The last ten years has seen an introduction of strict gun laws in several states in the USA. Despite the existence of the second amendment, these states have unanimously decided to introduce laws that are seen to limit the ownership of arms. Even if the residents of these states already own the arms, the laws introduced have often limited the owners capability to misuse these arms. There are core reasons as to why there has been a tightening of the noose on these laws. A previous lack of such laws has been the cause as a sharp rise in homicides in the states. An increase in suicide rate has also necessitated the introduction of these laws. The support provided by the public towards the introduction of these laws has also ensured that these laws have been implemented in the last ten years. This paper serves to discuss these key reasons as to why the last ten years have seen an increase in such strict laws.
The last ten years have been characterized by a relative reduction of the rate of homicide within the states that have implemented the strict gun laws. Several studies and data collected in the years before the last ten years confirm the analogy that an increase in gun ownership in the USA has a direct relationship with an increase in the rate of homicide (Spitzer 749). Therefore, several states in the USA saw the need to reduce the rate of homicide. The only way to do this was to introduce laws that would limit the rate at which people were killing each other within the said states. While the law does not necessarily mean that people do not get shot in such states, the definite inference is that fewer people are shot as a result of the introduction of these laws (Swedler 2044). A reduction in the rate of homicide rates relates to a reduction in the violence among the people of such states. The desire for an improved level of peace and an increase in investor confidence in the states resulted in the introduction of these laws.
It was also observed by the leadership implementing strict gun laws that an ease of access to such weapons was directly associated with an increase in the rate of suicide in the said states (Lieberman 748). A research into the way most people commit suicide has confirmed that most suicides are as a result of opportunity and not preemption (Lieberman 743). This is to say that the individuals committing suicide will jump at the opportunity as long as they have a means of committing suicide. The states with the least strict gun laws have a higher rate of suicide. The states that came to the realization of this fact saw the need for introducing laws that would reduce the rate at which anyone can access arms (Swedler 2045). This would give such individuals a chance to obtain psychological help in time before they commit suicide. Therefore, it is safe to say that an introduction of these laws was aimed at reducing suicide rates.
The introduction a new law that would influence the constitution requires public support. The last ten years has seen an increase in the support by the public in the need for gun laws. Therefore, it is increasingly becoming difficult to stop the implementation of these laws. The gun lobby groups have been extremely influential in limiting the introduction of laws in the federal government (Swedler 2046). However, the introduction of these laws in the local government has been easier as the leadership has a direct relationship with its people. For instance, more than fifty percent of people represented in the Americas agree that there is a need in assessing the history of an individual before providing these individuals with weapons (Pickert 28). This support is similar with regards to other gun laws that limit the ownership and use of arms. When politicians are faced with such situations, there is an increase in pressure to introduce strict gun laws (Swedler 2047). The last ten years has seen an increase in the support by the public for gun laws especially in states mostly affected. This has resulted in the introduction of the strict laws.
Before and during the last ten years, there have been several mass shootings. One thing that is common with most of these shootings is that the weapons used are legal. The loss of confidence in the populous in the laws that are meant to prevent such a situation has resulted in an introduction of the laws that would reduce the possibility of such instances occurring ever again (Swedler 2048). The findings of several researches is that more than sixty percent of all mass shootings in the USA from the year 1982 to date can be traced back to weapons that are legally owned (Swedler 2042). Most of these weapons are considered to be assault rifles. Therefore, states in the USA had to adapt in order to save the lives of their constituents. The most logical action would be the introduction of strict gun laws. While this would not affect the illegal weapons, it would mitigate the effect of loosely regulated legal weapons.
The other reason as to why there has been a sharp introduction of strict laws in the USA is that the strict laws have been proven to save lives. While a complete ban of these weapons would completely eradicate chances of mass shootings, homicides, and suicides, the implementation of such a law is next to impossible (Lieberman 745). Therefore, the next best thing would be to introduce laws that would ensure that there is a reduction in the deaths resulting from shootings. Saving and protecting lives in the business of any government. Legal institutions have been identified as the most appropriate in saving lives lost in tragedies and evens associated with rogue gun owners (Lieberman 747). This therefore resulted in the introduction and implementation of these laws without hesitation among the leaders of the states in question.
The realization of the true reason behind the implementation of second amendment has also seen the introduction of the laws that have seen an introduction of limitations towards the implementation of strict gun laws. The second amendment was introduced in a period where the Americas were faced with rampant lawlessness (Lieberman 745). It was also in this period that rival states were under constant strife. This strife can be attributed towards the introduction of the second amendment. This amendment was meant to ensure that there was a possibility in the arming of militias in the USA (Spitzer 763). Therefore, this law has become relatively irrelevant in modern times. While changing this law is extremely difficult, modifying laws that control gun ownership and use is the next best thing. The realization of this fact among leadership in different states in the USA has resulted in the introduction of laws that have seen a strict control of the weapons.
The most destructive weapon used in the mass shootings in the USA is the assault rifle. These weapons use magazines that can shoot as either automatic or manual. The result of using such a weapon is mass destruction as the force multiplication of automatic fire can be both effective and frighteningly effective. The need to curb the ease of access to assault rifles became a necessity after events such as the Waco Massacre (Pickert 31). The Waco Massacre was mainly violent because of the ease of access to assault rifles (Pickert 30). An untrained shooter with an assault rifle can be dangerous all because his weapon can discharge a large number of bullets at any given time (Pickert 29). This individual would not have to be a marksman to get their target. A simple adjustment with reference to the previous shot is enough. Doing this in a rapid and successive manner increases ones success rate. Addressing this frightening reality was the reasoning behind the implementation of the strict gun control laws.
Since the implementation of the second amendment, there was a proliferation of arms in the USA. These are both legal and illegal weapons. This increased the ease of access of weapons to the populous. Therefore, there was an increase in the need for legal structure that would reduce the introduction of weapons to the general public (Spitzer 781). The limitation of these weapons came as a result of the introduction of laws and regulations that made it difficult to introduce such weapons. A reduction in the availability of guns to the general public is also the reason behind the drop in gun related crime (Spitzer 784). Contrast, a proliferation of guns in America would result in a state of anarchy. This would be tantamount to the events that unfolded during the period that Colombia was battling with runaway drug lords (Spitzer 785). To avoid such a situation, it became paramount that strict laws that would control access to guns.
It has also been proven that arming people with the aim of improving personal security is not an effective strategy. On the contrary, when everybody is armed, it becomes the easier for an individual with a short temper to use his weapon in settling small disputes (Pickert 750). When everybody is armed, it opens up and increases the possibility of a mad man accessing the weapon and using it inappropriately. Therefore, it became important to introduce legal measures that would help in reducing ease of access of weapons to the masses (Swedler 2043). The introduction of strict gun laws has been observed to discourage one from trying to obtain a gun. It has also resulted in the reduction of ones capability to result in using the weapon in committing a crime.
The last ten years have been a learning period for many of the states that have implementing g laws. This is because most of these states have directly identified the relationship between the ease of access of weapons and the rate of gun related crime. The state of anarchy in most of these states necessitated the introduction of legal measures that would curb the problem. The last ten years have been instrumental in the introduction of sanity and peace among the residents of States that have tightened the grip on gun laws. It is then very possible that more laws will be introduced in the future, especially in the states that are yet to get as strict.
Spitzer, Robert J. "New York State And The New York Safe Act: A Case Study In Strict Gun Laws." Albany Law Review 78.2 (2015): 749-787. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Lieberman, Michael R. "A Loaded Debate: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms In The Twenty-First Century." Albany Law Review78.2 (2015): 743-748. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Pickert, Kate. "Armed America." Time 184.12 (2014): 28-31.Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Swedler, David I., et al. "Firearm Prevalence And Homicides Of Law Enforcement Officers In The United States." American Journal Of Public Health 105.10 (2015): 2042-2048. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Need a paper on the same topic?
We will write it for you from scratch!
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:
- Absolutism Essay
- The Court System
- Four Stages of Issue Maturity Scale
- Do Smartphones bring harmful effects to children?
- Restorative justice
- Ethics in Consultancy
- Analytical Summary: Leftover women
- The Controversial Fashions and Designs In 2014
- Define target vision based on minimum five-year career goals, and provides a supporting rationale.
- Monetary Policy of Turkey
- Nike Analysis Case Study
- Title, authors name and publisher information