The relationship between the United States (U.S.) and firearms has historically been highly complex. By 2025, this relationship has taken an increasingly tragic turn. Daily homicides and suicides, recurring mass shootings, and school attacks that leave lasting trauma across generations have turned gun violence into both a public health crisis and a political deadlock. The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a university campus in September 2025 marked a turning point that crystallized the anxieties of American society.[i] This incident demonstrated that gun violence is not an abstract statistic but a national trauma capable of directly targeting any community, institution, or ordinary day.[ii]
Americans use the term “gun violence” in a variety of contexts: homicides, suicides, accidental discharges, domestic violence incidents, mass shootings, and firearm-related events on school campuses. Taken together, firearms cause tens of thousands of deaths and many more injuries each year. Suicides, in particular, constitute an increasingly large share of total gun-related fatalities.[iii] By the end of the summer of 2025 alone, hundreds of mass shootings had been recorded, leaving hundreds dead and thousands injured. Although definitions vary, the scale of the problem is indisputable. Data on school shootings likewise indicate that dozens of such incidents occur each year. Even when the death toll is relatively low, the psychological trauma these attacks inflict on students and teachers is profoundly severe.
Approximately 58% of American adults believe that gun laws should be stricter, while 26% consider current regulations sufficient, and 15% favor more lenient rules. Interestingly, some specific gun control proposals receive remarkably broad bipartisan support. For instance, more than 88% of both Republicans and Democrats support prohibiting individuals with mental health problems from purchasing firearms. Similarly, raising the minimum age for gun purchases to 21 is backed by 69% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. In contrast, sharp partisan divides emerge on more contentious issues such as gun-carrying permits: a majority from both parties oppose allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons without a permit (60% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats). These data suggest that, although the public broadly favors stricter gun regulations—especially on widely accepted measures such as mental health restrictions and age limits—this consensus has not yet translated into a single, binding federal policy. The current balance of power in Congress and the Supreme Court, along with ideological polarization and constitutional objections, has acted as a barrier preventing these preferences from materializing into concrete legislation.[iv]
The foundation of U.S. gun law rests on a simple constitutional provision but presents a complex reality in practice. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” However, this clause has been interpreted in markedly different ways across various historical periods.[v]
First Major Legislative Developments:
- The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated certain categories of firearms.
- The Gun Control Act of 1968, enacted in the aftermath of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., introduced age restrictions and prohibited sales to convicted criminals.
- The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 remained in effect for ten years but was not renewed after it expired in 2004.
Supreme Court Decisions:
- District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) established an individual constitutional right to possess firearms.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) required that gun regulations be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.” This interpretation has made it increasingly difficult to defend the constitutionality of modern restrictions, such as those on high-capacity magazines or semi-automatic rifles.
Debates over gun ownership have become increasingly polarized, as the issue is perceived not merely as a matter of public policy but as a constitutional “right.” The influence of powerful gun lobbies and the political leverage of the firearms industry have made many politicians—concerned about votes and campaign donations—reluctant to support reforms. Identity, culture, and geography further complicate the debate: for rural Americans, guns symbolize independence and self-reliance, whereas for urban Americans, they often represent a source of fear and violence. Moreover, the widespread belief that stricter laws would fail to deter criminals has fostered a perception of ineffectiveness among both citizens and policymakers, reinforcing a cautious, status-quo-oriented stance at the political center.
Mass shootings attract significant public attention due to their occurrence in open, public spaces and their often high death tolls. Research indicates that these attacks have become increasingly lethal, with perpetrators studying previous incidents to plan their own actions. School shootings, in particular, carry a distinct moral weight because they target children and educational environments. Even when the number of casualties is relatively low, the resulting anxiety, trauma, loss of learning time, and social devastation are immense. Columbine, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech are among the most well-known school shootings—only a few examples etched into the collective memory of American society. The accessibility of schools makes comprehensive security measures difficult to implement, while the fact that young perpetrators often obtain firearms through their families or illegal means further deepens the problem. The lack of early warning systems and psychosocial support creates a significant gap in addressing the mental health dimension, while constitutional constraints on restricting certain types of firearms make it challenging to develop effective legal solutions.
Background checks have the potential to reduce homicide rates, but gaps between states limit their overall effectiveness. “Red flag” laws can yield significant results in preventing suicides, yet they face constitutional challenges. Safe storage laws aim to restrict children’s access to firearms, but cultural resistance poses a barrier. Assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans are politically polarizing and legally vulnerable under constitutional scrutiny. While community-based programs have shown promising results in pilot studies, their high costs raise questions about long-term sustainability. In this context, the persistence of the problem can be attributed to several factors: constitutional and judicial constraints that complicate new regulations, political polarization that obstructs reforms, the embedding of guns as a cultural identity marker complicating policymaking, the diffuse epidemiology of suicides and local homicides that disperses public attention, and the fragmented nature of the federal system, which makes a comprehensive national solution virtually impossible.
The relationship with firearms in the United States has always been shaped by complex dynamics, and by 2025, it has become a daily threat. Gun violence is not merely a figure in the statistics; it represents a source of trauma that can affect every neighborhood, school, and campus. The assassination of Charlie Kirk serves as a stark reminder of this reality: politics, education, and public safety remain under constant risk in the shadow of guns.
The solution to this problem is far from simple. Constitutional protections, judicial rulings, and powerful lobbying groups complicate reform efforts, while the cultural symbolism of firearms further hinders social consensus. Nevertheless, small but effective measures are possible: strengthening background checks, promoting safe storage practices, expanding “red flag” laws, and investing in mental health and community-based prevention programs could make everyday life safer. In short, gun violence cannot be resolved through a single law or intervention. However, consistent, practical, and socially embraced measures have the potential to break the cycle of recurring tragedies in the United States. Without such steps, each new incident will continue to undermine the sense of security and well-being in American society.
[i] “Assassination of Charlie Kirk: America’s Deepening Culture Wars,” ANKASAM, https://www.ankasam.org/anka-analizler/charlie-kirk-suikasti-amerikanin-derinlesen-kultur-savaslari/, (Accessed: 04.10.2025).
[ii] “Charlie Kirk Shooting Suspect Tyler Robinson Appears in Court Remotely,” CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-tyler-robinson-court-hearing/, (Accessed: 01.10.2025).
[iii] “Firearm Violence in the United States”, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/research-reports/gun-violence-in-the-united-states (Accessed: 01.10.2025).
[iv] “Key facts about Americans and guns”, Pew Reasearch Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/, (Accessed: 01.10.2025).
[v] “A Brief History of Firearms Law”, Violence Policy Center, https://shorturl.at/3HRm5, (Accessed: 01.10.2025).
