Examining the current state of Gun Control In The United States. What Exactly Is Being Done From a Legislative Perspective?

“At Gunpoint: the Problem of Gun Violence in the United States Must Finally Be Addressed.” Nature, vol. 534, no. 7608, 2016, p. 436.

This peer-reviewed journal article addresses the issues of gun violence as it pertains to the mass nightclub shooting that occurred in Orlando Florida on June 12, 2016. It mainly focuses on the American Medical Association’s need for better research revolving around gun violence.  Part of the fallout from the shooting is that the AMA believes that gun violence has become a public health epidemic. Additionally, they feel that not enough is being done to research the psychology of motivated gun violence and what can be done to solve the problem at its source. The article also investigates the resistance from the legislation that the AMA received when lobbying for this new research.

I will incorporate this source into my discussion by emphasizing both the need for better research regarding motivations for gun violence and mass shooting, while also discussing flaws in the attitudes of the United States government.  “…lawmakers followed what has become a legislative post-mass shooting tradition: the rapid-fire proposal – and equally rapid rejection – of bills intended to address the country’s gun violence crisis” (Nature, 436). These are exactly the type of issues I want to tackle in my podcast, the dismissal by those in power that these shootings are simply “freak occurrences”. Thus, this journal helps to develop my main argument which is a response to the position the United States government currently holds regarding gun control. 

Boylan, Michael, PhD., et al. "Debate: Gun Control in the United States." Clinical orthopaedics and related research 471.12 (2013): 3934-6. ProQuest. Web. 28 Jan. 2018.

This is a transcript of two contributors of a clinical orthopedics and related research symposium that details a legal debate by both Michael Boylan (PhD) and Don B. Kates (JD). While the symposium mainly has a focus on treating the actual gun wounds and injuries of patients, Boylan and Kates’ debate has a focus on more social and legal aspects of gun control.  Both individuals in this debate seem to be diametrically opposed. Boylan feels that gun possession is a threat to the public’s health, while Dr.  Kates relies on statistical information to support his argument that essentially gun law enforcement and mass shootings are not specifically correlated. Furthermore, he emphasizes the difficulty to enforce policies that Boylan brings up, which helps to paint not only his stance, but also gun legislation in a different light.

Thus, this source is important for adding more depth and complexity to the issue, as while the need to enforce stricter gun laws is obvious, Kates suggests that acting from the legislative standpoint is not a simple task due to many different variables that there are to consider. More noteworthy information in this source is also Boylan’s mention of a federal ban on gathering information that correlates gun possession and public health.  This helps to improve my argument while complimenting my discussion about my first source: as I will be arguing that not only should there be better research that looks into gun shootings as a health issue, but the fact that there is a federal ban on even doing such research in the first place.