Perspectives on Gun Violence
Gun violence claims about 40,000 lives each year in the United States due to suicide,
homicide, and mass shootings. The persistent nature of gun violence not only impacts current
individual lives, but also casts a long shadow over future generations, creating a cycle of trauma
and fear. For many years, this has been an ongoing topic that has caused controversial opinions
from politicians, activists, and the public all showing, a side advocating for stricter gun laws to
benefit public safety and the other advocating for gun rights to increase protection. As gun
violence continues to affect the safety of Americans, they find themselves in a complex
predicament where their safety and constitutional rights are at stake. This essay will explore
these contrasting perspectives through 3 key ideas for each side in order to address gun violence.
Americans fear for their lives when it comes to guns. One primary reason for
implementing stricter gun laws is because gun violence poses a threat to public safety making
stricter gun laws a necessity. Numerous studies have demonstrated owning a gun correlates with
gun violence. According to a report by CDC, every day there are “about 132 people dying from
a firearm-related injury each day. More than half of firearm-related deaths were suicides and
more than four out of every 10 were firearm homicides” This statistic highlights various natures
of gun violence and the urgent need for gun control measures. It goes in depth on the statistic of
suicide rates as well. Research indicates that owning a gun increases the risk of suicide rather
than not owning one. Furthermore, the impact of gun violence, not only affects the victim but
their family and communities. The trauma associated with gun violence can lead to long lasting
psychological effects which increases the risk of feeling unsafe.
However, The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a cornerstone of
having gun rights, enshrining the ability of individuals to keep and bear arms. This amendment
argues that it is a fundamental aspect of democracy in America, it is critical for self-defense.
Being able to be a responsible gun owner enables citizens to protect themselves and their family
from any threat, whether from criminals, or ongoing war. An academic source says a quote
straight from the amendment and emphasizes the operative clause of the second amendment.
“‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ is a ‘guarantee [of] the
individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’” (Regent University Law
Review). This source shows the relevance that bearing arms is a safeguard against tyranny, being
able to stand up against oppression. Ultimately, the second amendment advocates for gun rights
as an essential protection for personal freedoms against any threat.
Mental health plays a key role in gun violence as well. As individuals who have access to
a gun are more likely to commit acts of violence such as suicide and homicide. “It is estimated
that about 1 in 5 mass shooters has a serious mental illness (SMI) at the time of the shooting”
(Psychiatric Times). Serious mental illness (SMI) is defined as a mental, behavioral, or
emotional disorder resulting in serious functional impairment, which substantially interferes with
or limits one or more major life activities and according to the National Institute of Mental
Health, approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. live with a mental illness, many do not get the
treatment that is needed causing for impulsive actions to be done especially when firearms are
accessible. Individuals with untreated mental health are known to use guns to self-harm since it
is easy access. Therefore, enforcing stricter gun laws and mental health awareness may prevent
suicide and homicide rates.
On the other hand, Being able to bear firearms is essential to the right for self-defense.
Many uphold that asserting a firearm is crucial for personal safety and protection. People who
support gun rights argue that we live in a world where anything threat can arise unexpectedly.
From criminal break ins, intruders on private property, or other dangerous situations. Having a
gun allows individuals to being able to defend themselves as well as their loved ones. The
possibility of law enforcement not being immediately available is very strong. Being able to
defend yourself before help can arrive is crucial. For instance an academic journal states
“victims surely possess a right to use lethal force against aggressors who threaten their safety.
Take Samuel Wheeler, who defends this right by appealing to a case in which a woman shoots
her abductor to escape being raped.” (Philosophical Forum) This is an example of being able to
defend yourself from a perpetrator. Having the ability to bear arms can make individuals feel
more secure and adapt a sense of independence and resilience. While it is important that owners
should be mentally and physically fit for ownership of firearms, the self-defense aspect of gun
rights highlights that people should have the ability to defend themselves in unpredictable world
and taking it away can be detrimental.
The last reason for stricter gun laws is the success of other countries that have reduced
gun violence by implementing stricter gun laws such as Australia. The Port Arthur massacre in
1996 which killed 35 people and wounded 23 caused Australia to enact gun control measures in
order for something like that to be less likely to occur again. This resulted in the destruction of
about “700,000 firearms, reducing the amount of gun-owning households” (CBS News). As a
result, they have not experienced a mass shooting like Port Arthur since and indicate a “decrease
in gun homicides by 60%” (CBS News) which highlights the effectiveness their measures had.
The United States has the potential to reduce gun violence and enhance public safety if they
adopted similar policies such as the gun control measures that Australia took. This will lead to
safer communities and foster a sense of security. As debates surrounding gun control continue,
it’s important to learn from the experiences of countries like Australia, which have successfully
implemented gun control and prioritized public safety over firearms.
Nonetheless, Crime deterrence is a big factor for gun rights. Armed citizens can act as a
significant deterrent to criminal activity, by being able to use fear towards any potential offenders
can cause them to think twice before targeting individuals or homes where they suspect residents
are armed. This perspective is supported by studies suggesting that areas with higher rates of gun
ownership often experience lower rates of violent crime. When law-abiding citizens have the
right to carry firearms, it creates an environment where criminals are less likely to engage in
unlawful behavior, knowing that their potential victims may be capable of defending themselves.
Additionally, the presence of firearms in a community is seen as a form of empowerment,
providing individuals with the means to protect themselves and their property. For reference, in a
News article it reports the move of Indian Americans living in Roswell, a suburb in northern
Atlanta, Georgia to take up self-defense and gun training to protect themselves in the surge of
violent home invasions and robberies. (India – West) . Another news article from the Washington
Post says that a gun bill in D.C would allow district gun owners to keep firearms in their homes,
for “immediate self-defense” (Washington Post). This emphasizes that responsible gun
ownership, combined with proper training and education, not only enhances personal safety but
also contributes to overall community security. This deterrent effect is central to the belief that
the right to bear arms is able to reduce crime and enhance public safety.
In conclusion, gun violence remains in America as a complex issue that affects families,
communities, and individuals across the United States. There are a range of perspectives from
those advocating for stricter gun laws to enhance public safety, to those defending individual
rights and self-defense. While each view point brings valid points, the need for a balanced
approach is required that is able to respect personal freedoms as well as being able to prioritize
the safety of all citizens. The ultimate solution is to find a middle ground that can shape a safer
future where everyone is able to exist peacefully.
Works Cited
Chetan Cetty. “Self‐Defense, Claim‐Rights, and Guns.” The Philosophical Forum, 6
Nov. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/phil.12351.
Stowell, Ethan T. “Top Gun: The Second Amendment, Self-Defense, and Private
Property Exclusion.” Regent University Law Review, vol. 26, no. 2, July 2013, pp. 521–55.
EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgs&AN=95806346&site=ehost-live.
“Indian Americans Take Up Guns in Wake of Robberies.” India — West, vol. 37, no. 10,
27 Jan. 2012, p. A23. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=71105255&site=ehost-live.
Nikita Stewart. “Gun Bill Provides for Self-Defense.” Washington Post, The.EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=WPT410759408008&site=ehost-li
ve. Accessed 30 Oct. 2024.
O’Brien E. Mental Illness and Gun Violence Changing the Narrative. Psychiatric Times.
2023;40(4):1-10. Accessed October 30, 2024.
https://search-ebscohost-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&
AN=162983105&site=ehost-live
Aviv, Sari. “What Can Australia’s Reaction to a Mass Shooting Teach Us about Guns and Gun
Control?” Www.cbsnews.com, 13 Mar. 2016,
www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about
-guns-and-gun-control/.
CDC. “Fast Facts: Firearm Injury and Death.” Firearm Injury and Death Prevention, 17 Apr.
2024, www.cdc.gov/firearm-violence/data-research/facts-stats/index.html.
Adriel Sherlin 7
National Institute of Mental Health. “Mental Illness.” National Institute of Mental Health, Sept.
2024, www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.
