Abigail Ramirez B.S Criminal Justice University of North Texas

University of Texas at Arlington

The Rotten Roots of the United States of America: An Examination of Gun Violence

Introduction

On March 13^th, 2018, 7,000 shoes were placed on the Capital lawn. The shoes represented the 7,000 children killed by gun violence, sending the message that the government needs to improve gun policy instead of allowing children to continue to die (National Archives, 2018). This powerful imagery speaks to the broader issue of gun disorder in America. This policy paper is not to argue that gun control is needed to save the country or that what we need is the exact opposite. The purpose of this policy paper is to examine the current policies in place within the United States and what policy could look like. After discussing the research from both sides of the spectrum – recommendations to improve gun policies will be provided. One thing to keep in mind is that change is not possible when one is not open to viewing both sides of the discussion to compromise for a collective decision. 

Based upon research by Merry (2015), some information can be generalized and misinterpreted to construct policy narratives through social media. There is a side that sees a deep need for regulation of firearms and on the other end of the spectrum, there is information that persuades people that it is not the guns, it is people and their mental health that is the problem. It seems that there is no true middle ground for gun policies. It is difficult to classify winners or losers based on the findings from social media (Merry, 2015). 

Knowledge is key in understanding what steps can be taken moving forward to address gun disturbance in America. Incidents of gun violence are now commonplace in America. On the fourth of July 2022, there was a mass shooting at the patriotic parade in Chicago. The shooter killed six and wounded dozens on Independence Day (Chicago Sun Times, 2022). This is America’s land of the free. This is America, a place where there are over 38,000 documented firearm-related deaths (Thomas et al., 2021).

What do pro-gun activists and gun control activists have to argue? Throughout this paper, gun policy will be analyzed and discussed from pro-gun and anti-gun points of view. Both sides of the argument on gun policy within the United States and other countries will be analyzed. Following the arguments will be proposed recommendations and suggestions for future policy. Theoretical analysis and policy recommendations will also be proposed to aid gun disorder in the United States.

Right Perspective

On the right, the National Rifle Association’s gun-enthusiast perspective argues that gun control does not work and gun control only affects law-abiding citizens (NRA-ILA, 2021). This view is based off of the results provided on the website for the NRA. This is not to say that their results are skewed, but the research was conducted for them through RAND Corporation. According to the NRA (2021) “in 2018, a study was released that examined the effect of comprehensive background checks on the state. The study examined nearly two decades (1981-2000) of data and found that background checks had no effect on homicide rates in California” (para.17). The research for the previous study was conducted by Castillo-Carniglia which resulted in null findings.  Castillo-Carniglia (2019) concluded that incomplete and missing records for background checks, narrowly constructed restrictions, and incomplete compliance and enforcement may have been some of the reasons for the null findings.

According to the NRA (2021), gun control doesn’t work due to the following explanation given: “Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding people who go through legal avenues to obtain firearms. Criminals overwhelmingly obtain their firearms through illegal channels and will never be deterred by state and federal laws. That’s why background checks have virtually no impact on criminals” (para, 9). After reviewing the NRA’s site their stances were not completely backed by unbiased evidence since, they pay researchers within their advocacy group to conduct the research. Another line of reasoning from gun enthusiasts is derived from the deterrence theory (harsher sentences for criminals). Another solution would be a physical prevention paradigm, in other words if we have more armed guards or armed citizens in public places, then they will be heroic and save the day. The pro-gun rights perspective argues that the US needs more good guys with guns (Lemieux, 2014). Nonetheless, the previous reasons given are their argument against gun control.

The right’s perspective doesn’t stop there, in fact, another argument as to why gun control won’t work is that gun control violates citizens’ second amendment right to bear arms. Wilbur Edel wrote a book on this argument specifically, in which he dissects the second amendment. In order to understand the analysis, the original text of the amendment is provided here: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (U.S. Cost. Amendment ll). 

Left Perspective

According to Edel in his book Gun Control: Threat to Liberty or Defense Against Anarchy (1995), the debate surrounding the second amendment appears to have three major components. The major components being: (a) What is the definition or role of the militia, and how does that affect this amendment? (b) Does the amendment guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms for private purposes? (c) What constitutes an infringement upon this right?

Throughout the book, Edel gives a historical overview of the role of the militia in the gun control battle. The historical overview given concludes that our founding fathers’ tremendous distrust of standing armies and lack of resources is what led to the belief that the best way to protect our freedom from foreign and domestic enemies was to rely upon the citizens’ militia (Edel, 1995). At the time, it made sense to ensure this was written in the Constitution. The need for well-armed private citizens has thus been eliminated, due to now having the national guard that is well-armed. With this being said, answering the next question is relevant: Does the amendment guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms for private purposes? 

For this question, the analysis of Cruikshank v the Supreme Court may assist in understanding what the right protects. This case was brought to court because of the Colfax massacre in which William Cruikshank took part. The massacre took place after the Civil War and after the Enforcement Act. In 1870, the Enforcement Act prohibited the gathering of people to intimidate, threaten, and prevent others from exercising their given rights (US v Cruikshank). The Colfax massacre was a violent racist massacre that was executed by a group of white supremacists, killing over 150 black militia members (US v Cruikshank). Cruikshank was then indicted per the Enforcement Act’s language, which would say that the supremacists violated the act.

The Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to possess weapons with no governmental regulation or control, and the amendment applies only to the federal government, not to state or local bodies (US v Cruikshank). With that being said, the Second Amendment guarantees that only the federal government cannot pass any law infringing upon the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. State and local governments can enact legislation that limits or regulates access to firearms (Vile). 

Middle Ground with solutions

What if the people viewed the second amendment as an opportunity to ensure the correct implementation of owning a firearm? That may look different to everyone however people of higher authority who have owned weapons in the military or police department may have a different view in comparison to the average gun owner in America. If the Second Amendment was rewritten society itself would look different, and people’s opinions about firearms could shift. 

Many questions can be crafted under a gun policy or the lack thereof. The underlining factors consist of variables that tap into instrumental, cultural, political, and moral-altruistic values and concerns (Burton et al., 2020). Instead of viewing the second amendment as a right being taken away the right to bear arms would not be taken but rather regulated. In recent years, there have been two landmark Supreme Court rulings on the second amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago both have similar stories. To summarize, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Heller sued the District of Colombia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in favor of Heller in that an individual’s right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. Justice Scalia stated, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (The Supreme Court). Justice Antonin Scalia, was intentionally careful to stress the limited nature of the ruling. 

“The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. (The Supreme Court).”

After every large shooting involving children, there is a spread of moral panic. There are peer-reviewed, and nonpeer-reviewed articles being spread. Nonetheless, it is important to make note of the media being spread to the people. Immediately following mass shootings many social media posts spread with headlines about gun control. Many people posted their own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas on the matter. Not long after one of the more recent shootings in Uvalde, Texas, Texas Governor candidate, Beto O’Rourke went on to explain in a video what solutions could be implemented in the state of Texas to make a change. In the video, O’Rourke went on to discuss the lack of doing by Gregg Abbott and the fact all that he has done for the state of Texas is making it easier to purchase a gun without a vetting process. The solutions he listed are as follows: stop selling AR-15s in the state of Texas, have universal background checks, red flag laws or extreme risk protection orders, and safe storage laws (Beto O’Rourke Slams Greg Abbott Over Lack of Gun Reform).

Within Texas, O’Rourke gives solutions to avoiding mass shootings with the use of gun control. As mentioned before, the supreme court makes it clear that it is state’s jurisdiction to regulate the right to bear arms. What does gun policy look like outside of the United States? According to Time (2022), “Although mass shootings are not unique to the U.S., the country has the highest rate of gun deaths among rich countries—more than eight times higher than Canada and nearly 100 times higher than the U.K.” Time goes on to discuss exactly what is seen in the U.S after each attack and explains that the trajectory is always followed: calls for greater gun control that is met with opposition from Republican lawmakers, and legislative inaction. To compare, other countries have had a single mass shooting and it was enough to implement widespread change. Why might this be? What is our gun culture founded on?

The right to bear arms is the second most important thing in the United States according to the US Constitution. This is what is a great example of what the gun culture in the US was founded on. To briefly review, the constitution was ratified by all states on May 29, 1790 (US Constitution). The constitution was essentially written by taking legal norms developed in parts of the Slave South and using them as reflections of broader trends in Anglo-American law (Cornell). Taking this information into consideration, the Second Amendment law is derived and written from one of the most brutal legal systems in modern times (Cornell).

It seems that the question of morality could be posed. Is it moral for states to allow for complete leniency for the purchase of firearms without a vetting process or anything in between the inquiry process? Posing the question of morality may be getting too far ahead. To briefly discuss the answer to this one could look to the third wave of criminology. The third wave of criminology collected strengthens from both sociology and philosophy beyond social constructionism (Edwards & Sheptycki, 2009). Both Harry Collins and Robert Evans (2007: 144) distinguish key differences between social constructionism and the Third Wave as upstream not downstream, insecurity, and categorization. Upstream not downstream is the aim of the Third wave on changing the world and that is to do and not just observe. Due to the third wave being upstream, the claims made under this wave will be less secure than under Wave Two, same as science is less secure than skeptical philosophy.

The third wave would bring the discussion to categorization, and this is meaning that upstream and insecurity imply that the analyst’s reflex under Wave Three will be to construct categories rather than dissolve the boundaries between them. Given this concept of analyzation to problem solve and find resolutions this would be a good thing to apply to the US today. This idea sounds much like the process of researchers giving solutions with a scientific method.

Empirical Research Conducted

When relating this to gun policy it would be important to make key decisions in gun regulations. By using the crime and data analytics of research gun violence could be aided by the stop the sales of AR-15s in the states, have universal background checks, red flag laws or extreme risk protection orders, and safe storage laws. Looking at research conducted by Kleck1, Kovandzic, and Bellows, their study assesses the impact of gun control laws on violent crime rates by using CX data from all U.S. cities with a 1990 population of 25,000 or more (n ¼ 1,078) (Kleck et al., 2016). The results from the research conducted show strong evidence that higher gun levels do not cause more crime. But why could this be that the results are showing this information? For further analysis research more specifically aimed at different perspectives may give further information for discussion.

A different study was conducted by Frederic Lemieux that examined the credit of the two main propositions at the heart of the debate on the gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings in the United States (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2021). The first perspective is that of a gun enthusiast believing that gun violence and mass shootings are cultural. The second perspective being that of a pro-gun control advocate thinking that gun violence and mass shootings are more prevalent due to lax regulations. 

The study was done to evaluate the value of each perspective. In order to do so, the study defines three levels of cross-sectional analysis that test the association between gun culture and gun laws on deaths by guns and mass shootings (international and national incidents) (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2021). Through the quantitative analyses done in Lemieux’s study, it was found that both cultural and legislative proposition show impacts on deaths by guns (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2021). The perspective of the gun enthusiast of “guns don’t kill, people do” is proven to be only semi correct given the results of the study. The alternative perspective which has been looked over suggests that the availability of firearms themselves has an impact on gun violence and mass shootings.

According to Lemieux (2014), the findings show that “gun access predicts death by guns; further, this result is trans-culturally consistent, meaning that this finding is true amongst 25 advanced democracies and 50 states in the United States regardless of the cultural background”. In comparison, the “guns don’t kill, people do perspective”, this is mainly invalidated at the international level (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2021). This claim was only partially validated in the Southern region of the United States given the murders by firearms rates. The results also conclude that there is no connection between gun culture or the lack of and the event of mass shootings. The results seem to support solutions that suggest restrictive firearms regulation by imposing background checks, stricter conditions for access to firearms (e.g. mental health, required training, etc.), and banning specific weapons and/or features (clip magazine capacity) (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2021). 

Current Policy in Texas

After all that has been discussed thus far, what does the current gun policy in Texas look like? Previously, Texas required people to have a License to Carry (LTC) in order to carry a handgun in a public place either openly or concealed under both state and federal law (Texas State Library). In the spring of 2021, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1927. This bill allows a person who qualifies under the new law to carry a handgun on their person in a public place without an LTC or other required training (Texas State Library). Qualifications are listed in the penal code, and it does not allow for felons to carry, but the accessibility to the firearms themselves is higher than before. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 1927 into law making it easier to have access to guns before making mental health resources more readily available. 

People who are carrying a firearm are restricted from having it in specific places such as schools, correctional facilities, secured airports, and others however this verbiage seems to be a deterrent approach rather than a proactive avoidance approach. This bill allows for anyone over the age of 18 to buy a gun without training which is the deadly concept. For example, if someone without training is allowed to buy a gun, how will they know how to use it if necessary for self-defense. With this in mind that means that people without basic knowledge behind gun safety have easy access to attain a gun and could be reckless with such a weapon.  It is interesting and strange that a state would allow citizens to do this. What does gun policy look like outside of Texas and the US?

Current Policy just Beyond the Borders United States

When exploring policies outside of the U.S that have more gun control seem to have ethical intentions. For example, Canada requires that prospective buyers obtain a permit to purchase a handgun before being allowed to purchase it (Vernick et al., 2007). Texas does not do this with guns, however, they do require one to go through CPR training and more to obtain a license to fish (Commernet, 2011). Again, no license or permit is needed to purchase a gun in the state of Texas. Nonetheless, Canada’s process for getting the permit is going through an extensive background check take typically take weeks to complete. In comparison, Texas does not have a waiting period on purchasing a firearm. This is exactly why the gunman responsible for the massacre in Uvalde was able to buy two AR-15s days after his 18th birthday (ProPublica, 2022).

Needless to say, the policy approaches between the United States and Canada alone are different in their values. There are pros and cons of widespread gun availability. The Canadian approach dresses health as a priority and the main concern versus the US their emphasis is on individual freedom. With the emphasis on individual freedom the US gives, it would make sense to prioritize that across the board but notably that is not emphasized with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Neither individual freedom nor health concerns are a top prior for the United States as a Country. Canada ensures individual freedom by enhancing and maximizing community safety (Vernick et al., 2007).

Taking things, a step further and comparing the United States to other developed nations, the US has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate (U.S. Gun Policy). This poses the question of how all other countries manage gun violence. To start, Australia began its shift to modern gun control dating back to 1996. In, 1996 a gunman armed with a semiautomatic rifle killed thirty-five people and wounded nearly two dozen others (Barry, 2022). This was the Port Arthur massacre of 1996 and was the worst mass shooting in their nation’s history. When this happens in the US the cycle of calls for greater gun control that are met with opposition from Republican lawmakers, and legislative inaction happen time and time again. When the Port Arthur massacre took place Australia took initiative less than two weeks later by implementing fundamental changes to the country’s gun laws in cooperation with the various states and territories, which regulate firearms (Barry, 2022).

Australia created its National Agreement on Firearms which “all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation” (U.S. Gun Policy). Due to this change, citizens had to present a genuine need for the firearm they are requesting to purchase in addition to the required training. Even after incorporating these regulations, Australia faced another high-profile shooting which made them tighten gun laws and saw a highly effective change (Barry, 2022). With these regulations in mind, Australia now has more guns in circulation than before 1996, however, the amount of people who own guns is lower (Barry, 2022). Victimization researchers have been aware for a long while those victim-offender relationships are important and victims of gun violence is often reflected in gun culture (Vaughan et al., 2021). A limitation of this comparison may be the cultural differences between the two countries. 

Current Policy in Illinois 

One way to look further in comparing on a more leveled spectrum is by comparing two states within the US; Texas, and Illinois. What does strict gun policy in the Illinois looks like and why. In 2012, there were 500 murders in Chicago, more than New York City (419) or Los Angeles (299)(FBI). It’s no secret that Chicago has gang violence, gang violence has been around since before Al Capone ran the city. Often gang violence includes homicide and regarding homicides in Illinois, 80% involve a gun and Illinois has the 9th highest rate of gun homicides in the country (Impact of Gun Violence).

According to Greg Abbott, Chicago is the perfect reason as to why the proposed solution for stricter gun policies is “not a real solution” (Chicago Tribune). There is a lot to unpack for Chicago, Illinois regarding the culture, the violence, and the policies today and their history. To be brief, strict policies were implemented back in Al Capone’s days but, that did stop much seeing that he had politicians, policeman, and anyone you could think of on his payroll (FBI).  As of the past decade the gun policies have loosened” (Chicago Tribune). With specific policy restrictions still in place such as licenses to purchase a 2017 report commissioned by former Mayor Rahm Emmanuel analyzed four years’ worth of gun tracing data. The data shows that sixty percent of illegally possessed or used firearms recovered in Chicago come from out of state” (Chicago Tribune). Due to the tight regulations on gun policy in Illinois, criminals are needing to get their firearms from states with little to no regulations on policies. According to the Chicago Tribune, “In 2021, Chicago filed a lawsuit against a northern Indiana gun store, claiming more than 850 illegal firearms recovered in Chicago could be traced back to a single gun shop in Gary, an establishment that the city alleged ignored the clear signs of so-called straw purchases” (Chicago Tribune). With this information given, stricter gun policies may not be working in the same way it is needed in Texas. This could be due to cultural differences between the two states. According to gang members in Chicago, the people feel that there is a need to have a firearm to defend themselves (One Aim Illinois). 

Theoretical development on Gun Policy

The next question being why do the gang members feel that firearms are needed to protect themselves? If firearms were not available in the next state over, how far would people be willing to go to get them to redistribute? Looking into gun policy from a theoretical perspective may shine light as to why exactly gun policies work in some states or countries and why it absolutely doesn’t in others. Theoretical development is important to note since the research results are mixed and there is a need for a deeper understanding as to why this maybe. With specific theories it paves a way to understanding gun violence and its prevalence in some places over others. They are theories however for a theory to be good it must be replicable, falsifiable, and testable. There are a few different theories to consider and those would be social disorganization, routine activity theory, and rational choice theory.

Because it seems that most arguments against gun control seem to stem from the fact that Chicago has stricter gun policies that on not working, a study done in Chicago will be analyzed. What is social disorganization theory? Social disorganization theory explains that several variables such as ethnic diversity, economic status, population size or density, residential instability, family disruption, and proximity to urban areas influence a community’s capacity to develop and maintain strong systems of social relationships (National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)).

A study conducted by Dennis Mares examined the effects of social disorganization on both gang-related homicides and other types of homicides. As previously mentioned earlier 80% of homicides in Illinois are committed with a firearm (Impact of Gun Violence). Through the study Mares conducted results show that social disorganization theory provides a fair explanation for the distribution of a variety of types of homicides across Chicago neighborhoods. After analyzing the results, social disorganization variables help understand gang-related homicides, both neighborhood ‘‘disadvantage’’ and ‘‘heterogeneity’’ have a significant positive impact on the number of homicides in census tracts (Mares, 2010). With the continuation of analysis, results indicate that gang violence has a small and statistically insignificant contagion component (Mares, 2010). This means meaning that once neighborhood effects are considered, looking at the aggregate of ‘‘all homicides’’, all social disorganization factors appear important (Mares, 2010). 

Although the study conducted by Mares is specific to gang homicides conducted in Chicago; ethnic diversity, economic status, population size or density, residential instability, family disruption, and the proximity to urban areas influence a community’s capacity to develop and maintain strong systems of social relationships. It makes sense as to why certain gun policies do not work well in Chicago, but that does not mean they will not work well in other cities and states that have successfully aided those variables. There is a lack of assistance with the community in Chicago but in other countries such as the ones discussed earlier, their assistance that aids the gun culture which in turn assists with the gun policies working. 

Another criminological theory that can help explain why gun control works in some places but not others is the routine activity theory. Routine activity theory has a crime triangle to explain crime, criminal motivation only being one component of said triangle. Routine activity theory suggests that crime occurs when three elements converge together at a given time: (1) a motivated offender, (2) a suitable target, and (3) the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). This criminological theory is primarily focused on the effects of the ecological rather than psychological factors on crime, empirical and theoretical analyses that consider the individual motives of the perpetrator as a constant (Cohen & Felson, 1979). What they find more important are the presence and interaction of suitable targets and the lack of capable guardians. According to their theory, both of those variables converge with the motivated offenders to present an opportunity for crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

The routine activity perspective on the crime itself can be explained because of the opportunities that arise in routine everyday life (Cohen & Felson, 1979). One thing to consider with this theory is that routine everyday life does not look the same for everyone. When you consider the cultural difference, life in Chicago does not look the same as life in Australia. When gang members in Chicago were interviewed, they talked about the day-to-day and how even at the time of their talking it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for them to get shot in the middle of the conversation (Impact of Gun Violence). 

From this criminological perspective, the routine activity for the population must shift. There must be a culture shift from the day-to-day that they currently face and turn it into something productive that will better benefit the community. Things to consider are what is it in the community that is creating a “motivated offender”. Secondly, what is a suitable target for the offender and why? Lastly, if the absence of a capable guardian is an issue, then more programs in the neighborhoods that face gun violence. With more programs in those neighborhoods, it may help motivate them in other ways.

 In order to implement a change like this, there is a need for government input and funding. One way this could be funded is by gun buyback or something of the sort. There would also be the need to find the cause of gun violence within the city by using the main points of routine activity theory. The root cause for gun violence may not be rooted in one area alone but if the main area is identified it will allow for repair and then move on to the next focus area. Routine activity theory would support this because once there is a shift in the everyday routine, it becomes a habit. Everyday routines work the same for positive and negative reasons such as crime. One reason that societies seem to struggle to reach policy goals and people fail to change towards more pro-environmental lifestyles may be that many behaviors are now bound by strong habits that override knowledge and intentions to act (Linder et al., 2021). Consider the three parts to the triangle and you may notice that one does not have to be a motivated offender but rather just an individual. Secondly, a suitable target could just be another way of looking at a suitable goal to meet. Lastly, the absence of a capable guardian could mean the option to decide to do the right thing to complete the task that the motivated induvial wishes to complete. 

Another theory to help explain gun violence and how we may be able to put an end to it is the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory explains that crime involves a concrete choice or a sequence of choices that must be made in order to complete the criminal act with intention. This theory assumes that one must take how offenders think to predict when criminal events will occur. Meaning there is a cost-benefit analysis that the offender goes through and processes. This theory would also suggest that scaring people straight with severe punishments will not be effective. The serve methods will not work because people make decisions systematically biased by the methods or shortcuts they employ when making choices. Lastly, the theory notes that emotions cannot make decisions. What people may find interesting is that emotions are the way people make choices until the age of 25 (University of Rochester Medical Center). The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed until then so the choices they make are with the part of their brain called the amygdala (University of Rochester Medical Center). This part of the brain is responsible for the emotional process of decision-making. 

Research shows that adults use their prefrontal cortex to think which is the brain’s rational part. The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. The fact that this part of the brain is not fully developed as a teen can help explain why teens are unable to explain later what they were thinking when they did something that maybe they shouldn’t have. They feel emotion before thinking. With this in mind and the theory being taken into consideration, adults are able to be explained by rational choice theory but not all persons under 25 can be explained in the same way given that we all progress and grow differently (University of Rochester Medical Center). Nonetheless given rational choice theory explains the cost-benefit analysis that the offender goes through and processes before committing a crime. To process a “good” choice would also come down to the way the person was raised. If the individual was not raised with morals and values, they may not cost-benefit analyze the way a different individual who grew up different may. This is an important point because as mentioned before one solution to ending gun violence is to change the gun culture. By changing the gun culture, we must be able to instill these beliefs and values in children. 

Ration choice theory and routine activity theory can both be looked at together to conclude what social disorganization theory has already shown. There are several variables such as ethnic diversity, economic status, population size or density, residential instability, family disruption, and proximity to urban areas that influence a community’s capacity to develop and maintain strong systems of social relationships (NCJRS). 

Conclusion

Again, the constitution was ratified by all states in 1790 (U.S Constitution). It was not until 1865 that the 13^th amendment was ratified to abolish slavery (U.S Constitution). Women did not have the right to vote until 1920 which was over a hundred years after the constitution was first ratified (U.S. Constitution). The restrictions on militia membership stated in the 2^nd amendment are important to understand. The 18^th-century law did infringe on Americans’ rights to bear arms as the laws rarely allowed free blacks to have weapons, much less those living in slavery. White Americans were given the upper hand once again so that they could maintain control over nonwhites. Nonwhites were disarmed so that they were not able to pose threat to those who have always been in power, white Americans.

As unfortunate as it is, the United States was founded without moral or ethical values. The United States was founded on values of a different era. The system is not in need of being fixed, it is in need of being rebuilt. The foundation is rotten and needs to be broken down to be brought up to moral times. In order for the government to grow it must take into consideration the values, cultures, and beliefs of all that live in this free country. To do so biases need to be taken away from those in the power of making changes to the laws in place.

References

Barry, E. (2022, May 27). These countries restricted guns after 1 mass shooting. Time. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://time.com/6182186/countries-banned-guns-mass-shooting/ 

Burton, A. L., Pickett, J. T., Jonson, C. L., Cullen, F. T., & Burton, V. S. (2020). Public support for policies to reduce school shootings: A moral-altruistic model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 58(3), 269–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427820953202 

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589 

Collier, K., & Schwartz, J. (2022, May 26). Why 18-year-olds can buy ar-15s in Texas but not handguns. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/26/gun-buying-age-texas-handguns-rifles-uvalde/ 

Commernet, 2011. (n.d.). Title 25. Health Services, Texas administrative code. State of Texas. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from http://txrules.elaws.us/rule/title25 

Constitution, U. S. (2020, September 7). The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment. Giffords. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from http://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/ 

Constitution, U. S. (n.d.). The Interactive Constitution. National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-day-the-constitution-was-ratified 

Cornell, S. (2020, August 20). History, text, tradition, and the future of Second Amendment Jurisprudence: Limits on Armed Travel under Anglo-american law, 1688–1868: Law and contemporary problems. Law and Contemporary Problems |. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/history-text-tradition-and-the-future-of-second-amendment-jurisprudence-cornell-vol83-iss3/ 

Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). U.S. gun policy: Global comparisons. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons 

Edel, W. (1995). Gun control: Threat to liberty or defense against anarchy? Praeger. 

Edwards, A., & Sheptycki, J. (2009). Third wave criminology. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895809336698 

FBI. (2016, May 18). Al Capone. FBI. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/al-capone 

Impact of gun violence. One Aim. (2021, August 12). Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://oneaimil.org/the-issue/impact-of-gun-violence/ 

Kleck, G., Kovandzic, T., & Bellows, J. (2016). Does gun control reduce violent crime? Criminal Justice Review, 41(4), 488–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016816670457 

Lemieux, F. (2014). Effect of Gun Culture and Firearm Laws on Gun Violence and Mass Shootings in the United States. Official Journal of the South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology (SASCV), 9(1), 74–93. Retrieved October 27, 2022. 

Library, T. S. L. (n.d.).  . Frequently Asked Legal Questions. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/45479 

Linder, N., Giusti, M., Samuelsson, K., & Barthel, S. (2021). Pro-environmental habits: An underexplored research agenda in sustainability science. Ambio, 51(3), 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01619-6 

Mares, D. (2009). Social Disorganization and gang homicides in Chicago. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204009339006 

National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of slavery. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment 

National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women’s Right To Vote (1920). National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/19th-amendment 

NCJRS. (2003, May). Social Disorganization and Rural Communities. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/HTML/ojjdp/193591/page1.html#:~:text=Social%20disorganization%20theory%20specifies%20that,strong%20systems%20of%20social%20relationships 

Nra-Ila, & Association, N. R. (n.d.). Ila: Why gun control doesn’t work. NRA. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.nraila.org/why-gun-control-doesn-t-work/ 

Silva, J. R., & Greene-Colozzi, E. A. (2020). Mass shootings and routine activities theory: The impact of motivation, target suitability, and capable guardianship on fatalities and injuries. Victims & Offenders, 16(4), 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1823919 

staff, C. T. (2022, June 2). Are Chicago’s gun laws the strictest in the United States? not anymore. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-news-cb-greg-abbott-texas-gun-laws-chicago-20220527-pruljwytw5c3zmdaqhrr6q4fki-list.html 

Sweet, L., Ramos, M., Malagón, E., Sherry, S., & Saltzman, P. (2022, July 31). Horror on the fourth: Suspect in custody after 6 killed, dozens wounded at Highland Park Fourth of july parade. Times. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/4/23194354/highland-park-fourth-july-parade-gunfire 

U.S. Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2022, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-1/ALDE_00000408/ 

Understanding the teen brain . Understanding the Teen Brain – Health Encyclopedia – University of Rochester Medical Center. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051 

Vaughan, A. D., Hart, T. C., Hewitt, A. N., & Felson, M. (2020). The promise and challenge of activity-based crime rates: A comparison of the USA, Canada, and Australia. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 27(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-020-09461-4 

Vernick, J. S., Hodge, J. G., & Webster, D. W. (2007). The ethics of restrictive licensing for handguns: Comparing the United States and Canadian approaches to handgun regulation. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35(4), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720x.2007.00189.x 

Vile, J. R. (n.d.). United States v. Cruikshank. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/58/united-states-v-cruikshank 

Wilson, R. (2021, December 6). FBI: Chicago passes New York as Murder Capital of U.S. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/18/fbi-chicago-passes-new-york-as-murder-capital-of-u-s/ 

YouTube. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaK5x192HKM. 

YouTube. (2022). YouTube. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha-nDIczcQI.