Garrett Merz

ENG II
Nate Hellmers
7/12/20
Gun Violence in America: What is The Solution?

I have been a gun owner since my father purchased me my first hunting rifle when I

turned thirteen. Being a gun owner, I always had very substandard views on gun control. These

views followed me into my college years and had remained the same since. However, one

summer day in Dayton, Ohio made me question everything I believed in.

My fellow roommates and I worked in Dayton over the summer and during this week we

had to make the tough decision some college students make: what are we going to do this

weekend? We would frequent bars at University of Dayton however, we made trips to Oregon

District in the past. Later in the week some of our friends decided they were going to hit the town

Saturday but we decided to make a trip to my lake house instead. Sunday morning my mother

woke me up at 6:00 AM with alarming news: a mass shooting had taken place in Dayton’s

historic Oregon District, less than 10 minutes away from where I live.

This incident in Dayton, Ohio poses the question: would banning assault rifles cause

dramatic change to gun violence in the United States? If not, what options are there to make an

impactful transformation? If the Dayton shooting did not turn heads, another shooting happened

in the same weekend taking place in Texas. Both shooters used multiple assault style weapons

with various gun accessories. If the United States were to ban these accessories, such as high

capacity magazines and bump stocks and have a more unified stance between states and

federally, the government would have a better control on weapons overall not letting guns fall
into the wrong hands. Finally, banning only assault rifles would not solve the entire scope of gun

violence in America if handguns and other semiautomatic weapons are still legal.

Since the United States Constitution was signed in 1787, owning a firearm has been a

legal right to all United States citizens within some degree. Obviously felons and mentally ill

persons cannot purchase or possess firearms but this has not seemed to stop them throughout

recent history. Assault style weapons most Americans recognize today were created and given

access to the public somewhere around the 1950s (Smith 1.) Since then, there have been

thousands of gun related deaths from police, mentally ill in the form of mass shootings, gang

violence, and many more that could add to the list. With the rise of media Americans began to

really open their eyes and see the real issue at hand. The United States now has one of the

highest homicides per million people sitting at 29.7 homicides per million people (Lopez.) This

is an alarming number especially compared to other countries and seems to be a huge surprise for

a country that takes such great pride in their freedom of owning weapons.

There are many gun accessories that can change a regular firearm into a full blown

tactical killing machine that needs to be out of the hands of everyday citizens. Anybody who

follows the media has most likely has heard a lot of discussions around the “bump stock” and

high capacity magazines. These accessories and others similar to this need to be out of the hands

of society to at least make these incidents less deadly. There is absolutely no reason that

somebody would need any of these accessories to protect themselves against intruders or while

in public unless they are on a full blown warzone. These accessories give weapons and their

users the ability to mimic the tactical action of firearms used in the military and their access

should not be granted for the everyday person.

 High capacity magazines give gun users the ability to fire tens and (in some cases)

hundreds of rounds off in one sitting without having to reload. This is a deadly concoction if

somebody with ill values were to pair a weapon of any variety with one of these, including

handguns. This has not gone unnoticed by the United States government and some states have

already begun to take action against these deadly weapon accessories. According to Louis

Klarevas, Andrew Conner, and David Hemenway; nine states and Washington DC already

banned or placed restrictions on the ownership of LMC’s. Large capacity magazines, otherwise

known as LMCs, are by definition an ammo feeding device that has the ability to hold more than

ten rounds of ammunition. Furthermore, LMCs are restricted in these states for good reason,

mass shootings involving high capacity magazines have a 62% higher average death toll than

those preformed without them (Klarevas, Conner, Hemenway 1.) This is a huge stepping stone to

having more federal control of firearms and their accessories and has the potential to save lives.

Bump stocks fall into another category of deadly firearm accessories and should be

restricted federally across the United States. This gun accessory is generally found paired with

any type of semiautomatic firearm, including handguns and assault style rifles. According to

lawyers at the department of justice, bump stock are an accessory that allows the user to shoot

multiple rounds simultaneously from a weapon with only one pull of a trigger (Root 1.)

Automatic weapons currently are not legal in the United States however, a bump stock gives

users the ability to mimic this. Allowing devices such as this to fall in the wrong hands can be

detrimental, as the world saw after the Las Vegas shooting.

In 2017, during a country music concert, a deranged man killed over 50 innocent people

and injured hundreds more during the deadliest mass shooting in American history. One of the

major contributions to this massacre was in fact, a bump stock which allowed the shooting to fire
his weapon fully automatic. In response to this mass shooting, president Donald Trump vowed to

ban bump stocks, something that should have been done years before so that many innocent

people would not have lost their lives that day (Root 1.) Bump stocks give so much power to gun

owners and finally, federal laws are being passed to rid of this gun accessory and hopefully place

restrictions on many more like it. However, there are still numbers of unnecessary gun fitments

that could give gun owners a similar amount of power that can be equally as deadly if placed in

the wrong hands. The Trump administration’s bump stock ban is a small step in fixing the

problems of gun violence in America. The country needs to unite and make more gun accessories

illegal federally so there are not too many variations of laws between states and American lives

can be saved.

Federal control over weapons is a huge issue that Americans face with the current gun

violence in America. Whether it is illegal firearms, illegal firearm accessories, lack of/poorly

preformed background checks for weapons, or simply guns falling into the wrong hands; there

needs to be a more unified stance between states that would allow the federal government to

have control over the entire scope of weapons throughout the United States. The issue is not so

much allowing citizens to possess semi-automatic firearms, it is the lack of control the

government has over who is possessing them. Opposing viewpoints from the media, different

state governments, and major anti-/pro-gun organizations do not allow for citizens to make great

strides in the gun control issue. This is because these organizations push states to have polarized

opinions on gun control and a single solution cannot be made. Rather than just flat out banning

assault rifles there are other measures that need to be taken to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

America is so divided and polarized within the gun control debate there is a major lack of

consistency throughout the country. According to the New York Times writers, Hakim and
Mcintire, gun policies between states are too divided. Blue states enact stricter gun laws

however, on the other hand some states are making it legal for gun users to carry concealed

weapons on their person. (Hakim, Mcintire.) For example, in New York large capacity

magazines are illegal however, what is stopping somebody from driving to Pennsylvania to

purchase a large capacity magazine and driving back to New York? If more federal restriction

were implemented, there could be consistency seen across the nation and great strides on gun

control could be made.

To keep firearms out of the wrong hands tougher background checks need to be

mandated federally to ensure that any type of weapon falls into the wrong hands. The United

States simply does not have a strong system for background checks or psychological checks that

gun owners need to take before purchasing a weapon. Last year, out of twenty six million

background checks there were only one hundred thousand firearms sales that were blocked. In

other words, out the twenty six million firearm sales only .004% of those sales failed their

background checks. Even more alarming, a gun control group found over 1.2 million ads for

firearms that did not require a background check (Hakim, Mcintire.) These are extremely

alarming numbers because it shows how easily somebody with mental illness or a rough

background could purchase a firearm. This shows that the government is not taking

advantageous measures to prevent those unfitting of owning firearms to get them in their

possession.

Federal control over weapons is essential to the gun problem in America however,

completely banning assault rifles will not completely solve the issue. Most of the gun violence

discussions today revolve around mass shooting but the vast majority of gun violence cases

spawn from other forms of violence such as gang violence, robbery, domestic abuse, etc. In most
cases of criminal activity with a firearm, handguns are the culprit not assault rifles. There are

people dying too frequently in struggling neighborhood from gang violence using hand guns.

Obviously these incidents of mass shooting are a major problem in the gun violence issue in

America but this is just half of the problem. Furthermore, if assault rifles were banned mass

shooting could still be carried out using other types of weapons including handguns which can be

just as deadly as assault rifles.

Banning assault rifles assault rifles will not fix the gun problem in America because most

gun violence is performed with other types of firearms. The unfortunate increase in mass

shooting have led to conversations mainly revolving around assault rifles since this class of

weapons is mainly what is used for these types of heinous crimes. However, to most people

surprise gun violence spawning from assault style rifles is only the tip of the ice berg. According

to James Jacobs is his article, Why Ban Assault Weapons, assault rifles generally are not the gun

of choice for most criminals. The main gun used in criminal activities and violence are

handguns, in fact 90% of crimes committed with guns are with handguns and not assault rifles

(Jacobs.) If assault weapons were banned what is stopping the same criminals from using other

types of semi-automatic weapons which are just as deadly? The argument to ban all assault rifles

is not valid when there are other substitutions for violence. Suggesting to ban all semi-automatic

weapons is more of a valid argument however, the problem with this is the accessibility

criminals have to purchase illegal weapons.

Completely banning all assault rifles or semi-automatic weapons is an opinion that is

floating around the gun control debate. To the naked eye, this seems like a cure-all to gun

violence in America however, this is not the best solution. Illegal weapons are a lot more

accessible to Americans than most people think. According to Targeting Guns: Firearms and
Their Control, Greg Lee Carter describes that banning firearms won’t keep weapons out of the

hands of dangerous criminals due to the fact that there are other means of purchasing these

weapons than an actual retailer. In fact, most criminals acquire their guns in different ways than

the usual legal route because they will not pass background checks that are currently used. Most

will go through friends, relatives, or even black market dealers. If guns were to be completely

banned this would not be an effective measure on gun violence since there are already enough

illegal weapons out there to supply all people who commit crimes in an average year (Carter.)

The accessibility of firearms is still there whether they are legal or not, purchasing guns illegally

from the black market, the internet, or on the streets is still a significant way to access firearms.

Fig. 1. This chart shows the percentage of criminals using firearms that were stolen or a legal

owner of the firearm (Ingraham 1.)

The vast majority of firearms used in crimes are not legal because the one committing the

crimes do not have access to legal firearms. The data shows this is not always the case however,

over 79% of the gun violence perpetrators were using firearms that did not belong to them

whether they are stolen or purchased illegally from the black market. There are some exceptions
but most of the time crimes are committed with illegal firearms Unless there is some way to guns

out of the hands of all bad guys, a federal ban on all guns will not solve the issue at hand since

there are too many ways to access illegal firearms.

If only assault weapons were to be banned gun violence would still be prominent in the

United States because perpetrators still have access to other semi-automatic weapons. The

opinions circulating around assault rifles is that they are death machines and the gun of choice

for all types of violence, gun related crime. However, James Jacobs denotes this when he

expresses how surprised he is that gun control campaigns push to ban the vaguely described

“assault weapons.” This is because they are a functionally equivalent weapon to other forms of

semi-automatic weapons such as handguns however, they are built to resemble actual military

assault weapons, not to function like them (Jacobs.) The buzz around these weapons is

understandable because somebody seeing an AR-15 and not knowing much about firearms will

certainly think this is a weapon used in warfare, however, this is not the case. The legal assault

rifles accessible to gun owners in America is not the same type of weapon used by the military,

the M16 and M4 (Smith 2.) The appearance does look the similar but the functionality differs

from one another. In fact, the AR-15 uses a much lower caliber bullet than the “less talked

about” semi-automatic hunting rifles used to take down large game. Because a gun appears to be

an assault rifle does not mean it has the same capability as the assault weapons used in actual

warfare. Another great example of this is the .22 long rifle, this weapons may look very similar

to a M4 or M16 used by the United States Military however, and it fires an extremely small .22

caliber round which is uses for hunting small game such as birds and squirrels. Looks can be

deceiving and that is why there is so much buzz around assault rifles in America today.
Furthermore, menacing looks is not a reason to ban these weapons when there are so many other

proactive steps to be made.

Although this research shows great evidence for other options to diminish gun violence

rather than just banning assault rifles, there is still some promising rebuttals that need to be

addressed. Many opinions have been voiced saying that stricter gun control and banning

accessories will not be enough to stop gun violence in America and that all assault weapons and

sometimes all semi-automatic weapons need to be banned. These are tough opinions to refute

however, they need to be brought up when discussing the topic of gun violence. In the mid

1990’s to the mid 2000’s the US actually banned the sale of assault weapons that seemed to

make some sort of impact towards slowing gun violence. Furthermore, Australia’s strict gun ban

is another reference many anti-gun activists reference when speaking on the topic. These

opinions are heard and do have some truth to them which is why they need to be brought up.

While Clinton was in office, the United States banned assault weapons and LMC’s from

1994 through 2004. (Clinton 1.) This ban was a result of the increase in mass shooting utilizing

assault rifles and did do some good however, it did not take any guns off the streets. The Dayton

and El Paso shooting both took place in the same weekend, both used assault rifles, and both left

devastating results. According to Reinstate the Assault-Weapons Ban Now, Bill Clinton talks

about how the Dayton shooting the perpetrator was able to fire off 41 bullets in a time span of

around 30 seconds. In these 30 seconds the killer was able to kill 9 innocent people and injure

another 14 which is equivalent to approximately one victim per second if he hits all of his shots

(Clinton 1.) The thought of a weapon being able to do this much damage is alarming and

definitely shows that change needs to be made. Clinton states that throughout the assault weapon

ban mass shooting in fact, decreased all while hunting licenses increased. This shows that there
was an impact made on the banning of assault weapons that is not a crazy coincidence. Gun

violence did not stop during this time and mass shootings still can be carried out using different

types of weapons. However, according to The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban

on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons

for Policy Evaluation Koper and Roth’s data show that the 1994 assault weapons and LMC ban

showed a 10% decrease in gun homicides from 1994 to 1995. This could be a coincidence but

the data shows compelling evidence to the other side of the debate.

Another interesting counter argument used is the 1996 Australian gun law reform which

took place in 1996 to halt mass shootings. The gun reform removed some 729,000 guns from

licensed gun owners in Australia in a NFA buyback. Furthermore, the buyback included rapid

fire semi-automatic firearms and pump shotguns that were used by many mass shooting

perpetrators. Furthermore, mass shooting occurred at a rate of .75 per year (or 3 every 4 years)

and the reform seems to have statistically stopped at least 16 mass shootings (Chapman, Alpers

1.) This is a much different case than the American assault rifle ban because many more

weapons were taken off the streets. The data shows that mass shootings were in fact averted

showing that possibly a gun reform as strict as this could make great strides in lowering gun

violence in America. However, this does not sole the issue of illegal weapons in the US. As

mentioned before, even if all legal guns were taken off the streets there are enough stolen guns to

fuel all of the crimes committed in America (Carter 1.) Yes, this could help lower the amount of

deaths but this is not a fix to the solution. There will always be a way for criminals to do carry

out crime whether or not these types of weapons are legal or not. However, a decrease in mass

shootings definitely is evident.

 After the mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio my roommates and I immediately thought of our

other friends we left home in Dayton. Fear pulsed though our veins simultaneously as we

contacted everybody we knew, one by one. Luckily, our peers made the lifesaving decision to

stick around the University of Dayton bar scene did not dwell into the dangerous streets of the

Oregon District. Thinking back, we realized how lucky we all were that we did not stay home

that weekend. It could have been our faces seen by our families on the news and that is when we

realized there is in fact, a gun violence issue in the United States. Certain measures could have

been taken to stop this ruthless killing that were previously discussed in this report. The killer

had a track record of mental health issues, he should never have had access to these weapons.

Furthermore, the shooter used high capacity magazines on his weapons and could have done

much more damage if the heroic police officers did not stop him before he entered a much more

crowded bar. If tighter gun control was implemented before this shooting there would be 9

families that were not missing their loved ones. No matter what somebody’s political views are,

to decrease the gun deaths in America, something needs to be done and government policy must

be changed. Do research and see what measures you can take to make a change in your

community, strive for greatness and vote for the Politian with the best policy.
 Work Cited

Carter, Gregg Lee. "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control." Social Forces, vol. 77, no. 3, 1999,
p. 1224+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-
com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/A54576546/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=78167d51.
Accessed 5 July 2020.

Chapman, Simon, and Philip Alpers. "AUSTRALIA'S 1996 GUN LAW REFORMS HALTED
MASS SHOOTINGS FOR 22 YEARS: A RESPONSE TO CRITICISM FROM GARY
KLECK." Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, vol. 10, no. 1, 2018, p. 94+. Gale
In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-
com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/A550426857/OVIC?
u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=eb9038e3. Accessed 5 July 2020.

Clinton, Bill. “Reinstate the Assault-Weapons Ban Now.” TIME Magazine, vol. 194, no. 6, Aug.
2019, pp. 28–29. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=137955933&site=ehost-live.

Hakim, Danny, and Mike Mcintire. "Long, Faltering Search For Federal Legislation On Background
Checks." New York Times, 7 Aug. 2019, p. A17(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
https://link-gale-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/A595759002/OVIC?
u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=c68a20a3. Accessed 5 July 2020.

Ingraham, C. (2016, July 27). New evidence confirms what gun rights advocates have said for a long
time about crime. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-
rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/

Jacobs, James B. “Why Ban ‘Assault Weapons’?” Cardozo Law Review, vol. 37, no. 2, Dec. 2015, pp.
681–712. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=111947412&site=ehost-live.

Klarevas, Louis, et al. “The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass
Shootings, 1990–2017.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 109, no. 12, Dec. 2019, pp.
1754–1761. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305311.

Koper, Christopher S., and Jeffrey A. Roth. “The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on
Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for
Policy Evaluation.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 17, no. 1, Mar. 2001, p.
33. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1023/A:1007522431219.
Lopez, G. (2018, March 24). America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and
charts. Vox, 1-24. doi:https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/America
%E2%80%99s-unique-gun-violence-problem-explained-in-17-maps-and-charts-Vox.pdf

Root, Damon. “Trump’s Bump Stock Ban Is under Fire from His Own Judicial Appointees.” Reason,
vol. 52, no. 3, July 2020, p. 8. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=143239351&site=ehost-live.

Smith, Mark W. “‘Assault Weapon’ Bans: Unconstitutional Laws for a Made-Up Category of
Firearms.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 43, no. 2, Spring 2020, pp. 357–
373. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=143634831&site=ehost-live.