Topic

Hayden Bertotti

Professor Hammett

English 1302

Essay 1 Argument Proposal

11 March 2023

1,077 Words

Curing America’s Gun Violence Epidemic

              An empty seat at the dining room table, the loss of a friend, peer, mother, father, son, or daughter. This is the reality that many Americans are forced to experience on a daily basis due to the gun violence epidemic in the United States. There have been over 100 school shootings in the US since 2018 and over 45,000 people died from firearm-related injuries in 2020 alone. (Noah; Hollo et al.). The fatal consequences of gun violence in the United States make it clear that something must be done to solve the problem, but there is much debate over the best way to address such a complex issue. The many factors contributing to the gun violence epidemic make a broad solution at both the state and federal levels including Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) and expanded federal background checks the best way to solve the problem.

             One element which must be included in a broad gun violence solution for the United States is Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) because they have proven effective, are practical for the US, and are supported by experts. ERPOs are court orders that temporarily prohibit a person deemed at high risk of committing violence from possessing firearms (Pear et al.). These orders can generally be petitioned for by family, law enforcement, and physicians (Hollo et al.; Pear et al.). Multiple studies have found that ERPOs are effective at preventing various forms of gun violence including suicides and mass shootings. The California Gun Violence Restraining Order law which implements ERPOs on the state level was used in 21 cases from 2016-2021 for people threatening to commit mass shootings and none of these events were carried out (Pear et al.). According to Pear et al., similar laws in Indiana and Connecticut also “appear to be effective at preventing firearm suicide”. Not only are these laws effective, but they are also practical. While severe division exists over almost any form of gun legislation in the US these laws can be passed at the state level allowing states like California and Indiana where gun legislation is more widely accepted to implement these policies (Pear et al.). Many experts on gun violence policy and mental health support ERPOs as a valid way to protect human life. One study by researchers Hollo, Vanderstoep, and Granarolo interviewed 13 Maryland-based physicians including both psychiatrists and emergency medical specialists. All of the research participants agreed that ERPOs should be a tool to help medical experts protect human life. Furthermore, a California study that included 27 informants ranging from judges to law enforcement to district attorneys also view these orders as an important way to prevent acts of gun violence (Pear et al.). Most of the skepticism from experts surrounding ERPOs stems from the lack of education regarding their use. This point was brought up by both physicians and law enforcement in the previously mentioned studies who worried that many of their colleagues would not know enough about the laws to make them effective (Pear et al.; Hollo et al.). While a lack of understanding about ERPOs from those who are meant to petition for them is a significant problem for their effective implementation it is not an inherent flaw of ERPOs. States can easily address this problem by incorporating funding for professional education programs into ERPO legislation. While education must be implemented alongside ERPOs to make them effective their proven effectiveness at preventing acts of gun violence, realistic possibility of implementation, and support from experts across multiple fields make them a key part of a multifaceted gun violence solution for the United States.

            While ERPOs would have to be implemented at the state level, a federal element to this solution could come in the form of expanded background checks for firearm purchases or licensing. According to UC Berkeley law professor and former assistant attorney general John Yoo “expanding background checks remains popular with the public, with about 90 percent, including eight in ten Republicans, in support” (Yoo). Background checks are not only popular, but they are also effective. A study conducted in Connecticut found that in the first ten years after adopting a statewide handgun permit to purchase law (PTP), where prospective gun buyers would have to pass a background check before being issued a 5-year purchasing license, firearm homicide rates dropped by 40% (Rudolph et al.). Another study in Missouri backs up these findings, showing that after the 2010 repeal of its similar PTP law firearm homicide rate increased by 23% (Webster et al.). Clearly, these laws have proven effective at the state level in preventing firearm-related deaths and the public shows support for national legislation, but some conservative organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) still criticize these policies as unconstitutional due to the second amendment’s right to bear arms (Yoo). Simply reading the constitution and looking at court precedent shows that this is not the case. Congress has the power to regulate commerce under Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution which includes gun purchasing requirements (Yoo). In addition to this, limited background checks under the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act have not been struck down by any US court (Yoo). Despite cries of unconstitutionality from conservative groups, the facts show that expanded federal background checks are distinctly within Congress’s power to enforce. This along with significant public support and the fact that multiple studies in vastly different states across the nation have proven this policy to be effective make expanded background checks an important federal contribution to a broad solution to the US gun violence epidemic.

            The staggering statistics of gun violence in the United States make it clear that something must be done to address it. Under the federal system of the United States legislative action is needed at both the federal and state level in order to solve this problem. With the significant division that exists over gun legislation nationally, federal lawmakers should focus their attention on expanding background checks, a policy that is both popular nationwide and within the federal authority. At the state level, governments should implement Extreme Risk Protection Orders along with education programs aimed at teaching law enforcement and physicians how to apply these laws. The application of both of these policies which have proven effective in several studies will help to reduce the violent firearm epidemic in the US and ensure that no one has to worry about the safety of their friends or family due to gun violence.