In 2012, a gunman opened fire indiscriminately targeting a public entertainment spot. As a result, twelve people died (Bjeloper, 2013). In the same year, a young man, who was later reported to be psychologically challenged, attacked a Connecticut elementary school killing 20 students, and 6 adults (Bjeloper, 2013). These events clearly show that a huge gap in the present American gun laws exists. If the regulations were resilient enough, the prevalence and nature of gun offences as profiled above would never exist. Based on this context, it is worthwhile to indicate that the adopted gun control measures in America are ineffective and that other alternatives to the law are needed.
One of the most prominent gun laws is the Brady policy. The legislation seeks to control the possession and use of guns by defining the persons whose application for firearms should be declined. The named persons include mentally ill, felons, and juveniles.
However, it was revealed that the man, who indiscriminately opened fire against an elementary school leading to fatalities in 2012, was of unsound mind (Bjeloper, 2013). In the wake of this, many people showed their discontent with the law stating that they could not understand how the man’s application was approved despite the clear provisions of the law. To some extent, it reveals gaps in the policy’s mechanisms and the incompetency of the administrators.
It has also been claimed that the focus of the present US gun control policy is limited to preventing ineligible persons from being permitted to own and use firearms. For every successful application, advice on the use, handling, and storing of a firearm should be provided. However, the US gun control policy does not provide for this. Therefore, although firearms might be held by authorized persons, gun-crimes will still take place. As it has been experienced for several decades, Americans will continue using guns in unwarranted situations, but if gun applicants were advised on when, and how to use firearms, the situation might be prevented.
In an article that appeared on ‘The Economist,” a justifiable and innovative solution to the issue was proposed (Gun laws, 2014). As such, it was suggested that safety measures into firearms themselves should be build. A good account of such a measure is incorporating technology in the production of guns (Gun laws, 2014). A gun could be produced such that its usage is limited to the registered user.
When a person is applying for a gun license, his or her details, such as fingerprints, could be fed into an inbuilt microcomputer. If the firearm falls into other hands, other than the authorized owner, the microcomputer would detect and lock it rendering the gun unusable. Inferring from the article, such an approach to gun control does not only preserve gun rights, but also ensures that unauthorized use of firearms does not occur.
In conclusion, it is evident that the current gun control measures and laws are not sufficient in preventing gun-related issues such as indiscriminate shootings. As it has been established with the case of the Brady law, while the provisions are adequate, the outcomes are highly questionable. Despite the Brady law clearly stating that gun applications for certain class of persons should be declined, these very people are indeed possessing and using firearms. Based on such facts, more innovative methods are needed. In this paper, the production and use of technology-based guns have been recommended.
Bjeloper, J. P. (2013). Public mass shootings in the United States: selected implications for federal public health and safety policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Web.
Gun laws: Not so smart. (2014). Web.