ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Hi, I’m a proud graduate of the Class of 2024 who is passionate about examining the ties between social justice, public policy, and the law. My academic path has been driven by personal experiences and observations that have prompted me to challenge conventional thinking, particularly regarding civic duty and the need for careful legal reform. This motivation led me to create “Public Safety vs. Individual Rights: The Gun Laws Dilemma,” an essay in which I analyze how governmental choices affect the health and safety of communities and their progression. I’m currently enrolled in law school in order to learn more about these pressing issues and contribute to effective advocacy.

–Zafir Hassan

---

Mass shootings are becoming increasingly prevalent in the United States; gun rallies, protests, and political discourse have surged in the aftermath of increasing episodes of violence, hinting at the uncertain future of the Second Amendment. The issue of gun control has been a controversial and polarizing topic dividing American citizens. While the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms–a right interpreted as the right to carry and use firearms–an ongoing debate about the upsides and drawbacks of implementing stricter gun laws has arisen among legislators. The debate centers around whether or not there should be stricter laws to regulate the sale, ownership, and use of firearms. The seriousness of this topic raises fundamental questions about individual rights provided by the Second Amendment, public safety, and the role of government. Advocates for stricter gun laws argue for measures to reduce gun-related deaths and accidents, while opponents emphasize individual freedom and the constitutional right to gun ownership. This paper explores the history of gun control legislation and the agreement in favour and against the implementation of stricter gun laws while analyzing the different sociological theories, including Clowards and Ohlin’s Strain theory, Durkheim’s Anomie, Deterrence Theory, Structural Functionalism and frameworks of justice, including social contract, moral righteousness, and fairness and equality, all of which arise in the gun laws debate. This paper also reviews the benefits of implementing stricter gun laws in the US and the potential drawbacks to civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The history of gun laws in the United States reveals an exciting story of how the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment have influenced the freedom-loving nation’s approach to regulating firearms. Enacted in 1787 and ratified in 1791, the Constitution’s Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms. However, what was formerly meant to be a safeguard for militias against foreign invasions has changed over the years to what some interpret as the right to self-defence and the free usage of guns. Lamy provides an alternative approach to gun-control deliberation:

A much more accurate view of this modern American cultural quarrel is that it is the attempt by ideologues, right-wing gunners and left-wing anti-gunners, not just to persuade, but to cajole the great American center over to their own particular interpretation of the Second Amendment. They do this in order to re-write and re-interpret the Constitution so as to create an American society and culture more in line with their own peculiar way of “right thinking” (Lamy 217).

The political tug-of-war has progressed into the 21st century and called for rulings from the judicial branch of government. Specifically, before the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, courts ruled that the right was only in the context of militia participation. Amidst Heller, the Supreme Court overruled precedent, giving Second Amendment absolutists their biggest legal triumph (Shusterman). At the time of the ruling, gun-related incidents of violence were not as prominent; in the present day, they are at an all-time high, provoking outcry from citizens concerned with public safety. Currently, left-wing, right-wing, and swing states across the US have their own regulations on gun-control varying all along the spectrum, with varying levels of magnitude. The rise in violence may affect the future of gun access as we know it.

On one side of the debate, activists favour stricter gun laws and argue that such measures are necessary to combat and suppress the rise in gun violence (i.e., mass shootings, accidental gun-related deaths and injuries, gang violence, and hate crimes) in the USA. Specifically, they believe stricter or limited gun laws can reduce gun violence. Furthermore, they highlight that the U.S. has the highest gun violence rates in the world, with shootings happening every other day. As claimed recently by BBC News, “In each of the last three years, there have been more than 600 mass shootings, almost two a day on average” (“How Many US Mass Shootings Have There Been in 2023?”). Society can observe that the issue worsens daily, and gun control advocates demand further measures to combat the root problem. At the moment, they defend the idea that there are insufficient laws to combat the rising threat of individuals’ effortless access to firearms. Through the lens of functionalism, Cloward & Ohlin’s Strain Theory (1960) updates Merton’s Strain theory, responding to the question: “Why does not everyone who experiences strain end up committing a crime?” specifically adding the condition that individuals must have access to legitimate means to commit crimes (Sigouin slide 3). The reduced access to firearms through stricter laws would allow for fewer guns in circulation and make it more challenging to obtain and misuse guns. To illustrate, on April 13th in Kansas City, Ralph Yarl accidentally rang the doorbell at the wrong house and was shot and nearly killed by Andrew Lester. If the assailant did not have access to the means (i.e. guns), he would not have had the opportunity to misuse it and injure the 16-year-old (Massie and Sharp).

Further to this, Durkheim’s Anomie, “a condition where an absence of social regulation results in a state of normlessness” (Hurlbert 39), can be observed in the normalization of increased incidents of gun-related violence. Anomie focuses on weakened social institutions and low social trust. They would favour stricter gun laws and view them as one step towards strengthening social institutions by giving them more power. American society is in a state of anomie as they lack social trust because individuals fear doing everyday things such as stepping into public spaces (e.g. the mall or school) out of fear of the possibility of mass shootings. For example, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center demonstrates the state of normlessness of teens: “Overall, 57% of teens say they are worried about the possibility of a shooting happening at their school, with one-in-four saying they are very worried” (Graf). Weaker gun laws may contribute to the current environment of abuse of firearms. Stricter gun control tackles the feeling of Anomie by strengthening social institutions and increasing trust. Both are improved when they will eventually no longer be afraid of being shot at while performing daily activities because they have the reassurance that law enforcement has laws that reduce the number of firearms in circulation and the people who can access them.

Additionally, the Social contract justice framework highlights that justice is rooted in a “uniform social agreement” that benefits those making the agreements (i.e. legislators) at the expense of those whose realities are affected (i.e. citizens). Overall, it favours citizens ceding some rights for the sake of protection (Sigouin, “Lecture 2,” slide 16). In this case, the argument in favour of stricter gun laws is based on the basis that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure the well-being of its citizens, and restricting access to guns is an efficient way to do so. Therefore, the framework supports the argument for stricter gun laws as it aligns with the state’s responsibility to introduce legislation ensuring citizens’ safety and security. As the French saying goes, “The freedom of some ends where that of others begins.” By implementing stricter gun laws, we can strike a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring the well-being of society as a whole by diminishing threats of gun violence.

On the same side of the debate, activists in favour of stricter gun laws argue that sterner legislation would reduce accidental shootings. According to the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV), “Unintentional firearm injuries account for 37% of all nonfatal firearm injuries but less than 2% of all gun deaths.” Furthermore, the US continues to witness more than a third of gun violence incidents attributed to at-risk individuals having access to firearms; this includes individuals who pose a significant risk of harming themselves or others (e.g. the mentally ill). As a result, some states have taken matters into their own hands and established a set of regulations called “Red Flag Laws” that address the issue of hazardous citizens’ possession of firearms. For example, California—a blue state—has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including a requirement for background checks on all gun purchases by licensed firearms dealers (“Background Check Procedures in California”), a ban on assault weapons post-legislation (“Assault Weapons in California”), and a mandatory 10-day waiting period before a gun purchase is completed (The Office of the Attorney General). In addition, they introduced the gun violence restraining order law (GVRO) into law, which “allows teachers, school employees, co-workers, employers, family, household members, and law enforcement to obtain a court order to prevent an at-risk person from accessing guns, ammunition, or magazines and that temporarily prohibits that person from purchasing or obtaining any new guns, ammunition, or magazines” (“California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order”). By contrast, Texas—a red state—has few laws to regulate the possession of firearms. For example, Giffords Law Center states, “Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm” (“Background Check Procedures in Texas”) nor prohibition on assault weapons possession. Also, there are no extreme risk laws, such as GVROs, to ensure public safety.

Additionally, they add that the punishment can go from 21 days to 5 years if approved. GVRO links to the Classical School of Thought’s Deterrence theory. The theory argues that people have free will, entailing that crime is a rational choice guided by pleasure. Humans weigh their actions’ costs and benefits before committing a crime. It suggests that punishment’s certainty, severity, and swiftness control criminal behaviour. Therefore, the theory argues that the more certain and severe the punishment for a crime, the more effective the deterrence from committing that crime (Sigouin, “Lecture 5 part 1,” slide 3). With stricter gun laws, the costs of possessing and using a gun would increase, deterring individuals from engaging in criminal behaviour that could result in an accidental shooting. This theory suggests that individuals make decisions out of free will based on the perceived consequences of their actions. By implementing the consequences of possessing a firearm for at-risk individuals, such as revoking their right to access firearms, they would be less likely to engage in behaviour that could result in accidental shootings out of fear of the possible punishments.

The moral righteousness framework argues that society is responsible for doing what is “right” to make society a better place to end oppression. It relates to caring for the least advantaged members of society (Sigouin, “Lecture 2,” slide 15). Stricter gun laws can contribute to this by protecting innocent individuals from random gun violence more often and “wrong place and wrong time” situations, thus avoiding accidental shootings. This framework helps justify tackling this issue before it can affect innocents.

On the other side of the debate, gun advocates argue that stricter gun laws would infringe upon their Second Amendment right to bear arms and others would violate their freedom and liberty. The latter relates to the fairness and equality framework of justice. The framework emphasizes “treating equals equally” (Sigouin, “Lecture 2,” slide 14) and implies that everyone, regardless of their political views, can exercise their rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Gun law skeptics argue that limiting their Second Amendment rights would result in unequal treatment, affecting law-abiding citizens who use firearms for self-defence, hunting, and sport shooting (e.g. trap shooting). They claim that fairness demands that all citizens have the freedom to exercise their freedoms, similar to the bipartisan use of the First Amendment (i.e. the right to freedom of speech), without being restricted by the government. Also, it is possible that doing so would open the Constitutional floodgates to ratifying all 27 Amendments, regardless of whether they are morally unethical. Gun law skeptics express concern that stricter gun laws could impact law-abiding citizens who use firearms for self-defence, hunting, and sport shooting (e.g., trap shooting), emphasizing that gun users should not be punished for a few bad apples.

On the same side of the debate, anti-gun control activists argue that guns are self-defence tools; stricter gun laws would only hurt citizens as criminals would still find ways to obtain firearms. Furthermore, Structural Functionalism theory is “characterized by a particular strategy of inquiry. This strategy investigates society as if it were a system of parts (or structures) that are interconnected, each of which perform various functions for the system (Durkheim 1893)” (Hurlbert 37). Pro-gun lobby members refer to firearms as a means of self-defence in addition to leisure activities (e.g. hunting) as a positive intended function. The latter is associated with the functionalist concept of manifest function: “the intended function of social policies, processes, or actions that are consciously and deliberately designed to be beneficial in their effect on society” (Cole). Pro-gun lobby members also highlight the multipurposeness of firearms, including activities like hunting. The usefulness of firearms aligns with the functionalist concept of manifest function, where social policies and actions are consciously designed to benefit society.

For this reason, stricter gun laws would only hurt the constructive role of guns in American lives.

In sum, the positive and intended function of the 2nd Amendment. In addition, Blocher notes, “These actions are constitutionally protected because they advance the “central component” or “core lawful purpose” of the Second Amendment: freedom of self-defence, particularly in the home” (Blocher). In summary, stricter gun laws would undermine the positive role of guns in American society and infringe upon the manifest function of the Second Amendment, which includes the essential freedom of self-defence.

When considering the debate on gun control, it becomes evident that stricter gun laws are necessary to promote public safety and reduce gun-related violence. Following the Sandy Hook school shooting, National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre stated that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Milligan). His reasoning is flawed and biased and is rooted in flawed reasoning that oversimplifies the complexity of gun-related violence. Instead of relying on the additional presence of firearms in society, we should investigate the sources of gun violence, such as mental health challenges, poverty, and the accessibility of firearms by high-risk individuals and deal with them accordingly. What he sees as a function of self-defence can also characterize a dysfunction —the unintended negative rise of violence undermining the stability of society. We must consider all possible options to tackle the root causes of gun violence. The solution to these issues includes: funding mental health programmes, granting access to necessary care, and offering assistance to those who require it—also creating more community outreach programmes to reach and guide at-risk youth away from violence and towards a more promising future through positive role models. The latter links to Hirschi’s Social Bond, which “posits that crime occurs when social ties are weakened or not well established” (Sigouin, “Lecture 5 part 2,” slide 5). It argues that people refrain from engaging in crime based on social bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. The proposed measures are bonds that can eventually deter people from committing crimes.

Also, reducing the death toll and protecting lives should outweigh the activists’ desire for unlimited access to firearms. Looking at successful examples, Americans can find inspiration in Canada, where strict gun laws have successfully reduced gun violence. The US can make significant progress toward creating a safer society by adopting similar measures, such as comprehensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and limitations on high-capacity magazines. Cuckier remarks: “Although it is still early, both Australia and Canada have documented significant declines in particular forms of gun violence following their legislation” (Cukier 229). Despite the constitutional right to bear arms, the benefits of implementing stricter gun laws in the US considerably outweigh the potential drawbacks without diminishing their value.

In summary, the debate surrounding stricter gun laws in the United States is again a complex issue, with both advocates arguing for preserving individual rights and public safety. While pro-activists of stricter gun laws stress the need to reduce gun-related violence, mass shootings, and accidental deaths, opponents argue that such legislation would infringe upon their constitutional rights and fail to address the underlying causes of violence. Sociology theories and frameworks of justice were crucial to further dissecting the issue of gun control. Nonetheless, considering the alarming rates of gun violence and the success of stricter gun control measures in other countries, it is essential to prioritize public safety and explore comprehensive solutions that address mental health, poverty, and access to firearms by high-risk individuals. By balancing individual rights and public safety, the United States can work towards creating a safer society for all Americans.

 

Works Cited

Aratani, L. and Helmore, E. (2022) ‘Enough is enough’: Thousands rally across US in gun violence protests, The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/march-for-our-lives-gun-control-prote sts-washington.

“Assault Weapons in California.” Giffords, 25 Jan. 2023, giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/ assault-weapons-in-california/.

“Background Check Procedures in California.” Giffords, 5 Jan. 2023, giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/background-check-procedures-in-california/#:~:text=Fe deral%20law%20requires%20federally%20licensed,from%20purchasing%20or%20posse ssing%20firearms.

“Background Check Procedures in Texas.” Giffords, 5 Jan. 2023, giffords.org/lawcenter/ state-laws/background-check-procedures-in-texas/.  

Blocher, Joseph. “The Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 64, no. 1,

2012, pp. 1–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41511601.

“California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order: A Prevention Tool for Law Enforcement.” Speak for Safety, 2 Sept. 2020, speakforsafety.org/law-enforcement/#:~:text=Temporary%20GVRO&text=A%20judicial %20officer%20must%20find,(Penal%20Code%20%C2%A7%2018150).

Cukier, Wendy. “Commentary: Changing Public Policy on Firearms: Success Stories from around the World.” Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 26, no. 2, 2005, pp. 227–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4498926.

Graf, Nikki. “A Majority of U.S. Teens Fear a Shooting Could Happen at Their School, and Most Parents Share Their Concern.” Pew Research Center, 30 May 2020,www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/04/18/a-majority-of-u-s-teens-fear-a-shooting-co uld-happen-at-their-school-and-most-parents-share-their-concern/.

“How Many US Mass Shootings Have There Been in 2023?” BBC News, 9 May 2023,

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081.

Hurlbert, Margot Ann. Pursuing Justice: An Introduction to Justice Studies. 2nd ed., 

Fernwood Publishing, 2018.

Lamy, Rudolf B. “The Influence of History upon a Plain Text Reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” The American Journal of Legal History, vol. 49, no. 2, 2007, pp. 217–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/25470010.

Massie, Graeme, and Rachel Sharp. “What We Know about White Homeowner Charged with Shooting Ralph Yarl.” The Independent, 21 Apr. 2023, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/andrew-lester-shot-ralph-yarl-plea-b 2323518.html.

Milligan, Susan. “Uvalde, Buffalo Shootings Expose the Myth of the ‘Good Guy with a Gun.’” U.S. News & World Report, 27 May 2022,

Shusterman, Noah. “What the Second Amendment Really Meant to the Founders.” The Washington Post, 28 Oct. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amen dment-really-meant-to-the-founders/.

Sigouin, Jennifer. “Sociology of Law: Lecture 2 W2023 students.” Moodle. Sociology of Law,

19 Jan. 2023, Dawson College. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, 

—. “Sociology of Law: Lecture 5 Functionalism w23 part1 students.” Moodle. Sociology of Law, 11 Feb. 2023, Dawson College. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, 

—. “Sociology of Law: Lecture 5 Functionalism Part 2 students w23.” Moodle. Sociology of Law, 16 Feb. 2023, Dawson College. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, 

The Office of the Attorney General, “Firearms: Frequently Asked Questions.” State of California Department of Justice, 6 Oct. 2022, oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#:~:text=Generally%2C%20all%20firearms%20purchases% 20and,to%20a%20purchaser%20or%20transferee.

“Unintentional Shootings.” The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, 21 Feb. 2021, efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/unintentional-shootings/.