The Road to Reduce Gun Violence in America

Gun violence is a long-standing issue in the United States and thus sparks much debate. While the

negative effect of gun violence is often recognized, the nuances surrounding guns in the United States often make it challenging to find a solution. It can be argued that the solutions to gun violence impede constitutional rights. However, they are necessary to protect fundamental human rights such as life and happiness. The best solution to gun violence in the United States is heightened gun control through strengthened background checks and stricter gun laws.

While many solutions exist to reduce gun violence, strengthening background checks utilizes an

existing resource in the United States. Background checks exist in the United States to prevent irresponsible people from obtaining firearms. However, the issue of gun violence does not only originate with untrustworthy people, as anyone, right-minded or not, can commit acts of gun violence. Jon S. Vernick examines the effectiveness of background checks in his work, “Background checks for all gun buyers and gun violence restraining orders: state efforts to keep guns from high-risk persons” (Vernick et al.). Throughout his work, Vernick examines how expanding background checks beyond their current form will help reduce gun violence. Vernick identifies that while current background checks account for the criminal records from authorized dealers, they do not account for “when a gun is purchased from someone who is not a licensed gun dealer” (Vernick et al.). The opportunity for criminals to gain access to firearms from non-licensed dealers is hazardous and must be addressed. Expanding background checks to cover any firearm transaction nationwide would help prevent issues with non-licensed dealers—an example of the effects of this expansion is within Vernick’s work. Vernick examines how Colorado has required “background checks for sales by unlicensed sellers at gun shows since 2000” to address the issue of unlicensed dealers selling to criminals (Vernick et al.). Vernick also notes a Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) study that ran background checks of all possible would-be dealers, which concluded that “expanding the state’s background check system has made it more difficult for some high-risk people to acquire guns” (Vernick et al.). Expanding background checks is an effective way to reduce gun violence, as it prevents dangerous individuals, particularly unlicensed dealers, from having access to firearms. 

Second, the rising issue of gun violence within the United States calls for state support and national

support through the passage of stricter gun legislation and control. Danielle Feldman notes a means for legislation expansion in her writing titled “Making social policy through courts: gun control advocates fight firearms” (Feldman). She identifies the court’s usage of strict liability to combat gun violence. Feldman defines strict liability in the case of firearms as that court holds “manufacturers liable for the acts of a third party” (Feldman). Maintaining this level of liability will discourage the manufacturer from producing and selling firearms, directly decreasing the supply and availability of weapons. The work also identifies another possible way for courts to address gun violence through the means of victims now suing manufacturers. The court case Kelley v R.G. Industries must be explained to address this solution. In the case of Kelley, a grocery store employee was shot, and the suspect was not identified; however, the weapon, an R.G. revolver, was collected and used to support the persecution (Feldman). The victim’s family sued R.G Industries, and they won the case due to the conditions of the incident meeting the conditions of strict liability provided in the case. However, following the decision, states, and courts were quick to diminish the idea of strict liability, primarily because the conditions of Kelley were too nuanced. However, Feldman expresses how Kelley could be the perfect groundwork for promoting strict liability. Addressing the impact of the Kelley decision, Feldman states how, “if courts apply Kelley, gun companies would find it difficult to continue to manufacture their products on the open market. Even if they were legally able to manufacture, the awards alone would bankrupt them or force them to pay enormous insurance premiums, making their business unprofitable” (Feldman). Feldman’s notion shows the possibility and implication of strict gun legislation through court decisions. The government can improve gun laws and enforce gun control in other ways. Gary Kleck explores the idea of gun laws in his work “Gun control after Heller and McDonald: what cannot be done and what ought to be done” and offers a solution different from Feldman’s (Kleck). Gary heavily emphasizes the full-out banning of guns, which is more complicated than it may seem. In his writing, a study was used that compared Washington DC, which had a handgun ban, and a surrounding suburb which did not have a handgun ban. The study showed that “gun homicides declined abruptly in D.C. immediately after the law went into effect, and declined to a greater degree than in the D.C. suburbs, which were not subject to the handgun ban” (Kleck). This study demonstrates how handgun bans can benefit areas where handgun homicides are typical.  

While expanding gun control seems like a beneficial tool to limit the danger of guns, developing

gun control is attainable and, therefore, necessary. William J. Vizzard, in his work, “The current and future state of gun policy in the United States,” argues that gun control is unattainable in America and that other methods must be used (Vizzard). He explains how “the entrenched power of gun control opponents, combined with the practical problems of designing a workable regulatory policy that…constitute[s] long-term barriers that will not dissolve readily” (Vizzard). Vizzard’s claim acknowledges an essential part of American politics: the diverse political culture. Since gun control rests in the power of the government, and the mix of political ideas causes disputes, it is valid to note that division may lead to a lack of gun control consensus. However, Vizzard’s argument falls short when he explains that “decentralized efforts directed at reducing gun carrying and violent behavior among at-risk populations seem to offer the most potential for reducing gun violence” (Vizzard). His argument is ineffective as it overlooks the instability of decentralized efforts and undermines recent developments proving gun control legislation’s plausibility. Feldman identified the possibility of gun control legislation through the court case Kelley v R.G. Industries. This case showed how strict liability is effective in courts and can extend to gun legislation. Vizzard’s claim and its relation to the relevance of this court case demonstrates an effective centralized effort to expand gun culture in America. 

Addressing gun violence is a problematic subject in America. Mixed political ideas create an

environment in which solutions are complicated. However, gun control through expanded background checks and the passage of stricter gun legislation is needed to address gun violence in America effectively. Expanded background checks will address the issue of irresponsible gun owners, and strengthened gun legislation will inhibit gun usage and directly address gun homicides. Time will tell if these problems get addressed in hopes that one day the value of human lives exceeds competing interests. 

​

Word Count: 1,171

​