Guardiola 1

Johnathan Guardiola

Mrs. Briones

ENGL 1302-261

April 10, 2024

The Key to Safety is Regulation

Mass shootings around the country are becoming a monthly issue all while lawmakers in

Washington, DC are focused on things of less importance. Time and time again the privilege to

carry a firearm is taken advantage of by individuals who wish to cause harm against other human

beings. Since it is quite easy to obtain a variety of firearms in some states, some people choose to

acquire weapons with a high magazine for the wrong purpose. Being caught in a shooting has

detrimental effects on one’s perception of life, mental and physical well-being, and can lead

people to experience fear and anxiety. Allowing the general population to easily acquire a

weapon with a large capacity puts the well-being of law-abiding citizens at risk. Conducting a

review on people’s background looking to purchase a firearm will help significantly in keeping

weapons out of the hands of criminals or mentally ill individuals, and if a ban on high magazine

firearms were in affect the number of casualties in a shooting would drop significantly.

Public Support on Regulation

After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, many Americans have gathered and have

started communicating more and more about how policy can prevent or deter these kinds of

incidents from happening. In the year 2016, the United States had more than 30,000 people die

due to firearms. Following these shootings, divide between American’s who oppose restrictions

and who don’t has widen. Because this topic is very controversial among American’s a survey
 Guardiola 2

was conducted to assess what U.S. citizens really think about different policies that aim to lessen

the occurrence of a mass shootings. Research into what gun owners and non-gun owners think

about these policies and how big the gap is between them. Some scholars have acknowledged

that there are in fact policies that have a majority of the respondent’s support. Colleen Barry and

colleagues state “gun policies with the highest support were universal background checks

(87.8%)” (880). The authors state the policies which had the highest public support, and the

smallest support gap are more plausible to enact and enforce with some policies having evidence

that deters gun incidents. Adapting a system that runs background checks on all gun sales had the

highest public support with around 80% of gun and non-gun owners supporting this measure.

With this much support from the public why isn’t it a federal law? With this proposal the number

of firearms sold to citizens who’ve committed illegal acts would decrease which means these

dangerous weapons would be harder for criminals to get their hands on.

Guns and Our Rights

According to Abbe Gluck et al, “ligation cannot solve a public health crisis. But litigation

can be an effective complementary tool to regulation” (90). When attempting to prevent assault

weapons from being sold, attorneys are often met with a lot of push back about how this can

solve a public health crisis. Litigation like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did prevent

the amount of mass shootings that occurred and the number of casualties. This act passed by

congress and signed by President Bill Clinton meant that the federal government did have

authority to regulate and chose to protect the lives of Americans. If if helped prevent such

heinous acts why was it not renewed? Why has the right to carry an assault weapon been of more

importance than the safety of citizens? Gluck explains that litigators have been attempting to
 Guardiola 3

represent cases where firearms are the focal point. After successfully dealing with litigation

around the opioid crisis, it opens a structure for attorneys to use against firearms. However,

going after the gun industry through the courts poses extremely tough challenges especially

when congress passes a law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that protects gun

manufactures from being held liable. Gluck states “the efforts to frame the industry’s marketing,

distribution, and design activity as contributing to a public nuisance largely failed” after

analyzing the arguments used by the person suing a company (93). Most arguments included

blaming the manufacturer and attempted to have them liable for any damages. Gluck and

colleagues state that “municipalities allege that firearm manufacturers are aware that their

distribution and marketing practices put many of their guns in criminal hands” (96). The authors

know that even the smallest amount of gun regulation legislation will have some kind of political

fallout, yet some legislative efforts might help in favor of suing gun makers.

Police Officers Viewpoints on Gun Regulation

“It is imperative that police officers’ perspectives be examined to understand their view

on gun laws and to anticipate potential barriers to implantation” states Tammy Kochel and Scott

Phillips (2). Kochel and Phillips’ main goal is to examine what police officers think on policies

involving gun regulation. They state they are incredibly important in deciding what laws should

and should not be implemented since they are the ones on the front lines and will be the ones

enforcing these laws. Their second goal is to examine the number of shootings in the United

States because the authors state that “mass shootings have become a legitimate threat from both a

public and police perspective” (Kochel & Phillips, 2). They explain that more than half of the

public support laws that address gun sales. Half blame the causes of such shootings are a result
 Guardiola 4

of being able to easily buy and use a gun. However, Kochel explains that there is just about 27%

support for banning handguns among citizens, but about 55% support banning the sale,

construction, and distribution of assault rifles. Among other policies with a high percentage of

public support include mandating background checks for purchasing any kind of firearm.

However, with the publics opinion we are unable to say if polices officers hold similar views

about these polices. Organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police and

Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association have shown support for a

federal regulation on firearms like “universal background checks, closing gun show and

internetsales loopholes” (Kochel & Phillips, 3). These basic measures will absolutely help ensure

firearms are given to only citizens that follow the laws.

Gun Violence in Schools

Lloyd Kolbe states that “the effects of school gun violence include deaths; as well as

physical injuries, many of which are serious, debilitating, long-lasting, and costly to treat and

rehabilitate” (246). He explains that students and staff and whoever is directly affected by such a

occurrence will experience psychological problems including things like depression and anxiety.

Students who are affected could have problems that stunt their healthy childhood development

and may stick with them as they grow old. When discussing regulation on firearms children

should be a major focal point. Ensuring the safety of the youth will help build the confidence

they have in the U.S. government. It shows people the government is protecting everyone no

matter their age and location. Children already deal with smaller issues during school, a

possibility of school shooting happening should not be on their minds. Protecting the lives of our

children should be a top priority. With these shootings happening so often Kolbe explains that
 Guardiola 5

news outlets may “unintentionally stoke fear, anxiety, and contagion incidents” while covering

shootings (246). This type of instance may result in a student’s decline in test scores and

becoming more disruptive during school or at home. Kolbe recommends 3 broad ways to prevent

or discourage perpetrators from committing such an act. Primary prevention (before incident),

Secondary prevention (incident), and tertiary prevention interventions (after incident). Kolbe

explains that these 3 can help prevent gun violence in the schools but also other health and safety

threats.

The Problem with High-Capacity Magazines

Louis Klarevas et al state that, large-capacity magazines (LCMs) “provide a distinct

advantage to active shooters intent on murdering numerous people” (1754). Klarevas explain that

using LCMs allows a shooter to fire more rounds at potential victims before having to stop and

reload. He also explains that there is evidence suggesting when a victim is shot more than once

the fatality rate is 60% higher than if a victim were only shot once. LCMs also provide a shooter

with cover while they are firing because it forces people in the perpetrators line of sight to take

cover and to be as defensive as possible. While a shooter reloads their firearms, it gives a small

window for victims caught in the middle to intervene or to flee and hide. While previous studies

have yet to fully examine whether or not LCM bans actually save lives and decrease the lethality

of mass shootings this study conducted by Louis Klarevas, Andrew Conner, David Hemenway

fills in missing information that’s been long overdue. The study included researching and

examining 69 shootings that took place in the United States between the years 1990-2017. The

authors then determined whether or not a LCM (defined as ammunition-feeding devices) was

used. They found that 44 of the shootings involved the shooter using LCMs, 16 shootings did not
 Guardiola 6

involve an LCM, and 9 were not able to be determined if an LCM was used. While “excluding

unknown cases, the date indicated that utilizing LCMs in high-fatality mass shootings resulted in

a 62% increase in the mean death toll” (Klarevas et al 1755).

The Psychology Behind Mass Shootings

Jonathan Metzel, Jennifer Piemonte, and Tara McKay layout a four-part strategy that will

be used for the future of research to better understand mental health and to help understand why

such horrific events take place in the first place and how prevent them from occurring. Metzel

and colleagues state that researchers should not feed into the stigma that these acts of violence

are committed by individuals with a diagnosable mental illness or disorder. The authors also

believe that professionals in the mental health field must “carefully scrutinize any apparent

correlation of violence with mental illness for evidence of racial bias” (Metzel et al 82). They

also aim to completely understand what role firearm access plays and the lethality of said

shooting. Metzel states “research should be guided by an overarching framework that

incorporates social, cultural, legal, and political, but also psychological, aspects of private gun

ownership in the U.S” (82).

Conclusion

To sum up, Americans are living through a time where a shooting can happen anywhere

no matter where you are. It can occur in public spaces like a mall, restaurant, park, school, or

even a church. It is the job of the State and Federal government to ensure they protect all their

citizens. People should be allowed to walk around in a mall without the fear of being a victim in

a shooting. The effects of experiencing a shooting first-hand can be extremely harmful to a

person’s perceptional of life, mental and physical well-being, and can lead people to experience
 Guardiola 7

fear and anxiety. Without the proper measures to prevent such instances from happening and

without the proper resources to help people overcome these situations, America’s society would

be unsafe and American’s will feel that the government is not doing enough to help keep

lawabiding citizens safe. It is the duty of the government to support, protect, and defend it’s

citizen’s, foreign or domestic.

Works Cited

Barry, Colleen L., et al. “Public Support for Gun Violence Prevention Policies Among Gun

Owners and Non-Gun Owners in 2017.” American Journal of Public Health (1971), vol.

108, no. 7, 2018, pp. 878–81, [Link]

Gluck, Abbe R., et al. “Gun Violence in Court.” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 48,

no. 4_suppl, 2020, pp. 90–97, [Link]

Kochel, Tammy R. “The Views of Police Officers Toward Gun Legislation and Public Health

Policies Driven by Firearm Safety Concerns.” Journal of Community Health, 2023,

[Link] Accessed 21 Feb. 2024.

Kolbe, Lloyd J. “School Gun Violence in the United States.” The Journal of School Health, vol.

90, no. 3, 2020, pp. 245–53, [Link]

Klarevas, Louis, et al. “The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass

Shootings, 1990-2017.” American Journal of Public Health (1971), vol. 109, no. 12,

2019, pp. 1754–61, [Link]

Metzl, Jonathan M., et al. “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Future of Psychiatric

Research into American Gun Violence.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry, vol. 29, no. 1,

2021, pp. 81–89, [Link]