On the night of October 1, 2017, gunman Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of 22,000 concert-goers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring over 800 before killing himself. It remains the deadliest shooting in American history, but is only part of a long list of the thousands of incidents of gun violence that have occurred in the United States, which kill tens of thousands of civilians every year. Time and time again, we bear witness to these devastating, horrific losses of life, but gun violence in America continues to remain a pressing problem.
It seems that every year or two there is another solution to gun violence in America, even better than the one preceding it. Yet somehow, decades have passed and gun violence is still an issue. Why? Because it is a complex, evolving problem dependent on much more than simply a bad guy with a gun, and it must be met by a holistic, practical plan that not only considers efficacy, but also practicality, politics, and public opinion. All the frequently paraded policies of gun buybacks, funding for federal firearm violence research, or even more radical policies like arming civilians and sweeping gun bans simply cannot work in the American environment. In order to effectively mitigate gun violence, America must look to the past and the advent of the background check law for inspiration.
The very first large-scale gun reform policy in the history of the United States was the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, borne out of the brutal gang violence of the Prohibition era. Possibly one of the most comprehensive gun policies in America’s history, it controlled access to fully automatic firearms, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers, among others, by implementing a strict background check requirement for buyers. It had numerous flaws, including a lack of restrictions on handguns, but the underlying idea behind the policy was sound: controlling access to firearms for specifically dangerous people would curb gun violence — no discussion necessary. In fact, its effects are still seen decades later: machine guns, which used to be a fixture in acts of gang violence throughout the 1920s and 1930s, are now rarely used in mass shootings due to the restrictions of the NFA. However, over the next century or so, the NFA was weakened as legislators passed new amendments and revisions, and the policy became largely a relic of the past. Regardless, there is still a lot to learn from this early attempt at reform; when constructing an effective mitigation strategy for modern gun violence, background check laws are the key. Now, America has an opportunity to learn from the past and build a better, foolproof, comprehensive background check policy that will eradicate American gun violence. Ultimately, the NFA set a precedent 89 years ago, and it is up to the will of the American people whether that precedent is followed today.
Nearly a century after the NFA was implemented, gun violence continues to be a glaring issue in modern America. For all the restrictive measures and security that have taken over this country to protect it from the outside, it is truly egregious that our greatest losses come from within. Far more than domestic terrorism or Mexican drug syndicates, whose significance in the U.S. is often overinflated, domestic gun violence continues to be one of the leading causes of violent death among Americans. In fact, according to statistics, homicide rates have been on the rise throughout the past couple of decades, indicating the urgency of an efficient, comprehensive gun violence reform plan. And human losses aren’t the only effect of firearm violence; studies show that gun violence can translate to severe psychological effects later in life, such as PTSD. Additionally, gun violence costs America’s economy a whopping 557 billion dollars every year, about 2.6% of its gross domestic product. But gun violence doesn’t just affect the broader economy; research shows that gun violence slows home value appreciation, and decreases credit scores as well as homeownership rates across affected regions. Gun violence may seem far from the haven of typical life, with little impact on the lives of most citizens, but there is ample evidence that this is certainly not the case.
The issue of gun violence is certainly a perplexing one, because unlike most modern issues, a general consensus has yet to take root on what is the best course of action. Instead, politicians, activists, and the public are locked in an endless cycle of debate over what new policy could save America from the terror of gun violence. For whatever reason, the concept of a gun buyback seems to be a recurring theme in these discussions. However, while they are certainly well-known, buybacks have many issues that make them ineffective in modern America. Gun buybacks are essentially organized events where an organization or some other higher body pays individuals varying amounts of money to hand over personal firearms. These firearms may be legal or illegal, and buyback rates range from $25 for smaller firearms all the way to $500 or higher for military-grade assault rifles. Proponents argue that buybacks would offer a significant financial incentive to any given individual to hand over a firearm, which should in theory reduce homicide rates and shootings because there would be fewer guns available to commit such crimes, and as an added bonus, the collected money could be redistributed to a better cause. Pati Navalta, a figurehead in the gun buyback movement, points out that there is zero chance that a bought-back gun could be used in a future crime. Additionally, studies have shown that few crimes are committed using stolen weapons, and as a result, removing weapons from residences could reduce the chance of those weapons being used in a crime.
Despite various conjectures, however, this solution has significant underlying issues that make it ineffective. For example, this study notes that the “most common victims to fatal firearm injury are non-Hispanic black males, yet recent studies show that older Caucasian males are more likely to surrender weapons.” If buybacks cannot reach the intended demographic, then there is simply no point in implementing them. Moreover, detractors of buybacks cite evidence that buybacks do not offer enough financial incentive, do not take place in high-crime areas, and collect firearms that would almost never be used in a crime. Not just that, but buybacks can also be misused by individuals, as with any other service or organization. In fact, one woman participating in a gun buyback in Baltimore reportedly turned in her own 9mm handgun in order to upgrade to an even more powerful weapon with the extra cash. While this is just one story in isolation, it shows that buybacks may not be used for their intended purposes, and if unchecked, could actually fuel gun violence instead of eliminating it. In addition, many individuals continue to possess firearms in their homes even after participating in a buyback. Given that the United States collectively possesses nearly 400 million civilian firearms, more than any other country in the world by a long shot, it would be absurd to expect any meaningful result out of such an endeavor. Removing 10,000, 100,000, or even 1 million guns from homes across the U.S. would barely put a dent in the number of guns in civilian hands, and that’s assuming that buybacks would actually be utilized on a national scale. Essentially, the bottom line becomes that buybacks simply cannot scale effectively in order to eliminate gun violence in America.
Others argue that it is not necessary to take such a citizen-heavy approach to mitigating firearm violence, and it would be better served to instead funnel more resources to government-funded gun violence research. Research on gun violence is significantly lacking, and greater funding towards it may be helpful in mitigating gun violence. However, significant issues with congressional support and the sheer amount of time it would take to raise the necessary amount of funding make this an ineffective policy. Supporters argue that if the science is clear on what is the best course of action against gun violence, then it would be difficult for lawmakers to refute such findings on the basis of efficacy. However, proponents of this policy fail to realize that there is little to no bipartisan support for allocating a significant amount of funding towards said research; the 1996 “Dickey Amendment” has been at the core of this discord. Named after its founder, Republican Jay Dickey of Arkansas, the “Dickey Amendment” has been in effect since 1996. It originally prevented the CDC from using funding “to advocate or promote gun control,” however, it has largely shut down gun violence research in the United States (Law 104-208). Conservatives have argued that the amendment does not actually prevent the government from studying firearms or firearm-related violence, but in reality, the Amendment has been effectively used as a legal roadblock to prevent funding firearm research. Even as recently as a few years ago, the influence of the amendment was clearly on display when Republicans in the House Appropriations Committee rejected $10 million in funding for federal research regarding firearm violence. However, Congress does appear to be moving towards greater funding for gun violence research, especially given the allocation of 25 million dollars in research grants to the CDC and NIH towards gun violence research in 2020. Ultimately, though, this is a relatively paltry sum, considering that the U.S. spends over $170 billion on federally funded research and development, and most significant research sectors have at least a few billion dollars of government money dedicated towards them. It would take a significant amount of time to lobby support for billions of dollars of funding, and at this point, the money would be better spent on solutions like permit-to-purchase and background check laws. In the end, gun violence requires immediate action, and a gridlocked Congress would be much too slow to pass significant research bills in time.
Although many policies aim to curb gun violence through a generally peaceful resolution, there are some that try to fight fire with fire. A particular favorite of pro-gun individuals when it comes to mitigating gun violence is the idea of arming the public by enacting some sort of a national, permitless concealed carry law. While this seems like it would discourage potential shooters by providing a sort of silent army, constantly on the watch, guns are simply too dangerous to be carried by the majority of civilians. Additionally, while supporters of this policy argue that armed citizens can stop shootings, this rarely happens, and is not a reliable assumption. Not only is a universal concealed carry law unsafe, but it also doesn’t guarantee any benefits in terms of violence prevention. Concealed carry laws are essentially laws that allow citizens to carry firearms in public, frequently with the caveat that they must pass a background check or obtain a permit of some sort. Unrestricted concealed carry laws would take this a step further and allow pretty much any non-prohibited person to carry a firearm. 25 states already have unrestricted concealed carry laws, suggesting that passing an overarching national law would be relatively easy. However, as stated before, unrestricted concealed carry laws would be largely ineffective, and in some cases, actually dangerous. According to one source, the major issue with arming civilians is that they “cannot, in a moment of extreme duress and confusion, be expected to transform into a specially trained law enforcement officer.” Even with extensive training, it would be difficult to get ordinary citizens to calmly cope while they are in mortal danger. In fact, due to the chaotic nature of shootings, civilians may in fact accidentally injure themselves or students in the event of a shooting, instead of the perpetrator. But some argue that many citizens are equipped to handle the pressures of combat, citing examples such as the shooting at an Indiana shopping mall in 2022 that was quickly neutralized by the handgun-carrying Elisjsha Dicken, or the 2017 shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas that was ended after the shooter fled the scene, chased by bystanders, one of whom was armed. However, these are outliers, and are not representative of the overall trend: in the past 20 years or so, only about 5% of all active shooting incidents ended as a result of an armed bystander neutralizing the threat, even though it is likely that many of these shooting incidents targeted or occurred near at least one armed person. Simply put, the typical person’s primary purpose to carry a firearm is for defense, not to neutralize an armed shooter. So while good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns, it is highly unlikely that they can or will do so; the reality is, allowing more citizens to be armed would do little in the way of preventing shootings or shooting deaths.
Amongst all the talks of gun buybacks or funding for gun violence research, some individuals have argued that the horrific, radical nature of gun violence should be met with an equally radical solution, and that the only way gun violence can be counteracted is to completely ban all guns from civilian possession in the United States. However, this is just not feasible at all, given the judicial courts’ hard line when it comes to gun bans, and the consistent issue of the black market in firearms in America. While it is true that taking guns out of the equation does guarantee the eradication of gun violence, gun bans are just not realistic enough to be effective in reality. The main issue that this policy would suffer from is the constant debate about constitutionality, and whether such laws would violate an individuals’ Second Amendment rights. Time and time again, judges on the local, state, and national level have ruled that strict bans such as these are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, putting an abrupt end to many of these movements. In the summer of 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that a century-old New York law limiting the carrying of guns in public, the closest thing to a sweeping gun ban that has been seen in the U.S. yet, was unconstitutional. Even just recently, a Macon County judge ruled Illinois’ gun ban unconstitutional, forcing an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. And this wasn’t even a full-scale gun ban; it focused solely on certain semi-automatic weapons and magazines over certain capacities. A comprehensive gun ban, it seems, would be near impossible given the persistence of judicial courts in avoiding overly restrictive gun policies. Another problem is that even if the law banned guns, buyers could easily obtain firearms on the black market; studies show that thousands of illegal firearms are in circulation in the U.S. every year, despite seizures from authorities. While most typical individuals may not feel comfortable skirting the law in this way, it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who is dangerous enough to harm someone using a gun will certainly not care much for breaking the law in other ways. Essentially, while this would take the majority of legal guns off the streets, it would be only marginally effective against illegal guns, which, according to a study done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, are still used in a significant portion of crimes. In addition, support for a nationwide assault weapons ban has touched 50%, marking its lowest point in nearly a decade, and over half of Americans think the United States should not continue attempts to limit the number of guns in the country, illustrating the increasing difficulty in implementing stricter gun control laws such as gun bans. In the end, there are just too many roadblocks for such bans to be either a standalone solution or part of a holistic plan against gun violence; the lack of legal support, public support, and authority to enforce such a policy leave gun bans in America not much more than a pipe dream.
Despite the fact that most proposed solutions to gun violence tend not to be as effective as advertised, some have consistently shown, not only through study but through real-world data, that they can combat gun violence in America. Perhaps the only policy that fits this criteria is the background check, or PTP (permit-to-purchase) law. Background check laws are, as the name suggests, laws that require background checks on all firearm purchasers to ensure security and safety. They have been around for a relatively long time; the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 mandated background checks on all dealers and purchasers of firearms, and many other similar policies have come and gone on the national and state levels since then, but they have not been paid all that much attention. However, PTP laws are incredibly effective, and on a larger scale, might just be the solution to a comprehensive gun reform plan. Connecticut’s PTP Law, implemented in 1995, is a shining example of this. Over a 10-year observation period, the implementation of the law was associated with a 40% decrease in firearm homicides, while non-firearm homicides did not change, indicating that no other significant outside factor was involved in the firearm homicide decrease. But Connecticut isn’t alone; in Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a longstanding background check system for purchasing firearms was associated with a 25% increase in annual firearm homicides through 2010, and in Baltimore, a city notorious for high levels of gun violence, prohibited purchasers reported increased difficulty in obtaining firearms following Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a seemingly direct correlation with reduced rates of gun violence. Despite this, some argue that PTP laws, especially on a larger scale, will only work if the agencies and organizations responsible for the sharing of information with the background check system do their job correctly — which they are not known for. However, issues with firearm violence data were largely addressed with the Fix NICS Act of 2018, which added new reporting requirements to all levels of government nationwide in order to combat informational gaps. While government records may not be perfect yet, they are well on their way to becoming much more reliable; in the two years following the Act, over 8 million new records were added to the NICS databases.
Essentially, this is simply an outdated argument. However, one study also says that “states with laws requiring background checks of all buyers are unevenly distributed throughout the U.S., with a greater density of these laws in the northeast and western states,” which suggests that it may be difficult to pass an overarching national law. But, a poll by Quinnipiac University shows that 92 percent of those polled supported a background check requirement for all gun purchasers, while 7 percent oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers.” Even if state legislatures may not come to a general consensus on the efficacy of PTP or background check laws, public opinion of the policy is high enough that the peoples’ voice will be heard if it comes down to it. However, this policy will still not be foolproof on its own; the booming illegal firearms market in the U.S. will still allow criminals to access guns, even with a background check law in place. In addition, current background check laws only apply to federally licensed dealers, which constitute only about 40% of all gun sales. In order to address these issues, two things need to happen. One, straw purchases, the most common way that firearms enter the black market, must be stopped. This can be done through mandatory training for gun dealers, or possibly through stricter fines and punishments for those who straw purchase. Two, the federal government must pass a federal law that would regulate private arms sales, which are one of the major types of gun sales that currently do not require background checks. Fortunately, policies against straw purchasing and regulations controlling private arms sales have already been passed at the state level, so a federal law should be well on its way. That and the fact that, in general, both state- and national-level governments have already passed actual PTP laws show that as a whole, a strong, overarching background check law restricting gun purchases is the best chance America has against modern gun violence.
It is easy to get lost in all of the distracting, politically-driven, radicalized gun policies that too often make their way into the major decision-making centers of America. While some claim that gun buybacks are the next best thing, others propose funding for firearm research. Someone else might argue that gun bans are the way to go, or that universal concealed carry laws would make America safer. But this is all just noise. These are policies driven by emotion, not data, and the data tells us that PTP laws and background checks are the necessary measures in order to curb gun violence in America, not some right-wing, cultist, politically-motivated conspiracy theory. In America, the people have the power, and it is up to the people to do what is right to eradicate gun violence in the United States.
Written by Saachi Kandula
