Author: Hannah Fishbein
News broadcasts of mass shootings and school campuses devastated by gun violence have become a familiar sight on Americans’ television screens. The events at Sandy Hook Elementary School and most recently at Umpqua Community College in Oregon have created a legislative and constitutional debate, echoing a long overdue call for a new approach to gun violence.
The anger felt by outraged Americans impacted by gun violence is palpable, but at this time, reacting in a smart, strategic manner is more likely to bring about change than wild protest. What America really needs to do to address gun-related violence is establish a public health approach to tackle gun violence. More specifically, the U.S. needs to pass legislation that mirrors existing laws designed to prevent harm and/or death from other potentially dangerous activities like smoking cigarettes and driving cars. It is clear that gun activists are not doing away with their Second Amendment rights anytime soon. With this in mind, the goal is not to do away with guns in America but find a way to live with them safely.
In order to develop effective gun control policy, it is important to understand the severity of gun-related violence and the impact it has had on American people. Gun violence amongst civilians is inherently an American issue: no other Western country experiences or tolerates the amount of gun violence that takes place in the U.S. In the last 50 years, there has been a barrage of gun-related deaths. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is an average of 92 gun related deaths every day in America, and in the last 40 years, more Americans have been killed by guns than have died in all U.S. wars dating back to the American Revolution.
As Nicholas Kristof noted in the New York Times, just over one hundred years ago, an established right to bear arms in the United States did not exist. There was, however, an established right to travel freely, which included the right to drive cars without regulation. Courts repeatedly refused to issue checks on automobile safely out of fear of impinging on drivers’ rights, but it became clear over time that cars, and their unregulated drivers, were dangerous and killing others.
When seeking to develop an influential model for gun regulation, cars provide an appropriate public health approach that can be applied to guns. Cars are not banned, but there are provisions for drivers to protect themselves from others on the road; the government requires drivers to have a valid driver’s license and insurance. The government also requires that car manufacturers install seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns. Applying similar regulations on guns would entail a greater investment in “smart gun” technology, such as weapons that fire only with a PIN or fingerprint. The government can require liability insurance for guns as we do for cars.
A poll in a Preventative Medicine article found that a majority of the population, even of gun-owners, favor gun regulation. Eighty-eight percent of people polled were in favor of universal background checks, 67 percent advocated for safe storage requirements in homes and 77 percent were in favor of a 10-year prohibition on possessing guns for anyone convicted of domestic violence, assault or similar offenses.
Not only do these measures have public backing, they have been proven to work. For example, Australia, a country that has an extensive historical relationship with guns, instituted more regulatory gun laws during the 1980s after a surge of gun-related deaths. Firearms in Australia are grouped into categories set out in the National Firearm Agreement, which was instituted in 1996 with different levels of control. In addition, Australia’s gun laws made private weapons sales illegal and required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners. Gun patrons must also give a “genuine reason” for each weapons purchase. Today, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006 and suicide rates fell by 80 percent.
While Australia provides the United States with an effective example of appropriate gun regulation, the battle over weapons continues. The central issue in the gun debate is not whether stricter gun regulation effectively protects Americans from each other, but rather it is whether stricter gun regulation is constitutional.
A century ago, politicians made rational accommodations to the law regarding automobile safety that effectively improved the safety of Americans without compromising American rights. Such revisions exist today and continue to protect Americans on the road. Despite the array of options the U.S. has to combat the country’s increasing gun violence, America has been unable to make modest reforms to protect its citizens from wars waged against each other.
Hannah Fishbein is an undeclared first year. She can be reached at hfishbein@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
