top of page

CAPSTONE research paper

Potential Solutions to Gun Violence in America

America has a volume of gun violence almost unprecedented in developed countries. Most people across the political spectrum agree that a problem exists. The controversy comes with disagreements over the cause of the problem and what should be done to solve it. Many conservatives and gun owners are focused on upholding the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. They argue that the best way to defend against gun violence is to arm the potential victims. Those who disagree call for stricter gun control measures, but exactly what that means can vary. Many simply promote mandatory background checks, others say certain types or all guns should be made illegal in the US. Largely due to the controversy surrounding the issue, little action has been taken to combat gun violence in America in recent history. However, other countries have taken steps to reduce gun violence within their borders, and it has paid off. If America is to become a safer place, it must follow those country’s examples and more strictly regulate the purchase, ownership, and transfer of guns within its borders.

Gun Violence in America

Of all the types of gun violence, public mass shootings often get the most attention in the media. It makes sense: mass shootings are large scale, indiscriminate tragedies. They also disproportionately affect America. Since there is no legal consensus on how mass shootings should be defined, they will henceforth be defined here as shootings with four or more fatalities. Between the years 2000 and 2014, the US experienced 133 mass shootings, more than any other country. For comparison, the runner up was Germany with six. When adjusted for population, the difference is less staggering, but still, the only countries that come close have much smaller populations, such as Finland and Norway, and are thus affected by outlier events more. In addition to having a large media presence which fosters widespread fear, mass shootings are often perpetrated using large, powerful guns that are easy to point a finger at as a major cause of gun violence. They, coupled with Australia’s successful assault weapon ban, are a major reason many Americans call for a similar assault weapon ban here. However, simply restricting assault weapons would realistically do little to limit gun violence, as, in America, assault weapons and mass shootings make up a very small percent of the total annual gun deaths.

 

In 2013, America experienced an average of 92 gun fatalities daily. Of those, about 1.5 are mass shootings and relatively few are perpetrated using assault rifles. Comparatively, about 30 of the daily American gun deaths are homicides and about 80% are perpetrated using a pistol. America’s homicide rate is higher than in any other country. According to the World Health Organization, even adjusting for population, it is over three times higher than in Canada, the country with the second highest homicide rate. In fact, America’s gun homicide rate alone is over double the total homicide rate in Canada. This statistic is not simply the result of a higher crime rate in America. In fact, the same World Health Organization article ranks America sixth in both the burglary rate and assault rate. America is not more crime-ridden than other developed countries, it is simply more heavily armed. Unfortunately, even homicides only account for about a third of gun fatalities in America. In fact, while it is still a massive problem that needs to be addressed, the homicide rate has been on a slow downward trend since the 1990s. Suicide rates, on the other hand, have been steadily rising.

 

Of the average of 92 daily gun deaths in America, about 1.5 are accidents, another 1.5 are due to police action, one is from an unknown cause, and 30 are homicides, 1.5 of which are mass shootings. However, all of these factors only make up about a third of all gun deaths in America. The single greatest cause of gun death in America is suicide. Suicide makes up about 58 of those 92 deaths, making it responsible for almost two-thirds of all gun fatalities in America. Many people have dismissed the idea that gun regulations could have much of an impact on the suicide rate, which is why this statistic is not often talked about in the media. A common rationale for this idea is that if guns are taken away, suicidal people will find other ways to commit suicide. This logic is flawed in several ways. Firstly, many suicides are the result of a short-term crisis that worsens a person’s condition temporarily. If someone in a crisis has easy access to a gun, it is more likely they will take their own life. Secondly, even if a suicidal person does find another way to attempt suicide, their chance of success is much lower without a gun. Poisoning and cutting, the second and third most popular methods of suicide attempts, both have success rates around 6% to 7%. Suicide with a gun is fatal 96.5% of the time. This is significant because 93% of people who attempt suicide and fail never attempt it again. This is backed up by a 2013 Journal Article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, which demonstrates a direct correlation between the rate of household gun ownership and the suicide rate between states in America. It seems undeniable that guns are a massive contributor to the high and rising suicide rate in America, and thus, that suicide is an essential component to take into account when considering gun reform.

 

It is not difficult to deduce the cause of all this violence: America simply has an incredibly large number of guns. America owns more guns per capita than Switzerland, which requires citizens to own guns as part of the militia. It has more guns than the runner-up in both developed and Third-World Countries, Yemen, a country in the midst of a civil war. There are 8.9 guns for every 10 people in America, and more guns than adults nationwide. Although Americans make up just about 5% of the world population, they own almost 50% of the world’s privately owned firearms. A 2015 study showed a clear correlation between gun ownership per capita and homicide rate, and as mentioned previously, there is an equally strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide rate even within the United States. It is factually inaccurate to say that having fewer guns does not lead to fewer gun deaths. If America had the gun ownership and gun death rate of any other developed country, tens of thousands of Americans would be saved each year. While the overall homicide rate may be slowly declining, it is not enough to offset the rising suicide rate, nor is it enough to justify inaction when it comes to gun policy reform.

Gun Control Overseas

Beyond America’s borders, other countries have seen the problems that great numbers of largely unregulated guns cause and they have taken action. Possibly the most famous of these cases is the 1996 Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA), better known as the Australian gun buyback. In 1996, following a horrific mass shooting in which 35 people died, Australia implemented drastic gun control measures. They illegalized and bought back all “semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns, ... and tightened requirements for licensing, registration, and safe storage of firearms”. The NFA yielded impressive results. In the 18 years preceding the buyback, Australia had 13 mass shootings with over 100 lives lost. In the 14 years after, there was not a single mass shooting. The NFA served to decrease the homicide rate in Australia by almost half and the suicide rate by more than half. These decreases were closely proportional across the country to the number of guns confiscated. Although a 2011 Harvard University study concluded that such a buyback was not feasible in the United States due to the larger number of guns which are largely poorly documented, the same study concluded that it is possible America could enact a version of Australia’s licensing and registration requirements to great effect, possibly bringing about a drop in gun violence comparable to Australia’s. Another example of a country with a successful gun policy is Switzerland, where despite mandatory service and gun ownership requirements, gun homicides are low and mass shootings are practically nonexistent. The last mass shooting in Switzerland was 18 years ago in 2001. Switzerland’s gun safety can be largely attributed to its gun culture. At the age of 18, every able-bodied man is trained in the use of a gun. Gun licenses are given only to those deemed competent enough with a firearm and physically and mentally fit to wield one. From there, all firearms are registered to their owners so the government has a log of every gun in circulation. Even if someone inherits a gun, they must have the proper license and fill out the necessary paperwork before they can own it. Anyone who has been convicted of a crime or has a drug or alcohol addiction is not allowed to buy or operate any firearm in Switzerland. These regulations have led to gun death rates dramatically lower than in countries with a similar number of guns. In another instance, the Israeli defense force stopped allowing soldiers to take their guns home on weekends. Immediately following this change, the suicide rate in the group dropped 40%, further supporting the fact that limited access to guns lowers the suicide rate. Other countries have taken cues from statistics on gun violence and regulated guns within their borders, and while none of them are perfectly parallel to America, it is possible to use data from the implementation of their laws to devise a solution to gun violence in America.

Potential Gun Legislation in America

In order to mitigate gun violence in America, it is important to look at the issue from all sides. This means addressing mass shootings, homicides, and suicides in legislation. However, it also means addressing the points typically made by gun advocates and typically discounted by gun control advocates. When analyzing America’s gun epidemic and the solutions countries like Australia have implemented, the first instinct can be to get rid of guns, but this is neither feasible nor helpful. A YouTube series called Middle Ground showcases this in the form of a conversation between a panel of pro-gun and anti-gun individuals. During the conversation, one of the panelists, Hasani Hill, says “the area that I grew up in, ... sometimes a gun is the only way to protect yourself. ... There’s always going to be guns, there’s always going to be violence in the world, and I’ve got a family to protect”. Gun safety does not have to mean taking away guns from law-abiding citizens. In fact, it should not mean this. Even with the strictest gun laws, there will still be those with intentions to harm others who can still get their hands on guns. As well as gun regulations work and as few and far between as illegal guns may be once they are implemented, they will still need to be taken into account. In addition, it will still be very possible to harm others by means other than with a gun. These are some of the concerns of many people who oppose gun reform, and they are well founded. Any gun reform policy that disarms innocent people with no other way of defending themselves is not a worthwhile policy. This is not to say that the solution to gun violence in America is to arm the innocents, or even inaction. Far from it, having more guns in circulation contributes to gun homicides and suicides as previously discussed, and a 2014 FBI report showed that “good guys with guns,” even when given the chance, can only stop about 3% of mass shootings. There is a middle ground. When Australia achieved gun reform, they only took away about a fifth of all guns in the country. That, coupled with stricter policies that did not have anything to do with disarming innocents, was all it took to make the country a safer place. America must put policies in place that disarm criminals without infringing on the rights of innocents, all while holding everyone accountable for the firearms they own and how they use them. It will take time, effort, money, and compromise from both sides of the political spectrum, but it is possible to make America a safer place without sacrificing the people’s right to self-defense.

bottom of page