Kleck's Argument For Gun Control

way that guns are something instilled in kids from a young age and that weapons are so easily accessible, with a particular example being that you can pick up ammunition in a barbers. Post Collumbine, there were policy calls for more gun controls. However, Kleck (2009) argues that almost always, the guns used are already in the household or are stolen, the perpetrators often use multiple weapons rather than those with high capicity magazines as the killer will have enough time to use semi automatic weapons. As a result, he argues that the proposed restictions on gun purchase, such as closing the gunshop loophole, child access prevention and a ban on assult weapons and high capacity weapons would not help to prevent such incidents or the accociated

deths. As a result, school shootings are the hardest acts of violence to prevent.
The second case study is that of Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conniticut, which occurred on 14th December 2012, some 13 years after Collumbine. In less than 12 minuites, Adam Lanza used his mothers semi-automatic assult rifle (which he had already killed her with) to kill 20 students and six staff, before turning the gun on himself. It is said that Lanza, who struggled with a developmental disorder, had enough ammo to inflict significantly more deaths if it wasent for the fast police response (Shultz, et al., 2013) (Flegenheimer & Somaiya, 2012). Once again this shooting became an event that spareked up the gun control debate which will be looked at in more detail in the following section.
In summary, it is evident that in practice the theory and charcteristics of school shooters are demonstrated. From this it is possible to draw the conclusion that the availbility of guns, facilitated by the right to bear arms has a significant impact on the prevelance of school shootings. Warnick (2015) makes an intersting point to bear in mind when looking at the following debate around gun control, he states that the harder we try to make schools safe, the less safe they actully become. This oppressive structural violence, may infact provide a breeding ground for would-be school shooters.
Gun Control
Gun/Weapon regulation and control has always been present in American law since early colonial settlements. Such law has always centrally revolved around arming citizens for deffence whilst preventing the ‘dangerous’ from possessing weapons, something that is still very much seen today. However, the severity and target of said laws have shifted substantially over time. To put the debate into context, it would seem that before WWII, Americans were indiffrent to gun ownership. However, post WWII and following a sharp rise in violent crime in the late 60’s gun ownership has become a hot topic, with indiffrence being replaced instead by two polar veiwpoints on gun ownership and control (Bellesiles, 2001).
Moving into the present day, it is now said by Lund & Winkler (2015) that civilians no longer keep weapons in case of defending the nation through melitia duty, but rather for personal defense, hunting and other forms of recreation. Federal law already prevents certain demographic from owning firearms, theese include; convicted felons, the mentally ill, drug addicts and illegal imigrants amongst others, theese details are held on a F.B.I database which licenced gun dealers must check before compleing a sale. However, gun control advocates are pressing for ever stricter controls to be imposed nation-wide.
“Most gun controls exist at the state level, with New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Illinois and Massachusetts being the most restrictive. Some states have more stringent background check systems than the federal one, for example, and some require checks before private sales like those at gun shows. Some states require a license or permit to own a gun, but most do not.” (Perez-Pena, 2015)
As demonstrated, state to state laws can vary enormously, having a drastic effect on gun availability and control. However, despite being one of the most controversial issues in America today, there are two areas that the majority agree on. One of these being universal background checks and the other being keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill (Ibid).
Current debates around the Second Amendment now revolve around the entitlement and protection of the opportunity for private firearm ownership for American Citizens. And the associated types of weaponry, ammunition, storage and purchase (Lund & Winkler, 2105).
There are several pivotal points to bear in mind before exploring at the opposing arguments of the debate, the first raised by Perez-Pena (2015) is that over the last 25 years, support for stricter gun control has steadily declined. Secondly, the Winkler (2015) article highlights the political force of the National Rifle Assosiation (NRA), whom are said to be far more politically active and engaged than gun control advocates. In addition, it is noted that the NRA spend around $40 million on presedential campaigns (Gostin, 2008). As a result, it is clear that presendential candidates and those already in elected office are reluctant to tackle gun regulation due to the fear of losing votes and potential office. The Economist (2015) article also states that since election into office, Obama’s presidency has had a direct influence on the 450% increace of American gun makers Smith & Wesson’s share price.
Looking at the argument for stricter gun control, Gostin (2008) argues that despite America being the nation that possesses the greatest number of privatley owned firearms in the world, it infact results in the public being less safe.

This point is substantiated by the fact that having a privatley owned firearm in a household, makes a family member five times more likley to be fatally shot than in a non-armed household. Perez-Pena (2015) articulates that each year around 30,000 preventable deaths are caused by firearms which accounts for 18% of injuryrelated deaths in America. It is also stated that the accociated medical bills cost the taxpayer $100billion a year. Prehaps the most intresting point raised concerns the so called ‘gun show loophole’, in which guns sold at shows or by small scale sellers do not require buyer background checks, in theory allowing the categorically banned demographic - discussed earlier - to purchase firearms. The article argues that if this loophole was closed and more stringent controls and checks were enforced, firearm deaths, injures and the associated cost could be significantly reduced. In essence the argument for stricter gun control laws centres around decreacing firearms deaths and

injury.
When looking at the argument against stricter gun conrol, the standpoint is of defense, espically relating to mass and school shootings. Lott, Jr (2015) states that allowing teachers and law abiding members of the public to carry firearms in public and specifically schools and other sensitive places would make it far easier to stop school/mass shootings, and may even help to deter them in the first place. Gun rights advocates very much align with the notion that the Second Amendment entitles citizens to defend themselves and their homes. Often citing in the argument District of Columbia V Heller, a landmark case that marked the first time in history that the Supreme Court ratified the ideal that the Second Amendment, in allowing a individual to possess and use firearms for personal defence including within the home (Gostin, 2008).
Led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), gun rights activists argue that when stricter gun controls are enforced, it is law abiding citizens who adhere to them, thus removing the ability of self defense or the defense of others in a mass shooter situation. An example given by Lott, Jr (2015) is that Twety-five years ago in Israel, mass shootings in public places were somewhat common, however, the uptake of concealed carry by civilians soon detered the terrorists as they realised that ordinary people were pulling guns on them. The Article also states that the only policy that has impacted mass shootings both in Israel and certain states in America is concealed carry. This paper does however question the vadility of this hard-to-quantify claim and the biased nature of the source.
In summary, the gun control debate primaraily focuses around; background checks for buyers, public carry, assult rifels and high apacity magazines. It is clear that the two sides of the gun contol debate have clear standpoints. Gun control advocates argue that stricter controls on the use and sale of firearms will lessen injuries, deaths, costs and the liklyhood of school shootings. Whereas Gun rights activists mobalised by, but not limited to, the NRA, argue that increacing gun control will not only breach the Second Amendment, but remove law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves and others from gun weilding criminals, be that in public or sesitive places such as schools.
From the evidence reviewed, it is difficult to make a catogoriacal decision on which side is coming out on top. Although sources such as Gostin (2008) will argue that the Sipreme Court is now in favour of upholding reasonable licncing laws, limiting certian firearm sale nationwide, there is still no national database of gun ownership. It is also reported that support for stricter gun control is dwindling, with an increacing number of Americans believing that having a gun in the house would make them safer, something promoed by some states in relaxing their gun laws (The Economist , 2015). At present it would seem that significant guncontrol statewide is unlikley in the near future. Currentley, it is very much up to state level governance to decide, with some such as Oregan and Conniticut enfocing stricter controls and others such as Arkansas and Georgia weakening them (Perez-Pena, 2015).
Conclusion
To conclude this paper the questions asked at the beginning will now be summarised. To begin, the debate surrounding weather school shootings can be defined as domestic terrorism. It was evident from the reading that school shootings very much match with the traits of domestic terrorism through forms of discrimination founding a hatred of the other. However, they often don’t have a selective target or a political motive. As a result, this paper cannot categorically place school shooting under the term domestic terrorism, instead it would suggest that further research is undertaken in the area.
Secondly and most importantly, this paper argues that combined, the American constitution, the right to bear arms and the mass availability of firearms in America undoubtedly contributes not