Introduction
The United States ranks among the developed countries with the highest and perpetually increasing levels of weapon violence. It also has the most privately held firearms per capita, which has positively contributed to the proliferation of firearm incidences, leading to most people living with the fear of being shot. Numerous interventions at state, federal, and community levels have been initiated to combat the ever-rising grim reality of firearm incidences, with some approaches recording significant effectiveness while others have had little impact.
From this perspective, it is imperative to formulate innovative, evidence-based strategies to formulate programmatic solutions to reduce and ultimately stop gun-related injuries, crimes, and deaths in the United States. Although Americans have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, reforming access and ownership laws, comprehensive checks, investing in smart technologies, and ending the legal immunity for manufacturers can help to stop gun violence.
Reforming Gun Access, Ownership, and Usage Laws and Policies
The principal objective of gun control legislation is to regulate the acquisition, access, possession, and use of firearms in the United States. These laws acknowledge the lethality of guns and identify the causal relationship between access and ownership and such various outcomes as an increase or decline in firearm incidences. Multiple studies illustrate the direct link between the unfettered or lax laws and the worsening of the gun crisis. For instance, Cook and Pollack (2017) contend that more rigorous requirements and conditions for owning firearms are an effective intervention, limiting the possibility of dangerous individuals accessing and owning guns.
From this perspective, it is indispensable that robust and tight policies should be passed and enacted to ensure that only those who meet the stringent criteria acquire weapons. This view is inspired by the progressive reduction in America’s automobile deaths over the past five decades, attributed to stringent seatbelt laws, safer cars, and fewer teenage drivers accessing vehicles and roads (Mbarga et al., 2018). In this regard, reforming the existing gun laws to enhance their firmness and strictness would significantly help stop gun violence.
Additionally, enacting and implementing stringent regulations and legislation would create an enhanced sense of safety, which would discourage the need for people to carry guns around or even keep them at home. One of the net impacts of effective weapon laws is that they reduce the likelihood of high-risk subsets of the population from acquiring firearms, which significantly shrinks the commission of violent gun-related activities. According to Schell et al. (2020), stricter policies on acquiring and using weaponry create a social perception that only those who meet the rigorous evaluation and assessment criteria will access and own guns.
Additionally, they engender a significant reduction in the perceived risk of being involved in gun-related incidences, thereby eliminating the need for individuals to own firearms. Schell et al. (2020) posit that the formulation and the subsequent execution of austere legal frameworks could lead to an 11% drop in firearm-related deaths annually. In this regard, a systematic and methodical review and reform of the existing gun laws and policies would reduce the number of weapons in peoples’ hands by discouraging their acquisition and limiting the instances under which they can be used.
Numerous studies indicate that a robust legal framework, including comprehensive universal background checks, restrictions on multiple purchases, and a review of legislation such as the Stand Your Ground Law, can reduce and stop gun violence. Notably, stricter and properly enforced requirement, including the extensive screen of individuals to determine their suitability on gun possession, is a critical pillar in stopping gun violence (Vernick et al., 2017; Jehan et al., 2018)). An in-depth assessment of complete data demonstrates a robust causal link between the states’ adoption of laws such as right-to-carry and stand your ground and an increase in violent gun-related crimes (Donohue et al., 2019). This study illustrates the negative effect of some laws, including the Stand Your Ground statute, towards the escalation of firearm savagery.
Doucette et al. (2019) corroborate this view and assert that the right-to-carry laws led to a 29% spike in gun-related workplace violence. This implies that it is imperative for policymakers to comprehensive review any set of statutes potentially promoting the escalation of firearm brutality. In this regard, reshaping and amending legislation are among the critical approaches to ending gun violence in the United States.
Investing in Smart Gun Technology
Integrating technology can augment and reinforce the effectiveness of meaningful firearm ownership restrictions by reducing access and unauthorized use by people, such as kids, the mentally ill, and violent individuals. Although hundreds of people have fallen victim to gun-related savagery orchestrated by persons prohibited from using weapons, manufacturers are yet to adopt smart technology to make the weapons safer by eliminating usage by forbidden people. Despite the passage of laws which eliminate easy access to dangerous weapons, technology can introduce another layer of resolute preventive infrastructure.
In a country without an elaborate gun storage framework, unauthorized persons can obtain firearms from their rightful owners and perpetrate violence. A study exploring the weapon storage practices revealed that approximately two in ten households store their firearms least safely, loaded, and unlocked (Azrael et al., 2018). The personalized and user-authorized guns utilize a wide array of integrated components which exclusively permit the rightful user or users to operate the weapon. The users automatically deactivate the gun when not in use or under specific circumstances, effectively reducing the likelihood of accidental operation or purposeful use by unauthorized individuals.
In the United States, gun theft is a major source of firearms which end up in the hands of criminals or other individuals who would have obtained them through legal means. According to Hemenway et al. (2017), there are an estimated 250,000-500,000 incidences of firearm theft in the country annually. These weapons pose a significant risk to the overall safety of individuals and communities since a disproportionate amount is traded illegally in underground markets and are eventually used to facilitate violent crimes. Hemenway et al. (2017) posit that persons who cannot pass the rigorous background checks or other measures designed to limit gun ownership obtain their weapons through such mechanisms as theft.
However, an effectively integrated biometric security and safety feature would render the stolen firearms useless since they would not be usable without the unlocking credentials of the rightful owner. This implies that although this intervention may not eliminate gun violence perpetrated with legally purchased or lawfully owned weapons, they eradicate the possibility of commission of a crime by a firearm owned by someone else. Therefore, smart technology can potentially stop gun violence by preventing unauthorized use or operation.
Eliminating Funding Prohibitions on Gun Violence Research
Adequate financing for scientific research is an indispensable component in generating practical insights for addressing the crisis of gun violence. Such studies would entail the in-depth exploration of unbiased science-driven data to determine and identify the cause (s), testing potential solutions, and implementing practical actions. Rajan et al. (2018) assert that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have utilized this model in responding to numerous health challenges in the United States.
However, this has not been the case with the country’s approach to the public health crisis of gun violence. From this dimension, it is persuasive that the failures in formulating conclusive and efficacious policies and strategies can be attributed to the lack of federal research funding. This implies that far less scientific knowledge regarding gun hostility is available than other medical challenges despite ranking among the leading cause of deaths, injuries, and disabilities (Jehan et al., 2018). Scientific studies have been at the center of inspiring changes, some of which have led to the amelioration of the most intractable health crisis such as tobacco consumption and car crashes.
Terminate the Legal Immunity Enjoyed by Gun Manufacturers
The current federal laws extend the gun industry and manufacturers extraordinary and broad protection against criminal or civil culpability brought forward by gun violence victims. In 2005, Congress legislated and passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law shields firearm producers and dealers from any liability or accountability for the misuse of their products, thereby de-incentivizing any accomplishments achieved, such as making guns safer. The net effect of this statute is that negligent manufacturers enjoy protection even when they fail to take fundamentally basic steps to forestall illegal firearms trafficking or dealers selling weapons to criminals.
From this perspective, the gun industry is the only enterprise in the United States, which cannot be sued and is exempt from litigation. Notably, this is a major setback on all other provisions and measures as it forms curtains between the industry players and the extensive damage their products unleash to the community. For instance, lawsuits launched against pharmaceutical, tobacco, and automotive industries have engendered tremendous sector-wide changes, significantly contributing to the reduction of harmful and reckless practices.
For years, gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers have not adopted any significant reform, which could make the industry safer and protect the community from avoidable harm. This scenario has primarily been influenced by the existing state-level immunity, which shields players from any accountability or culpability. This underpins the general absence of an effective oversight policy and legal framework, diminishing voluntary or mandated responsible practices. For instance, the D.C. Assault Weapons Strict Liability Act imposes accountability and culpability on firearms manufacturers, and dealers for any use of an assault rifle discharged within the District of Columbia (Caryan, 2020). This is a relatively effective way through which producers can be compelled to observe caution while still respecting the constitutional provisions.
Conclusion
Gun violence is a major public crisis affecting the United States, necessitating the integration and adoption of innovative approaches to end the menace. The Constitution guarantees and safeguards Americans’ right to bear arms, allowing individuals to own firearms. This implies that an outright ban is impossible, but approaches such as effecting far-reaching reforming on such critical areas as gun access, ownership, and usage laws, can provide the starting point for ending firearm hostility. Additionally, harnessing technology, eliminating the funding prohibitions on gun violence research, and opening gun manufacturers and dealers to civil and criminal culpability would incentivize caution in their operations.
References
Azrael, D., Cohen, J., Salhi, C., & Miller, M. (2018). Firearm storage in gun-owning households with children: Results of a 2015 national survey. Journal of Urban Health, 95(3), 295–304.
Caryan, B. (2020). Held accountable: Should gun manufacturers be held liable for the criminal use of their products? The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship, and the Law, 13(2), 24−50. Web.
Cook, P., & Pollack, H. (2017). Reducing access to guns by violent offenders. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(5), 2−36.
Donohue, J., Aneja, A., & Weber, K. (2019). Right‐to‐carry laws and violent crime: A comprehensive assessment using panel data and a state‐level synthetic control analysis. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(2), 198−247.
Doucette, M., Crifasi, C., & Frattaroli, S. (2019). Right-to-carry laws and firearm workplace homicides: A longitudinal analysis (1992–2017). American Journal of Public Health, 109(12), 1747−1753.
Jehan, F., Pandit, V., O’Keeffe, T., Azim, A., Jain, A., A Tai, S., Tang, A., Khan, M., Kulvatunyou, N., Gries, L., & Joseph, B. (2018). The burden of firearm violence in the United States: stricter laws result in safer states. Journal of Injury & Violence Research, 10(1), 11–16. Web.
Mbarga, N. F., Abubakari, A., Aminde, L. N., & Morgan, A. R. (2018). Seatbelt use and risk of major injuries sustained by vehicle occupants during motor-vehicle crashes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1−11.
Rajan, S., Branas, C. C., Hargarten, S., & Allegrante, J. P. (2018). Funding for gun violence research is key to the health and safety of the nation. American Journal of Public Health, 108(2), 194–195.
Schell, T., Cefalu, M., Griffin, B., Smart, R., & Morral, A. (2020). Changes in firearm mortality following the implementation of state laws regulating firearm access and use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14906−14910.
Vernick, J., Alcorn, T., & Horwitz, J. (2017). Background checks for all gun buyers and gun violence restraining orders: State efforts to keep guns from high-risk persons. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45(S1), 98−102. Web.