Global Politics Engagement Activity
What is the Best Way to Combat Gun Violence in America While Adhering to the Second
Amendment?
Word Count: 1999
Introduction
Growing up in the early 2000s and 2010s, I was frequently exposed to the topic of gun
control. It's not uncommon to see mass shootings at public gatherings or at schools in the news,
and this has definitely made me fear for my own safety. When my school has lockdowns and
doesn't immediately say they’re drills, I’ll sort of have the thought at the back of my mind,
“What if it's not a drill this time?”. Being someone who felt particularly invested in finding the
best solutions to the problem of gun violence in America, I started listening to what political
figures on the left and right had to say. There are two main positions on the matter. One states
that excessive gun violence is a result of guns being too accessible to the public, and the other
states that guns actually make us safer, with the problem stemming from societal issues.
Those on the left of the political aisle would tend to stand with the former; saying that
mass shootings like those that occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Sandy Hook Elementary,
would be prevented by common-sense gun control. Making it harder to get guns, preventing
mentally ill people from purchasing them, and banning “assault-style weapons”, are commonly
supported policies by those on the left. Those on the right of the political aisle tend to stand with
the latter position. Believing that criminal activity is less likely to occur in areas with an armed
populace, that mental health problems and gang presence are the roots of the issue, and that more
gun laws won't do much to reduce gun deaths. There's also a strong emphasis on the fact that we
have a second amendment right which says we can own guns.
With these vastly different views in mind, I decided that my political engagement would
revolve around trying to come to a conclusion on what the most effective ways to reduce gun
violence were. I also want to take the constitutionality of these gun laws into account as I think
the second amendment is important. For my engagement, I looked to see what approaches local
politicians and researchers take to address the issue. This led me to talk with NY State Senator
Todd Kaminsky and professor/researcher Michael Siegel.
Description of Engagement
Talking with a politician and researcher was very relevant to this issue. If we want to see
changes that result in fewer people falling victim to gun violence, we need to elect people that
will enact the change we want to see. If we want to know what routes we have to take to see
positive change, we need to look at what the research says.
As part of my engagement, I talked with Michael Siegel through email, sending him a list
of questions regarding some of the research he's done on gun control. Through his responses, I
gained insight into the most effective ways to deal with gun violence. According to his research,
laws preventing who can possess firearms -including background checks and red flag laws- were
extremely effective in reducing homicide rates. On the other hand, laws regulating what guns
were allowed to be owned did almost nothing. Through the questions I asked Siegel, I learned
that with a combination of laws preventing people with tendencies of violence from owning
guns, we could reduce firearm homicide rates by about 35%.
I got a slightly different perspective when talking with Democratic Senator Todd
Kaminsky. I interviewed him through zoom on February 15th, 2022, and asked for his opinion
on how we should tackle the problem of gun violence. Similar to Siegel, he made background
checks and red flag laws a focal point in how we should go about implementing legislation.
Preventing people who pose a threat to others from obtaining guns was a clear priority to him.
This ties into another point he made: the need for New York to work with bordering states in
forming gun legislation. I learned that it doesn't matter as much if New York prevents certain
people from buying guns if bordering states don't have similar safeguards in place. People who
aren't allowed to buy guns in New York that want to engage in criminal activity, could just go to
a state where they are allowed to buy guns and bring them back to New york. Kaminsky also
stated that he supports the banning of assault weapons like the AR-15, and high capacity
magazines- measures that were shown to be ineffective according to Siegel. Not only are they
ineffective but the constitutionality of such laws comes into question
Analysis of the Issue
The second amendment can be interpreted in many ways, but in 2008 the Supreme Court
ruled in the case of, “District of Columbia Vs. Heller”, that the second amendment guarantees an
individual right to possess firearms. The majority opinion believed that when the founding
fathers wrote, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” it
supported individual rights to own firearms. This is because of the founders’ beliefs that the most
effective way to destroy a citizens’ militia is to disarm the citizens (Brittanica). Self-defense was
also a key component of the second amendment, further supporting the “individual right”
interpretation.
The second amendment was originally a negative right where the government didn't have
to do anything to provide it to the people. But as guns became more technically advanced, more
and more restrictions were placed on them to prevent gun crime. There's always been precedent
for placing restrictions on our rights as long as they aren't unconstitutional. For modern gun
control laws, their constitutionality is mostly looked at in terms of if they inhibit one’s ability to
protect themselves. Determining if a law does this, however, can be difficult. One could argue
that laws preventing certain people from owning firearms are unconstitutional because they
prevent individuals from being able to protect themselves, but this argument would never hold
up. The U.S. government can restrict the rights of those who act in ways that make them a
danger to others or themselves, and they can restrict certain rights on the basis of protecting the
general population.
A popular gun control measure that is pushed on the idea that it will save lives is assault
weapon bans. This is despite there being an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 that resulted
in no conclusive evidence that it was effective at reducing gun crime. Gun crimes involving
assault weapons went down, but this was offset by increased crime with other guns
(FactCheck.org). This kind of restriction on a whole class of firearms with no statistical backing
supporting its benefits is absolutely unconstitutional and an overreach of power by the
government. Fortunately, though, there are plenty of effective gun control measures that don't
infringe on individual rights.
As Siegel said in our interview over email, laws that target those who can own guns were
highly effective in reducing firearm homicide rates- specifically, those with a history of violence:
...we need to more specifically target people who are at the highest risk for
violence and make sure that they don’t possess guns. The greatest risk factor for
violence is a history of violence so in my opinion, the basis for all firearm policy
should be banning gun possession among people with a history of violence.
According to a study by Siegel and others titled, “The Impact of State Firearm Laws on
Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA”, universal background checks were associated
with a 14.9% reduction in overall homicide rates, and violent misdemeanor laws were
associated with an 18.1% reduction in homicide (Siegel 1). Red flag laws could also be a
major player in reducing gun crime and mass shootings. They allow the state or someone’s
family to petition the removal of an individual’s gun. A concern of many critics of red flag
laws is that individuals won't get due process when their guns are taken away, and it seems
like in some instances, individuals don't (Matt Vasilogambros- Red Flag Laws Spur Debate
Over Due Process). The concept of this kind of law makes sense, it just needs to be
implemented in a way that protects individual rights. There should be a high bar for
evidence showing that someone is a threat to themselves or others in order for the state to
take their guns. Once all the necessary safeguards are made to ensure the protection of
individual rights, red flag laws will be a key component in preventing gun crime. All three
of these gun control measures can prevent innocent people from dying and they should all
be implemented on a national scale. The main barrier to accomplishing this is the fact that
the power to make gun legislation is largely left to the states. The federal government only
has “commerce power” and “taxing power” when it comes to gun legislation. It can
regulate channels of interstate commerce and put taxes on the sale, manufacturing, and
transferring of firearms, while the states have the power to regulate the purchase,
possession, transfer, and use of firearms (Giffords Law Center).
While the separation of powers between the federal and state government is a good
thing, in instances like this it can result in slow-moving, or even non-existent progress in
terms of enacting legislation. This is probably the way things will continue to be, meaning
if people want to see changes made to gun legislation, they need to vote. If there isn't
enough political will, or demand from the people to see certain changes, then we won't see
improvements to gun legislation.
Besides legislation directly involving guns, violence prevention programs like
“CeaseFire” which took place in Chicago, have shown to be very effective in reducing not
just gun crime, but crime in general. Cease Fire’s goal was to reduce shootings and killings
by intervening in the city of Chicago with community mobilization strategies, a major
public education campaign, GED programs, drug/alcohol treatment, job assistance
programs, etc. A study in 2014 about the effects of the program found this:
Raw crime counts show a 31% reduction in homicide, a 7% reduction in total
violent crime, and a 19% reduction in shootings in the targeted districts. These
effects are significantly greater than the effects expected given the declining trends
in crime in the city as a whole. Reduced levels of total violent crime, shootings, and
homicides were maintained throughout the intervention year in the targeted
districts. Some effects, including the rate of growth in violence, differed by district,
possibly due to different strategies employed by CeaseFire. The effects of the
intervention were immediate, appearing within the first month, when CeaseFire
workers arrived in the community, and were maintained throughout the intervention
year. (David B. Henry, Ph.D. Shannon Knoblauch, B.A. Rannveig Sigurvinsdottir,
M.A)
Conclusion
There are many ways to approach the issue of gun violence, but not every approach to the
matter should be taken seriously. With the second amendment ingrained in the constitution, gun
laws need to respect the individual right to possess firearms. Measures like assault weapon bans
should not be made into legislation. It's a prime example of an unconstitutional law, and
overreach of power by the government. Gun control measures like universal background checks,
violent misdemeanor laws, and red flag laws, however, should be a top priority for legislators.
As I’ve learned from Siegel’s work, laws that prevent those with a high risk of violence from
owning firearms, have the most data to support their effectiveness. On top of direct gun
legislation, community intervention programs need to be implemented across the country. Laws
can prevent people from committing crimes to an extent, but addressing the problems which lead
to people committing crimes could be just as important. With a combination of efforts to
implement better gun laws and improve disadvantaged communities, the U.S. could see a
substantial reduction in the number of lives lost to gun violence.
Works Cited
Duignan, Brian. "District of Columbia v. Heller." Britannica, May 2010,
www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.
Farley, Robert. "FactChecking Biden's Claim that Assault Weapons Ban Worked."
FactCheck.org, Mar. 2021, www.factcheck.org/2021/03/factchecking-bidens-claim-thatassault-weapons-ban-worked/. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.
"Federal Powers." Giffords Law Center, giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/otherlaws-policies/federal-powers/. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.
Gramlich, John. "What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S." Pew Research Center, Feb.
2020, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deathsin-the-u-s/. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.
Henry, David B., Ph.D., et al. "The Effect of Intensive CeaseFire Intervention on Crime in Four
Chicago Police Beats: Quantitative Assessment." cvg.org, Sept. 2014, cvg.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/McCormick_CreaseFire_Quantitative_Report_091114.pdf.
Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.
Siegel, M., Pahn, M., Xuan, Z. et al. The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide
Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study. J GEN INTERN MED 34, 2021–2028
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04922-x
Vasilogambros, Matt. "Red Flag Laws Spur Debate Over Due Process." Pew Trusts, 4 Sept.
2019, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/09/04/red-flaglaws-spur-debate-over-due-process. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.