A New Solution for Gun Control: Take a Note from Social Welfare Programs
The OAJ is currently looking for interested students to join our team! If you’ve read our work before (or if this is your first time), and you like what we do, please email OAJ Executive Editor Paulina Campos at openair@brandeis.edu to join the journal.
The piece below is part of our weekly blog post series written by the Open-Air Journal team where we explore issues at Heller, current events, or whatever is presently on our minds.
There have been hundreds of school shootings in the United States since the one at Columbine High School in 1999, with little sign of slowing down. In the face of what feels like endless tragedy, opponents of gun violence have fallen back onto the argument that reducing these incidents is a matter of gun safety, promoting legal purchasing and license training prior to obtaining a firearm. Though Democrats have reliably supported gun control measures, it feels as though figures within the party have softened their stances and been more vocal about ownership, like in the 2024 election cycle with statements and subsequent jokes about Kamala Harris owning “a glock” as a means of appealing to gun owners. However, gun control is still too loose nationwide, given that the majority of mass shootings since 1982 have been committed with legally obtained firearms.
Frankly, it’s exhausting to have this repetitive debate between the need for public safety and access to a weapon that actively threatens it. It is baffling that we see the ability to obtain a firearm as a quintessential right in the U.S. while assistance for resources like food, housing, and healthcare are often seen as handouts.
Based on a report from the Urban Institute, applicants frequently give up on trying to obtain public assistance under programs such as SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid. While some people give up on obtaining aid because they are ineligible or they find other ways to make ends meet, too many people stop trying because the act of getting enrolled in these programs is too difficult.
With a comprehensive ban or constitutional amendments to address gun violence seeming nearly unattainable at the moment, the next best approach might be for gun control legislation to draw inspiration from public welfare programs. Without directly infringing on the right to own a firearm, implementing a process as rigorous as applying for public assistance programs could potentially reduce gun violence.
Given that 30-40% of eligible recipients in the Urban Institute study gave up on applying to a program that could have provided food, healthcare, or income that would contribute to their survival, we could see similar, if not higher rates for firearm licensing and purchasing. In addition to red flag laws and mandatory interviews with authorities to obtain a license before purchase, those same authorities could make it more inconvenient for people to schedule these interviews. This could look like only offering in-person options, limiting time slots from 9-5, or a difficult approval process as seen for social welfare programs. It would still be possible to achieve, just annoying and inconvenient at every turn. If people already have to follow such processes to sustain their own livelihood and safety, why not apply similar rules to ensure the safety of themselves and others when obtaining a gun.
This is not to say that other policies are unnecessary, especially considering loopholes or illegal methods of obtaining firearms. If legal firearms are more difficult to come by, then there will be a reasonable assumption that people could turn to poorly regulated pathways to obtain them. There must be further laws nationwide to cut down on obtaining firearms through these looser mediums, such as further tightening gun show loopholes, and prohibiting the sale of kits used to create ghost guns from online stores.
Stringent policies on background checks and interviews already apply to fully assembled firearms, and the same standards should apply to parts or kits used to assemble ghost guns. Such policies have already been attempted by policymakers like the Biden administration, requiring serial numbers for kits and incomplete parts while bolstering background checks. Additionally, while this has become a mainstream talking point among proponents of gun control, there needs to be an assault weapons ban. While the term “assault weapon” does not have a consistent definition, it can generally be defined as a firearm with no fixed magazine capacity, originally designed for military use and explicitly intended for combat or killing. This contrasts with smaller pistols designed for self-defense or rifles intended for hunting, such as those categorized by the State of California. Regardless of the methods, greater crackdowns on ghost guns are necessary.
Overall, it should be made more difficult to obtain a gun of any kind. The fact that it can be easier in some areas to become a licensed gun owner than it is to enroll in public assistance programs is astounding. This disparity highlights a system where acquiring something that ends lives is simpler than accessing a resource that saves them. This kind of shift toward making obtaining firearms a real challenge and more tedious than applying for public assistance will lead not only to greater public safety but to a more humane vision of human rights.
 | A guest post by
|