A Policy Brief on Gun Laws in the US
Why is America so obsessed with guns, and what can be done to prevent gun violence?
Introduction of the Policy Landscape
Over recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that gun violence is endemic among Americans. Gun deaths in the United States, whether suicides or murders, have been on a constant incline for decades (Firearm Deaths in the US). As gun ownership is enshrined within the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, endeavors to enact enhanced and comprehensive gun control laws have largely been unsuccessful. While there have been regulatory policies on gun control at both the federal and state levels, these attempts to ameliorate gun violence in our nation have predominantly proved insufficient and ineffective in suppressing America’s pervasive, all-too-common shootings (Gun Violence Statistics).
With reports indicating the United States ranks number one in the world for firearms per capita, homicide-by-firearm rate, and percentage of childhood deaths caused by firearms (Leach-Kemon, Katherine, et al), it begs the question – how did America become synonymous with seemingly irremediable gun violence? To answer this question, it requires looking back to the inaugural legislation on gun ownership in the United States – the Second Amendment. In 1791, the US government ratified ten amendments to the US Constitution. The second of these amendments reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The interpretation of this amendment has been the subject of controversy within discussions on gun control. While some argue the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own firearms, others dispute that its language warrants the preservation of gun ownership only for state and federal militias.
The history of gun control policies in the United States has largely been reactionary rather than preemptive. Major milestones in gun control legislation, such as the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and later the Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1968, were created in response to notable incidents of gun violence. The NFA fell under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime” policy, implemented in hopes of curtailing the gang-related gun violence of the era, namely the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre (National Firearms Act). The FFA, a replacement of the NFA, was enacted in response to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Together these laws account for the foundation of gun control policy in America, including regulations such as: taxing the manufacturing, selling, and transporting of certain kinds of firearms, the creation of a national registry to document the sale of all firearms, mandating the acquisition of a federal firearms license for all gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers, requiring purchasers of handguns to be 21 years of age, and the restriction of all firearm purchases for felons, controlled substance addicts, the mentally ill, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged veterans, persons under a restraining order, and perpetrators of domestic violence (Gun Control Act of 1968).
Perhaps the most consequential federal ruling on firearm regulation in US history, the outcome of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) brought an end to the debate over the Second Amendment’s interpretation. This case challenged the constitutionality of Washington D.C.’s Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, a stringent law which banned ownership of handguns, sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and short-barreled rifles within the city. The Supreme Court ruled the law as unconstitutional, and in turn, established that the Second Amendment indeed does guarantee individuals the right to gun ownership and use outside of militia service (Teitelbaum and Spector). While this ruling applied specifically to the District of Columbia, the outcome sets momentous precedent for gun control laws in the US, implicating that the implementation of severely restrictive firearm regulations as a means to prevent gun violence can be considered unconstitutional.
Problem Definition
Since the nation’s founding, the United States has had a unique, borderline obsessive, relationship with gun ownership. Due to the role firearms played in the Revolutionary War, gun ownership has long been perceived as a means of liberation from, or protection against, unjust authority. This attitude, coupled with the guaranteed protection of gun ownership by the Second Amendment, has contributed to the perpetuation of firearm infatuation in the United States. In addition to this belief, the American concept of rugged individualism also plays a key role in the nation’s inability to relinquish its ardor for gun ownership. This notion, rooted in the history and culture of Americans, emphasizes individual responsibility, self-determination, and personal autonomy. Because firearms have historically provided a means to obtain and preserve these values, individualism and gun ownership have become almost interchangeable within American culture.
Due to this reality, the proliferation of firearms in American society has contributed to both the widespread availability of guns and public obstinance toward gun regulation. “It is proposed here that those who oppose gun control tend to hold individualistic views and by opposing any limitations on gun ownership, they seek to protect their own self-interest, that of their families, and the interests of those with whom they closely affiliate, associate, or identify. Opposition to gun control may also reflect individualists’ philosophical opposition to expansive, intrusive government, irrespective of their gun owner status” (Celinska 223). Throughout American history, these attitudes led to the creation of a massive firearm manufacturing industry, facilitated ease of firearm acquisition, and cemented unbridled gun ownership as the American status quo.
These conditions gave rise to an unprecedented increase in firearm production and ownership, expediting America to its position as global leader in firearms holdings. The United States has become the only nation where privately owned firearms exceed the entire population count – research estimates there are over 393 million firearms in civilian possession, or 120 guns for every 100 individuals (Small Arms Survey). With such a massive population of firearms and relatively lax gun regulation, it is no wonder the United States experiences abnormally high rates of gun violence. Research has shown that the proliferation of firearms and gun ownership is inherently connected to the pervasiveness of gun violence: “Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates. This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%” (Siegel, Michael, et al.). With almost a 1:1 ratio, gun ownership and gun violence are demonstrably correlative.
The relationship between proliferated gun ownership and gun violence has not only led to widespread individual instances of homicide-by-firearm, but in recent years has also evolved into the seemingly omnipresence of mass shootings. Defined as an incident with a minimum of four victims shot, either killed or injured (Gun Violence Archive), these shootings have seen an enormous increase in frequency. Since 2014, the number of annual mass shootings in the US has increased 141 percent – from 272 instances in 2014, to 656 instances in 2023 (Gun Violence Archive). Mass shootings have become so routine they quite literally are a daily occurrence. Using the 2023 data, the shootings per day calculation comes out to 1.79. Victims of mass shootings are mainly regular civilians, even young children, simply going about their daily business. To name a handful of examples, Orlando’s mass shooting in 2016 occurred at nightclub, the Las Vegas Strip massacre of 2017 occurred at a music festival, El Paso’s mass shooting in 2019 happened inside a Walmart, and the massacres of Columbine (1999), Sandy Hook (2012), Parkland (2018), and Uvalde (2023) all occurred inside elementary or high schools. With so many instances of mass shootings occurring with regular frequency, it is clear gun violence in America is not arbitrary or incidental, nor will it diminish without expanded regulation.
Although the epidemic of gun violence in the United States is very apparent and unmistakable, Americans maintain divisive and antagonistic problem definitions on the subject. While those in favor of more strict firearm regulations argue that lenient gun laws and the relative ease of access to guns are to blame for such widespread violence, opponents of firearm regulations contend that gun violence stems from poor socioeconomic conditions and a lack of individual responsibility from gun owners. Again, we can observe the dynamic of individualism versus collectivism perspectives on gun control – those in favor of gun control see it as a societal issue, and those against it define the problem on an individual basis.
Public Opinion and Salience
Given the frequency of gun violence incidents in the United States, the issues pertaining to firearms are no secret to Americans. When living in a country where 120 individuals are killed by guns on a daily basis, and some 200 more are shot and injured (Everytown Research & Policy), the presence of gun violence is more normalized than its absence. News and media outlets often cover shootings within each daily news cycle, and mass shootings tend to gain media coverage on a larger scale. Discussions on gun violence occur at the same rate gun violence occurs – as an American, this means the topic is relevant on a daily basis. Being both a topic of public concern and political debate, deliberation and media coverage on gun control issues are highly salient.
While the general public has differing opinions on gun control, a majority of Americans agree that gun violence is a major problem in the nation today. According to reports from the Pew Research Center, “Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022. In the survey conducted this June [2023], 23% say gun violence is a moderately big problem, and about two-in-ten say it is either a small problem (13%) or not a problem at all (4%)” (Schaeffer). Additionally, 61 percent of the public agree it is too easy to legally obtain a firearm, and 58 percent prefer stricter gun laws (Schaeffer). However, when the issue is looked at from a partisan perspective, stark disparities can be observed. Among Democrats, 73 percent strongly support stricter gun control laws, with 15 percent somewhat supporting stricter regulation. For Republicans, a mere 17 percent strongly supports stricter gun control, while 38 percent strongly oppose it (Statista).
When specifically addressing the topic of mass shootings in America, the partisan divide remains drastic: “Nearly half of Americans (47%) say there would be fewer mass shootings if it was harder for people to legally obtain guns in the U.S. Slightly more say making gun ownership more difficult either would make no difference (46%) or this would lead to more mass shootings (6%). Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) say making it harder for people to obtain guns would result in fewer mass shootings; an identical share of Republicans say it would not make a difference” (Pew Research Center).
Although public opinion data on gun control preferences provides a glimpse of Americans’ attitudes on gun control, it perhaps is unable to capture every aspect of the debate. Proposed gun control policies approach the issue from different perspectives, and people tend to pick and choose their priorities – an individual who is in favor of more rigid background checks may disagree with an assault weapons ban. Due to the multifaceted nature of gun control, as well as differences in policy and the state and federal level, public opinion on firearm regulation remains conflicted.
Stakeholders and Actors
Support for gun control laws largely comes from advocacy groups and Democratic party officials. Advocacy groups for gun regulation are often founded and led by groups or individuals who have been personally impacted by gun violence and mass shootings. While there are a handful of advocacy groups in favor of stricter gun laws, the most influential groups include Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. These groups focus their efforts on lobbying, grassroots organizing, and public education campaigns in order to promote the expansion of gun regulation laws in the United States. In addition to advocacy groups, the Democratic party has been another main component in the push for more gun control. While there is some nuance among party officials, the general consensus among Democrats is in favor of stricter regulations. The Democratic National Committee’s platform involves the enhancement of gun control legislation, and even created the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. With Representative Mike Thompson as its Chair, this task force leads efforts in the House of Representatives to set the agenda on gun control and find adequate solutions to gun violence in the US.
The most prominent opposition to gun control laws in the United States comes from interest groups, gun manufacturers, and the Republican party. The most notable and influential actor in the arena of gun control (or the lack thereof) is the National Rifle Association. The NRA, along with other gun lobby groups such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation, use their vast resources, government connections, and seemingly limitless funding to restrict gun control efforts in the United States. Not only does the NRA argue against firearm regulation, but also maintains that the proliferation of guns in the United States enhances the nation’s public safety. Interest groups against gun regulation tend to have significantly more funding than their anti-gun counterparts – the NRA has spent nearly 10 million dollars on lobbying against gun control from 2020 to 2022 (Statista). Gun manufacturing companies also play a key role in the opposition against gun control. As the proliferation of guns and lax regulations bode well for their business, these companies contribute to lobbying efforts to prevent firearm regulation. Along with pro-gun interest groups and gun manufacturers, the Republican party has continually opposed measures for stricter gun control. Republicans have a long history of advocating for the protection of Second Amendment rights, emphasizing the importance of individual gun ownership.
The principal stakeholders in the debate over gun control include elected officials, interest groups, and the general public. Regardless of a political candidate’s stance on gun control, their viewpoint on the matter can have great influence on their chances to get elected. It is important for elected officials to appeal to their constituency’s attitudes on firearm regulation – going against the majority’s stance in a certain district would significantly hurt a candidate’s likelihood of success. The relationship between candidates and the general public gives citizens a stake in the debate as well. Since the public is directly impacted by firearm polices, individuals will vote for the candidate who most aligns with their beliefs on gun control. Additionally, politicians may face backlash from their party if their stance diverges from party expectations. Deviation from party norms could also result in a lack of funding, especially within the Republican party. As gun lobby groups, such as the NRA, as well as firearm manufacturers, are contributing massive donations to GOP candidates, adopting a stricter stance on gun control could prove detrimental to campaign funding, and would diminish a candidate’s odds to become elected. Manufacturers, gun lobbies, and the Republican party enjoy a symbiotic relationship – so long as the party promotes pro-gun policies and facilitates the proliferation of gun sales, these actors will continue to fund the party which best advances their interests.
Proposed Action
Various policies on gun control have been proposed throughout recent decades, and one of the most extensive and notable policies involves the outright prohibition of selling, manufacturing, and owning semi-automatic assault weapons. Although there has been much debate on what defines an assault weapon, these firearms are typically characterized as guns with rapid fire rates, large magazine capacities (capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition), and high muzzle velocities (Brady United). Firearms with these features are commonly referred to as military-style weapons, as they are regularly wielded by armed forces due to their quick and effective killing capabilities. In spite of their killing proficiency, these weapons have largely been readily available for purchase and use by American citizens. Because of their great killing potential and accessibility, this style of firearm has been a popular choice for perpetrators of mass shootings, especially in recent years. From 2010 to 2020, assault weapons were involved in 34 percent of mass shootings, and in the last three years, assault weapons were used in 59 percent of mass shootings (Mascia).
In response to widespread gun violence carried out through the use of assault weapons, policies proposing assault weapons bans have been introduced, and in some cases implemented, at both the federal and state levels. In 1994, President Bill Clinton approved a federal ban on assault weapons through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. While this ban effectively reduced mass shootings and resulting fatalities by 37 percent and 43 percent respectively (Murchison), the bill included a clause which stated the ban would expire after ten years unless Congress voted for its extension. Despite its success in reducing mass shootings, the ban was not extended at the end of the ten-year period. The federal moratorium on assault weapons ended in 2004, leading to a subsequent increase in mass shootings (Klein). Although the federal assault weapons ban is no longer in affect, ten states, along with the District of Columbia, have adopted a permanent assault weapons ban. These states include Washington, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
Having observed the effectiveness of the 1994 ban in conjunction with increasing state support for assault weapons bans, Democratic Senators are seeking to reestablish a federal level ban. Spearheaded by the late Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Democrats proposed an expanded version of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban in January of 2023. Known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2023, this bill sets specific definitions for assault weapons and calls for the prohibition of the sale, manufacture, transfer, importation, and possession of military-style assault weapons (118th Congress). While this bill has the support of forty-four Democratic Senators and one Independent Senator, it was unable to receive sufficient bipartisan support to pass through the Senate. Although the bill failed to pass, it is still supported by the Democratic party and pro-gun control interest groups alike. Although it is unlikely that a bipartisan consensus on gun control will be reached due to its highly partisan nature, groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence will continue to pressure Congress for a federal assault weapons ban.
Should a federal assault weapons ban be reintroduced, studies suggests that such a policy has the potential to significantly reduce the severity and lethality of mass shootings. Researchers have estimated that if a federal assault weapons ban had been in place between 2005 and 2019, the deaths and critical injuries of around 1,478 people over the course of thirty mass shootings could have been prevented (Everytown). Just as the 1994 ban reduced mass shootings and homicide-by-firearm rates (Murchison), more recent data also indicates that an assault weapon ban at the federal level would be effective in decreasing the severity of gun violence in the United States.
While such a policy intends to mitigate the magnitude of firearm-related deaths, its implementation could also prompt several unintended consequences. Even without a current national assault weapons ban, the topic of gun control is already a highly polarized and politically controversial issue. If the policy were to be enforced on a federal level, many individuals and groups would view the law as a violation of the Second Amendment, sparking political backlash and the escalation of partisan animosity. In addition to the political implications, the federal prohibition of assault weapons has the potential to cause the firearm black market to expand, leading to the proliferation of illegally sold weapons outlawed under the ban. The policy’s realization also has the potential to negatively impact the firearm industry, as manufacturers and retailers would see the assault weapon market disappear completely. While the assault weapons ban would remove citizens’ access to a specified range of guns, other approaches to gun violence remediation seek to identify and prelimit people who pose serious threats to public health and safety.
Another policy which has been proposed to address widespread gun violence in the United States involves implementing measures to temporarily restrict at-risk individuals’ access to firearms. Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs), commonly referred to as red flag laws, provide a legal basis for family members and law enforcement officials to intervene when a person shows serious signs of enacting lethal harm toward themselves or others. “In many instances of gun violence, there are clear warning signs that the shooter posed a serious threat before the shooting. Extreme Risk laws give key community members a way to intervene before warning signs become tragedies” (Everytown). Red flag policies focus on preemptive action, providing a means to prevent suicides and mass shootings before they occur, helping reduce overall levels of gun violence within American communities.
Similar to the actors supporting a federal assault weapons ban, proponents of red flag policies include the Democratic party and pro-gun control interest groups. In particular, the Biden-Harris Administration has recently expanded its efforts to oversee the effective implementation of state red flag laws. In March of 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris made significant announcements regarding the enhanced support for ERPOs in the United States. In her speech, Vice President Harris introduced the first-ever National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center and encouraged states to utilize its resources in order to capitalize on the $750 million of federal funding available to implement effective red flag programs (The White House). While the Biden-Harris Administration is advocating for the national adoption of red flag laws, ERPO policies are already in practice among twenty-one US states. Analyzing the gun violence data from states who currently have red flag laws in place allows us to understand the potential outcomes should ERPOs be mandated at the federal level.
Two key indicators which help determine the policy’s effectiveness are the rates at which states experience gun violence and suicides-by-firearm. If states experience a decrease in these statistics after the implementation of red flag laws, successful outcomes can be correlated with the efficient application of such policies. Although it can be difficult to measure events which were prevented, studies have shown that states have experienced reduced rates of suicide-by-firearm after the application of ERPOs – Connecticut and Indiana saw their respective firearm suicide rates decrease by 14 and 7.5 percent since adopting red flag policies (Everytown Research & Policy). Similar to reduced rates of suicide-by-firearm, states with red flag laws have also experienced lower levels of overall gun violence. 2020 data indicates that the seven states with the lowest firearm death rates in the country all had red flag laws in practice, and fourteen out of fifteen states with the highest firearm death rates did not (Tures). Additionally, some states have documented empirical examples of shootings which were prevented directly through the use of ERPOs. For example, California has reported twenty-one specific cases in which mass shootings were avoided as a result of red flag laws (Everytown Research & Policy). Although we are yet to see ERPOs implemented at the national level, evidence suggests that a federal application of red flag laws has the potential to significantly reduce gun violence in the United States. In spite of the positive potential outcomes, the widespread implementation of red flag laws may lead to unintended consequences and public disapproval.
While the federal implementation of ERPOs intends to help ameliorate gun deaths in America, the ineffective realization of red flag laws has the potential to produce adverse unintended outcomes. Critics of red flag laws argue such policies are a violation of both due process and Second Amendment rights. Although the policy aims to remove an individual’s access to firearms only when they are showing clear signs of intent to harm themselves or others, some may perceive this as property confiscation without due process of the law. Opponents to ERPOs claim that because the accused individual has not been convicted of a crime, removing that person’s access to their guns would be considered unconstitutional, especially when they are not provided an opportunity to defend their case.
In addition to this, others argue that ERPOs have the potential to facilitate deliberate false accusations from disgruntled individuals who seek to abuse the policy for personal vendettas. Another unintended consequence of red flag laws could be the further stigmatization of mental health. Individuals suffering from mental health problems may become reluctant to seek help, fearing they will be flagged and have their firearms confiscated. This could lead to worsening mental health outcomes, triggering increased potential for self-harm or violence. Although the national implementation of red flag laws has the potential to create unwanted or unintended consequences, the proper and effective application of ERPOs seeks to mitigate negative outcomes and balance public safety with individual rights.
Policy Theory
One theory through which gun control policy in the United States can be explained is the Advocacy-Coalition Framework. This theory states that policy change comes about through the coming together of contrasting core beliefs held by coalitions of actors within policy subsystems (Peters 57). Because core beliefs are broad, deep-seated opinions which are unlikely to change, advocacy-coalition does not intend to convince opposing groups to shift their principles. Instead, the Advocacy-Coalition Framework maintains that actors bargain over certain policy outcomes which do not call for the ideological reform of the opposite coalition. As each group’s core beliefs are challenged by the dissenting viewpoint of the opposing group, conflicts are resolved through bargaining and policy negotiation. Policy learning also contributes to the outcomes produced within the Advocacy-Coalition Framework. While it is difficult to come to a consensus between two opposing coalitions, especially when dealing with intensely politicized topics, policy learning helps determine the effectiveness of a given policy, allowing parties to collaborate to determine the policy’s future. Through examining past policies and their outcomes, coalitions use policy learning to evaluate the need for policy change.
Many aspects of the Advocacy-Coalition Framework can be seen within the dynamics of gun control policies in the United States. This theory fits the gun control debate well, as it was specifically developed to discuss the policy change process of significantly polarized topics (Peters 57). The contrasting core beliefs in gun control policy are easily identified – actors either advocate for gun rights and the maintenance of lax regulations, or actors advocate for expanded gun control and stricter regulations. Based on these principles, coalitions are formed on either side of the argument, working together to advance preferred policies and oppose rival policies. The gun control coalition includes alliances between the Democratic party and pro-gun control interest groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, and the gun rights coalition involves the Republican party, gun manufacturers, and pro-gun interest groups like the NRA. Because these two coalitions are diametrically opposed in belief and purpose, neither side is likely to cede their position, making progress on gun control slow and arduous. However, this slow process is to be expected according to the Advocacy-Coalition Framework and leads to the need for bargaining and negotiation between coalitions in hopes of reaching some consensus.
Although both the pro-gun and pro-gun control coalitions may agree that gun violence in America is an issue, reaching a definite consensus on how to solve the problem remains beyond reach. Policy learning also pertains to the issue of gun control. For example, should states with assault weapons bans and red flag laws prove to be effective in reducing gun violence, gun control coalitions will use this evidence to support their position when bargaining with gun rights coalitions.
Policy Recommendations
While there are various policy options which have potential to reduce gun violence in the United States, no single policy will have a large enough impact when implemented in isolation. Although each individual policy regarding firearm regulation is a step in the right direction, comprehensive protection against gun violence will only be achieved if the problem is addressed from a multitude of perspectives. Since gun violence in America is a multifaceted issue, it will require multiple solutions working in tandem to confront the different underlying causes. That being said, perhaps one of the most important aspects of enhancing firearm regulation involves improving gun safety and reducing easy access to firearms.
A good starting point would be to implement federally mandated assault weapons bans and red flag laws. As demonstrated in previous sections of this paper, both assault weapons bans and red flag laws have proven to be effective in significantly reducing gun violence rates. Additionally, it would be prudent to implement federal policies which enforce safety training and teach responsible gun ownership to first time gun owners. Currently, the main factors which prevent individuals from purchasing a gun are criminal histories and age restrictions. While these prerequisites are helpful, they do not provide comprehensive prevention against gun violence, regardless of whether the actions are intentional or unintentional. Mandatory licensing and training are required to operate a vehicle, a machine whose intended purpose is transportation, and yet no such requirements are compulsory for firearm operation, a machine whose intended purpose is largely killing. Federal mandates should call for training which instructs prospective gun owners on firearm basics, safe handling and operation, proper firearm storage, and the ethical considerations of owning a firearm.
In conjunction with required safety training, all firearm purchases should require universal background checks by federal law. Although licensed retailers are required to perform background checks when selling firearms, the private sale of firearms, along with firearms sold at gun shows, do not require background checks. Due to these loose regulations, a wide array of guns can be purchased by individuals who may be unfit to own a firearm, are purchasing a firearm unlawfully, or plan to use the firearm for violent purposes.
While the implementation of these policies will not come without social and political outcry from pro-gun advocates and interest groups alike, as well as economic repercussions for the firearm industry, the realization of these policies is crucial in reducing widespread gun violence in the United States. If no preventative action is taken, the country will continue to suffer daily occurrences of shootings and suicides due to the proliferation and accessibility of firearms. Although the political, social, and economic implications of gun control come at a high cost, the amount of lives saved due to enhanced firearm regulations is priceless.