The Possible Solutions

America was founded on principles of autonomy for each of its citizens. One freedom
protected by the Constitution and valued by many Americans is the right to bear arms. As a result
of this right, many Americans own firearms for personal protection or recreation and, in recent
years, gun violence has increased dramatically. According to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health, in 2022, an average of one death occurred every eleven minutes from
firearm violence with a total of 48,117 people dying in the year (Hopkins, 2023). The Statistics
Research Department reports that there have been more mass shootings in the United States than
in any other country, and these crimes are occurring in schools, grocery stores, churches, and
movie theaters (Department, 2024). While stricter gun restrictions seem to be a logical solution
to combat the epidemic, research from the National Alliance on Mental Health indicates that may
not be fully the case (NAMI, 2020). The United States is in the middle of a social epidemic of
gun violence; however, there are steps that can be taken to address this epidemic.
One strong solution to help end this epidemic was provided by Jens Ludwig proposed
that gun violence would decrease dramatically if a mandatory waiting period for handgun
purchases was enacted (Ludwig, 2017). Ludwig believed the more robust waiting period would
help reduce homicide and other gun related crimes significantly (Ludwig, 2017). The implication
of Ludwig’s recommendation is that much gun violence is committed by those acting in the heat
of the moment rather than from those who have developed a purposeful plan of action to cause
harm. Depriving the masses from being able to quickly access a weapon would reduce those from
committing a violent act because of a temporary desire to cause harm as the mandatory waiting
period would serve as a forcing function to allow people time to cool down and move past a
temporary, transitory desire to cause harm. According to Ludwig, “only sixteen states have this
type of waiting period in place and in his data review of those states” (Ludwig, 2017). Ludwig
noted the differences in homicide rates between states that did versus did not change waiting
periods was quite significant, by over 17% (Ludwig, 2017). By focusing on the states who
enacted a mandatory waiting period for gun purchases, Luca et al estimated that the adoption of a
mandatory waiting periods for rifles and handguns can significantly drop the crime rate by nearly
17% and this decrease would reduce spending on prisons and police to the tune of tens of billions
of dollars (Ludwig, 2017). Luca insists in his new papers this can reduce crime by 17%. Ludwig
acknowledged that the challenge to social scientific studies of the effects of such state-initiated
policies is the concern that the adoption of new gun laws may be consequence, not just cause, of
local-area trends in gun violence, so that unmeasured factors that affect crime trends could lead to
biased estimates for the effects of these laws” (Ludwig, J).
Evidence for Ludwigs claim was further solidified in a separate article by authors Morral
and Smart, during their evaluation of The Brady Act, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act, which went into effect in 1994 (Morral & Smart 2018). Morral and Smart point
out that “this act enforced a new law for a waiting period for firearm purchases from licensed
dealers in all states which had no current requirements for background checks but ended in 1998
when the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) became available and required
for background checks for all firearm purchases” (Morral & Smart, 2018 p. 1). According to
Morral and Smart, when they analyzed the data and determined the updated NICS requirement
increased the wait time which data showed strong evidence for a moderate improvement in
violent crime and suicide (Morral & Smart, 2018, p. 1). An increased waiting time can provide
law enforcement with possible chances to investigate upon purchases by a lawful firearm
purchaser for a prohibited buyer which is commonly known as a “straw purchase” (Morral &
Smart, 2018). Straw purchases have been a problem in the United States and have contributed to
the epidemic of gun violence by allowing a person not authorized to own a firearm to obtain one
through dishonest means. Morral and Smart point out that during these waiting periods, “it is
easier to intercept a weapon prior to delivery” (Morral & Smart, 2018). These laws would
improve the ability to restrain straw purchases from in-state retailers. The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has detailed access to firearm trace data which could be
of use to researchers to prove their theories, however the Tiahrt Amendment is a federal law
preventing the ATF from maintaining a searchable database and furthermore prevents the
disclosure of any trace data pertaining to firearms to anyone that is not being used by law
enforcement in a legitimate investigation thus limited researches access to this type of
comprehensive data (Dooley, E 2017 p. 1).
Morral and Smart explain that another strategy to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is
to provide law enforcement with additional time to complete a more thorough background check
on those individuals who may require a more individualized review required additional time
beyond the standard three-day window currently dictated by federal law (Morral & Smart, 2018).
When there are delays in the NICS background checks, no law requires additional time to be
allocated to conduct a more thorough check. There are many instances when a complete
background check will take longer than the allocated time of three-days. “Often, these delays
result from missing data in the NICS databases that must be manually tracked down by
investigators” which can take significantly longer than three days to obtain (Morral & Smart,
2018). It is unclear if extending the time to complete background checks could reduce mass
shootings which have polarized our Nation, however data from Morral and Smart indicate a
longer waiting period would significantly decrease other types of firearm violence (Morral and
Smart 2018). There are reports of the “0.6 percent in which shooters acquired a firearm used in
an assault because the background check could not be complete within the three-day period”
(Morral & Smart, 2018).
The implementation of stronger waiting period requirements is a plausible and relatively
cost-effect measure aimed at combatting the epidemic of gun violence in the United States.
Research from Morral and Smart indicate waiting periods deter crime that is considered
transitory in nature preventing incidents that are spur of the moment and decreasing the number
of violent crimes committed (Moral & Smart 2018) although implementing stricter waiting
period requirements will always be met with opposition from the personnel who see any
restrictions as infringement upon their Constitutional right to bear arms thus making these
changes a long way from reality. Our Nation must combat this problem to ensure the epidemic
can be halted.

 

References

Department, S. R. (2024, July 3). Topic: Mass shootings in the United States.
https://www.statista.com/topics/10843/mass-shootings-in-the-unitedstates/#editorsPicks
Dooley, E. (2017, October 6). Here’s why the federal government can’t study gun violence. ABC
News; ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun
violence/story?id=50300379
Hopkins, J. (2023, July). Firearm violence in the United States. Center for Gun Violence
Solutions. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun
violencesolutions/researchreports/firearm-violence-in-the-united-states
Ludwig, J. (2017). Reducing gun violence in America. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 114(46), 12097–12099.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26486531
Morral, A. R., & Smart, R. (2018). The effects of waiting periods | Rand. The Effects of Waiting
Periods. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods.html
NAMI. (2020). The Truth About Mental Health and Gun Violence. NAMI California.
https://namica.org/advocacy/criminal-justice-advocacy/the-truth-about-mental
healthandgun-violence/