, and more people attending and graduating from college is an investment

in the country’s economic stability.

The first two body paragraphs:

✓ A topic sentence should begin each body paragraph and connect directly to the


✓ These first two paragraphs can be two summary paragraphs that synthesizes all of

the sources.

✓ The student must introduce the author and the text clearly for all sources

✓ The student should provide concise summaries in one or two paragraphs.

The following body paragraphs:

✓ A topic sentence should begin each body paragraph and connect directly to the thesis

✓ These paragraphs should provide an explanation of the student’s stand on the issue in a

logical and reasonable manner

✓ Multiple body paragraphs should synthesize information from at least two sources

✓ These paragraphs should be composed around quotations from the student’s sources.

✓ Recognize that each of these body paragraphs must include a quotation from the

student’s researched articles.

✓ Recognize that the student must use at least one quotation from each source, but the

student writer may use more than one quotation from any of their sources.

✓ Recognize that the student’s argument often happens in their responses and explanations

that precede or follow the quotations.

✓ Work to avoid plagiarism. Always use a signal phrase before the quotation, use page

numbers in parenthesis after the quotation if provided, and use quotation marks.

Conclusion paragraph:

➢ This paragraph should be the shortest paragraph

➢ No new information in the conclusion

➢ This paragraph reminds the audience of the thesis

Works Cited page:

➢ Don’t forget the Works Cited page! When a writer uses a quotation from a source,

they must provide a citation on the WC page in order to avoid plagiarism.

➢ Entries on this page must be in alphabetical order by the author’s last name or the

title if no author.

➢ WC page must be in MLA format.

➢ Do not include entries on this page that are not used in the essay.

➢ The WC page is a separate page.

Images in Argument Essay:

❖ The student writer may include images in the essay that connect directly to the topic

❖ The images must be no more than a half of a page in total space used throughout the

essay. i.e. the student may use more than one image, but the total space used must not be

over a half of one page.

❖ Images may include graphs or pictures that provide additional information to the


❖ The images must have captions that explain what they are, or the student must refer to the

images within the essay explicitly.


1. Follow directions, read the instructions for this assignment regularly, and refer to it as you compose this


2. Use the AARC! Meet with a tutor on Zoom or in-person or upload your essay to the AARC OWL.

3. Ask questions! Send me an email and/or come to Zoom office hours. Don’t hesitate to ask for help!

4. Make sure you are providing a specific stance on the issue. Do not argue that two sides are correct!

5. Acknowledge that you can do this! Yes, it’s hard, but you are ready for this challenge!

Rubric for Argument Essay Assignment:

20 points for following directions and MLA format for in-text citations

20 grammar and punctuation accuracy

25 points for argumentative thesis statement, topic sentences, synthesis of sources, and logical arguments

25 points for providing accurately formatted quotations and explanations in body paragraphs

10 points for WC page accuracy in format and information

100 possible points for essay

50 points for peer-review on Eduflow.com

150 total points possible

135-150=A; 120=134=B; 105-119=C; 90-104=D; below 90=F

need help 4 full pages

Castro 1

Yvette Castro

Ms. Osburn

English 132.003

November 18, 2019

Strategies to Reduce Recidivism

“Within approximately three years, seven in ten formerly incarcerated individuals will

have been rearrested and returned to prison” (Hattery and Smith 5). So why has there not been an

effective idea applied in order to address this major societal problem? Prisons should have

specific rehabilitation services that are effective, more educational programs, and provide more

resources to inmates once they are released in order to lessen the chances of recidivism in the

United States.

A factor that contributes to reducing recidivism is making reentry for ex-criminals more

successful. In “Prisoner Reentry and Recidivism According to the Formerly Incarcerated and

Reentry Service Providers: A Verbal Behavior Approach,” Scott Bowman and Raphael Travis Jr.

exclaim that since the incarceration rate is so high, improving the chance of re-entering into the

community for an ex-offender is very important. First, the authors discuss that reentry and

recidivism are challenges for everyone involved, but a solution to reduce recidivism must be

found. The authors also proclaim that some factors such as the criminal justice system, the

communities former incarcerated people return to, and the lack of employment contribute to

recidivism. Next, the authors insist that since the rate of unsuccessful reentry is high, we should

examine the process of reentry in order to figure out how it can be improved. These authors

argue that theory-based examinations, such as Skinner’s theory, are needed in order to

understand the potential factors that will make reentry successful. Then, the authors performed a

Castro 2

study to examine the factors that influence recidivism and discovered that verbal behavior can

help decrease behaviors that lead to recidivism. Finally, the authors conclude that a verbal

behavior approach increases the understanding of reentry and implications can help make reentry

successful for ex-offenders and their families. Just like Bowman and Travis Jr. stress the

importance of making reentry more successful for inmates, Nally et al. argue about what causes

recidivism to be high which correlates to unsuccessful reentry into society. In “Post-Release

Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders: A 5-Year follow-up

Study in the United States,” John M. Nally et al. assert that the lack of employment opportunities

for ex-offenders released from prison causes the recidivism rate to be high. First, in a study, the

authors discover that the unemployment rate of ex-offenders is high because of their education

status and lack of job skills. Next, the authors mention the challenges of reducing recidivism and

how it revolves around employment and education. Then, the authors provide statistics that post-

release recidivism rates differ among the different types of ex-inmates. During the study, the

authors discover reincarceration among ex-offenders happen multiple times within a short period

of time. Also, the authors explain that the ex-offender’s demographics contribute to their chances

of being reincarcerated. Finally, the authors proclaim that there is a need to strengthen

correctional education for inmates in order to reduce recidivism and increase their chance of

employment and staying out of jail.

Another way recidivism can be reduced is by fixing the problems within the correctional

system and making prisons more efficient. In a TEDx Talks, “The surprising reason our

correctional system doesn’t work,” Brandon Mathews asserts that we need a divorce from the

correctional and prison system because it is ineffective. First, Mathews mentions that while he

worked in the criminal justice system he felt like he was not making an impact, so he decided to

Castro 3

research and figure out why the U.S. system was not working. Mathews discovers that the reason

the system does not work is because punishment and rehabilitation practices are intertwined in

prisons. Then, Mathews exclaims that two track should be made: one for punishment and the

other for rehabilitation. Next, he goes into explanation of why we need these two tracks and how

they would work. Finally, Mathews ends his speech by saying that creating a two track system

should reduce recidivism and make communities more safe when ex-offenders return. Just like

Mathews discusses the significance of correcting prisons, Simourd and Brandenburg suggests

that rehabilitation is effective and should be added to prisons to reduce recidivism. In David

J. Simourd and Bryan Brandenburg’s article, “Implementing Rehabilitation into Jails: A Case

Example of Success,” the authors argue that rehabilitation is the most effective way to reduce

recidivism. First, they exclaim that the purpose of jails is detention which provides offenders the

opportunity to reflect why they are incarcerated which provides a space for rehabilitation and

change. Next, the authors believe that having rehabilitation in prisons which reduce recidivism

has benefits: lower costs for taxpayers and safer communities for all. Then, the authors proclaim

that in order to reduce recidivism four components of correctional best practices must be put into

action. Finally, the authors introduce the Northern Oregon Regional Corrections Facility and

how this jail offers 6 programs of different rehabilitation for inmates which are Criminal

Attitude, Offender Anger Management Treatment, Active Parenting, Living in Balance,

NORCOR Community Re-entry, and Inside Out Dad. The authors use NORCOR as an example

to show that reduction of recidivism can be achieved through effective rehabilitation programs

offered in prisons.

The prison system is not as effective anymore, so changes must be made and proper

rehabilitation should be added to decrease recidivism. In a TEDx Talks, Mathews clarifies that

Castro 4

“inmates are assigned to prisons based upon how much we anticipate they’re going to misbehave

while they are there” (02:52-57). This shows that the correctional system categorizes inmates

based on their violent behavior and sends them to prisons with strict security rather than sending

them to prisons that have rehabilitation programs that meet their needs. The prison system should

focus more on rehabilitation and treatment for inmates in order to keep them out of prison and to

decrease recidivism. In order to do this, individuals should be placed into prisons that provide the

proper rehabilitation and therapy to combat their issues. Therefore, proper rehabilitation and

treatment must be added to all prisons so every inmate can have access to a program that is

effective to them. By doing so, prisons will focus more on rehabilitation rather than heavily on

just punishment which will create a positive effect for inmates. In an article by Simourd and

Brandenburg, the authors state that rehabilitation is the most effective way of reducing

recidivism. The authors use the Northern Oregon Regional Correction Facility (NORCOR) as an

example of how effective rehabilitation is. NORCOR provides six program options that each

offer different rehabilitation services, but before an offender is assigned to a program they are

ranked and “referred for a supplementary assessment of specific areas related to honesty,

criminal thinking, anger, and readiness for change” (55). This assessment focuses on the specific

issues inmates are dealing with in order to determine what type of program they are referred to.

This assessment strategy should be implemented into all prisons so we can better understand why

inmates behave the way they did to get them into prison so they can receive the proper, effective,

and specific treatment program to keep them out of jail once they are released.

All prisons should provide good educational programs and job skills to inmates so the

rate of successful reentry can increase. Based on a study by Bowman and Travis Jr., former

inmates assert that “the job skills acquired in prison were often inconsistent with needed skill-

Castro 5

sets in the community” (13). Therefore, reentry into society is difficult and unsuccessful because

of the lack of job skills and education provided to inmates while they were in jail. Current

inmates are not learning valuable life skills which makes them become a step behind the rest of

society once they are released. Society is quickly advancing and changing and inmates cannot

keep up with it, so they go back to their old habits which can lead them back into prison. For that

reason, while inmates are serving their time, they should learn useful skills and receive a good

education that will help them once they are released from prison so they can have a better chance

of becoming employed. Nally et al. did a five year follow-up study on former inmates and the

authors discovered that “ex-offenders were frequently kept from employment due to criminal

background checks or deficiencies in education and job skills” (17). This study backs up

Bowman and Travis Jr.’s argument that ex-inmates struggle finding employment once they are

released from prison due to the lack of education and job skills that are necessary to survive in


In order for reentry to be successful, individuals should receive proper resources and

guidance during the transition from prison and into the real world. While inmates serve their

time, society changes during that time and it may be difficult for them to adjust to the world

outside of prison. Reentry is important for inmates because it determines if ex-criminals will stay

out of prison or not. In Prisoner Reentry and Social Capital, Hattery and Smith conclude that

“there are several key factors that influence reentry including race, socioeconomic status prior to

incarceration, sobriety, employment, and access to stable housing” (6). Since there are many

factors that contribute to reentry, it is important that released prisoners have support and

resources that will help them stay out of jail and become stable in life. Without proper resources,

former inmates are thrown into the world with no idea on how to survive which makes them turn

Castro 6

to their old habits. For example, once inmates are released from jail they are sent back to their

former communities which can make it difficult for them to change their lives and can lead them

back to misbehavior. This is why guidance is needed so inmates can have someone to lean on

and help them overcome these struggles so they can have a better life. “Positive reengagement in

society, including housing, self-sustaining education or employment, a healthy peer network and

emotional well-being are essential to success” (Bowman and Travis Jr. 11). These factors lead to

success in reentry, but inmates that are released from prison need help and resources to cope with

their new lifestyle in order to stay out of prison. Therefore, it is important that inmates receive

some type of counseling or resources to help them find a job, help them find housing, help them

deal with obstacles, and help them flourish in life and stay out of the prison system.

Overall, the correctional system must be fixed and provide more specific and educational

programs to inmates. By doing so, this will reduce recidivism in the United States and will help

reentry become more successful.

Castro 7

Works Cited

Bowman, Scott Wm., and Raphael Travis Jr. “Prisoner Reentry and Recidivism According to the

Formerly Incarcerated and Reentry Service Providers: A Verbal Behavior Approach.”

Behavior Analyst Today, vol. 13, no. 3/4, July 2012, pp. 9–19. EBSCOhost,


Hattery, Angela, and Earl Smith. Prisoner Reentry and Social Capital. Lexington Books, 2010.

Mathews, Brandon. “The surprising reason our correctional system doesn’t work.” TEDx Talks,

Sep. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmvrBGmu9k4.

Nally, John M., et al. “Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of

Released Offenders: A 5-Year follow-up Study in the United States.” International

Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, vol. 9 (1), 2014, pp. 16-34. Google Scholar, http://


Simourd, David J., and Bryan Brandenburg. “Implementing Rehabilitation into Jails: A Case

Example of Success.” American Jails, vol. 32, no. 5, Nov. 2018, pp. 53–56. EBSCOhost,



need help 4 full pages

Surname 1






Annotated Bibliography

“Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives.” Guns and Crime, edited by Christine Watkins, Green haven Press, 2012. At Issue. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010015248/OVIC?u=txshracd2557&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=2e0338cb. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022. Originally published as “Ten Myths about Gun Violence in America,” LCAV.org, 2009.

In Watkins Christine’s article, “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives,” she mainly focuses on how implementing effective and strong laws associated with gun control can significantly help to deal with violence and save many lives. It is stated that the United States require more comprehensive, stronger, and effective gun control laws in order to safeguard the public and keep firearms out of the wrong hands. It is believed that the United States has the greatest number of gun deaths, compared to various high-income countries in the world. The author believes that if firearms actually protected them, then the United States would have been the safest place globally since the ownership is very high. Despite many individuals having firearms for protection, research has indicated that guns at home increase the risk of deaths or injuries to any family member. Such guns can be used in accidental shootings, criminal assaults, or suicide attempts.

This article is significant since it comprehensively how executing appropriate rules and regulations can help in saving lives in the United States. It shows that possessing guns does not guarantee people the security they need; instead, it results in other issues such as gun violence. The article will help in the research to determine some of the laws that should be implemented to prevent gun violence and instead enhance the public’s safety. I think this article will appropriately connect with the article by Gale since they all focus on the issue of gun control and how to preserve the safety of the public in the United States.

Watkins states, “Although many people own guns for self-protection, studies have repeatedly shown that a gun in the home increases the risk of firearm-related death or injury to a household member.” This implies having firearms at home increases the rates of gun violence, which can be experienced through criminal assault, accidental shooting, and suicide attempts.

“Gun Control.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, blink.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999212/OVIC?u=txshracd2557&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=6e8d1ce0. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.

Gale’s text “Gun Control” defines gun control as the legislation and regulations that place certain guidelines on the possession of guns by restricting particular types of weapons and determining where they can be carried. Control of guns has continued to be a very controversial subject in the United States that has been associated with various issues like public safety, oversight by the state and federal government, and personal rights. It is stated that gaps in legislation may help individuals who might not otherwise fulfill the legal standards for purchase to acquire guns. For instance, there are some federal laws and states that let juveniles buy long firearms from unlicensed gun dealers that have raised issues concerning child safety.

This text is essential because it outlines the advantages and disadvantages of banning assault weapons. Assault weapons should be banned because the accidental discharge of a gun usually increases the risk of injury, although the discharge of an automatic firearm might cause greater harm. Other people maintain that firearms are necessary for self-defense, although such an act does not need the effectiveness and firepower of automatic guns and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Nevertheless, banning various types of guns might be seen as a violation of the Second Amendment of the constitution, and banning assault weapons by the federal government can have a minimal effect on the number of deaths caused by guns.

Gale maintains, “Many Americans support the right to bear arms but also believe that the government has the right to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety.” This shows that the government should play a crucial role in formulating effective laws and regulations to effectively the restrictions set on the sale and circulation of guns to prevent gun violence.

Newman, Benjamin J., and Todd K. Hartman. “Mass shootings and public support for gun control.” British Journal of Political Science 49.4 (2019): 1527-1553. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/mass-shootings-and-public-support-for-gun-control/8F38356AF4DB22B8B7DF28052234FA09

The article “Mass shootings and public support for gun control” by Newman and Hartman typically looks at the recent mass public shootings that have been experienced in the United States. The constant mass shootings it has raised many questions concerning those tragic events and how they affected public policy. For example, when a young man shot more than twenty-five people in Newtown in the United States in December 2012, there was a deep public debate surrounding the problem of gun violence, which was associated with different things like cultural issues, mental health of attackers and violent video games.

I believe this article is important because it defines the various mass shootings that have been experienced in the United States and how gun control can be achieved in the country. The authors state that gun legislation has become a recurrent problem in American politics which has been influenced by the increased attention from the media and public interest in gun control laws due to mass public shootings.

Newman and Hartman state, “While the attacks at Sandy Hook and other mass public shootings like those in Aurora, Blacksburg, and Littleton make national headlines, there are countless others that receive considerably less attention but are just as devastating to affected communities.” This means that there are several other incidents of attacks and mass shootings that have led to adverse effects, but there are no measures that were taken in order to avoid such incidents from occurring again.

Bauchner, Howard, et al. “Death by gun violence—a public health crisis.” JAMA psychiatry 74.12 (2017): 1195-1196. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2657419

The article “Death by gun violence” generally focuses on how many deaths associated with gun violence has become a significant public health crisis in the United States. The article looks at the shooting that was experienced in La Vegas, where more than fifty people were killed while thousands of them were left with psychological distress from being present at the scene. The authors maintain that firearms do not make people, their households, and families safer, but instead, they lead to more deaths of their loved ones compared to intruders who might be targeting to cause harm. Research shows that majority of the gun deaths in the United States are suicides.

This article is vital because it looks at various aspects of gun violence, such as the effect of being exposed to gun violence and the connection between gun laws and firearm homicides and suicides. This would help the research by defining the connection between homicide and suicide laws. Moreover, health care providers and other physicians can also do more to try to find out what can be done to prevent mass shootings in different parts of the United States.

Bauchner et al., state, “Guns kill people.” This needs comprehensive background checks to be conducted in different places, including schools and hotels. There should also be more limitations on the amount and type of guns that people can possess to reduce gun violence cases. Deaths caused by gun violence can be reduced by understanding and decreasing exposure to the cause of those deaths.