Stricter Gun Control

For American citizens, the right to bear arms is granted to us in the United States constitution. The constitution 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” (CITE). However, guns have changed dramatically since the constitution was written. Now, guns have the capacity to kill more people, quicker than ever before. And far too often, guns are not used for protection or self-defense, but to intentionally harm the innocent. For this reason, political figures, social activists and members of the general public have called into question what is really outlined and protected under the 2nd amendment. For example, are all guns permitted,
even semi-automatic rifles? Are guns permitted everywhere? Are background checks permissible under the constitution? Many of the aforementioned questions are reexamined each time a mass shooting occurs. For example, following the Columbine massacre and the Sandy Hooks shooting, there was increased discussion about the possibility of stricter gun control regulations. By using existing research and drawing my own conclusions, the effects that mass shootings in United States have on the push for stricter gun control laws will be examined. Additionally, I will examine whether the intense push for stricter gun control laws after mass shootings has made substantial contribution to the fight for stricter gun control regulations. While doing research on the effects that mass shootings in the United States have on the push for stricter gun control laws, it became apparent that author’s that wrote about the subject fell into two categories: those they believe that mass shootings contribute to a push for stricter gun control laws, and those that believe that mass shootings don’t directly contribute to a push for stricter gun control laws.
Most authors, however, do believe that mass shootings in the United States contribute to a push for stricter gun control regulations. McGinty, for example, argues that gun control is often a public policy that gets pushed to the back of the political agenda. However, she argues that the short period of time following a mass shooting opens a window of opportunity for the discussion for the possibility of stricter gun control (2016, 3). Kevin Wozniak, author of “Public Opinion About Gun Control Post–Sandy Hook,” also argues that massing shootings open the window for discussion about stricter gun control regulations (2015, 255). Similarly, Adena Gruskin mentions several incidents where mass shootings occurred. Gruskin specifically mentions the Columbine massacre and the Sandy Hooks shooting. Then, Gruskin lists specific pieces of legislature that were passed following each of these massacres (2014, 5). The aforementioned articles are helpful when constructing my article because they provide qualitative and quantitative data that supports the argument that legislature for
stricter gun control regulations occurs as a result of mass shootings. On the contrary, Clarissa Hayward argues that mass shootings don’t facilitate stricter gun control regulations (2007, 366). Hayward instead argues that pushes for stricter gun control is a political movement that is often stagnant. Meaning, support for stricter gun control regulations exist, but strong movements fighting for stricter gun control regulations never truly mobilize. Similarly, Gary Kleck argues that mass shootings, such as the Columbine Massacre, actually have a negative effect on the push for stricter gun control regulations in the United States. This is because, Kleck argues, the push for gun rights following a mass shooting is often stronger than the push for stricter gun control regulations (1462). Andrew Kohut similarity argues that, while discussions about stricter gun control regulations increase after a mass shooting, mass shootings don’t change public opinion about gun control much. Kohut uses qualitative data from before and after the Virginia Tech shooting. Kohut’s data suggest that the percentage of people favoring the ban of semi-automatic rifles and the percentage of people favoring background checks prior to buying a firearm are essentially the same figures before and after the Virginia Tech shooting (2007, 12). For the purposes of my upcoming research paper, the articles by McGinty, Wozniak and Gruskin that argue that mass shootings do cause a push for stricter gun control regulation are most beneficial. This is because I will seek to prove that mass shootings do in fact contribute to a push for stricter gun control regulations. However, the articles written by Hayward and Kleck provide important insight about the opposing argument. The combination of articles that display both points of view contribute to a well-thought out argument that considers both sides of the spectrum. The next component that must be examined is, when efforts are taken after mass shootings to regulate stricter gun control laws, are these efforts successful? To what degree has success been reached? McGinty argues that mass shootings do in fact cause a push for stricter gun control. McGinty argues that after every mass shooting, valuable discussion commences between different groups and party platforms. Sometimes, the discussion is turned into legislature for stricter gun control. Regardless, valuable conversation still occurs that forces many to think about gun control. Additionally, McGinty provides quantitative data showing the percentage of Americans that are in favor of different gun control provisions such as background checks or banning military-style assault rifles (2015, 5). The data shows high support for these provisions following the Sandy Hooks Elementary School shooting. McGinty also provides qualitative data, showing which states adopted gun control provisions following the Sandy Hooks school shooting. Colorado, Delaware, Connecticuit, Illonois, and New York all added background check requirements or strengthened preexisting ones. However, McGinty does note that some states met mixed success when fighting for stricter gun control laws. For example, a national bill that would require those purchasing firearms online to undergo a background check, fell on the Senate floor (2015, 6). McGinty’s acknowledgement that efforts for stricter gun control regulations met with mixed success leaves the door open for further investigation and interpretation. On the other hand, Howard Schumer and Stanley Presser argue that while there is always immediate public outcry following a mass shooting, little legislative change ever occurs.
Schumer and Presser go on to say that when the short burst of public outcry is over, attention fades from the issue of gun control until the next mass shooting occurs. Schumer and Presser, like Kleck, attribute this loss of attention to the fact that the proponents of gun rights are often more passionate about protecting their rights than proponents of gun control are passionate about regulating guns (2013, 2). Additionally, Robert Wolpert and James Gimpel argue that gun owners are concerned with protecting their self-interest, which is why gun owners are often opposed to stricter gun control regulations (1998, 241). With this understanding, one can see the perspective of those that oppose stricter gun control regulations. With understanding of the opposing side’s perspective, one can be more prepared to refute the opposing argument. For this reason, the articles written by Schumer and Presser and Wolpert and Gimpel are extremely beneficial when preparing to refute the other side’s
claims. In order to better compose my argument, I’ve included supplemental articles that will help me further expand my research about the effect that mass shootings have on the push for stricter gun control regulations. When there is a push for new legislature, many actors are involved in the process. First, there are the politicians/lawmakers. There is also the general public, theorists, and interest groups. William Gormley argues that economists and political scientists both play a substantial role in the creation of public policy (2007, 298). Gormley’s article can be used to examine the role that economists and political scientists play in the push for stricter gun control laws. Next, Jennifer Carlson uses feminist theory is order to examine the direct effect that women have on the legislature of gun control (2014, 369). Carlson discusses how proponents of gun rights often assume that women are in favor of gun rights because of the assumption that women need guns for protection due to their biologically inherent weakness. Like Gormley’s stance, Carlson’s viewpoint is important because we must consider all of the factors that contribute to the push for either stricter or looser gun control regulations. The articles I’ve selected cover a broad range of perspectives and theories. Because of this, I was able to gain unique insight about my research topic. The articles that are in agreement with my thesis provide good support for my article. McGinty, Wozniak and Gruskin provide both qualitative and quantitative data in order to support the argument that mass shootings result in pushes for stricter gun control regulations. Similarly, Hayward, Kleck and Kohut, who argue that mass shootings don’t cause strong pushes for stricter gun regulations, also support their argument with qualitative and quantitative data. Because I have chosen articles with conflicting ideas, this allows me to draw my own conclusions and create my own argument while still using information from the articles. When discovering new information and developing the argument, I must first use qualitative and quantitative data. Once I use data in order to prove whether mass shootings result in stricter gun control regulations, I will use normative theory to further my paper. Normative theory focuses on revealing what the best way to live is. Once I reveal whether mass shootings result in stricter gun control regulations, I will use normative theory to make suggestions about how to best combat mass shootings and gun violence.