March for Our Lives
Introduction and Background
The mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018 triggered one of the most significant youth-led movements for gun reform in recent American history—March for Our Lives. After the Parkland tragedy, Stoneman Douglas High School students became the face of the US gun control movement, driven by sorrow, suffering, and change. It renewed political discussion on the Second Amendment, public safety, and weapons. The March for Our Lives, spearheaded by the students, was one of the most prominent ways the youths engaged in politics. It sparked legislative discussions in state legislatures and Capitol Hill, involved hundreds of thousands of individuals, and generated millions of social media communications. The idea that teenagers both receive and give violence is central to this movement. It is also connected to the themes of citizenship, democracy, and power of the everyday. This paper will examine the consequences of the March for Our Lives movement on gun control legislation, youth activism, protest-based change, and the criminal justice implications of one of the nation’s most serious crises.
Gun violence is an essential problem of public concern and a multifaceted concern for the American criminal justice system. After school massacres like Parkland, attempts have been undertaken to prevent mass shootings, community gun violence, and firearm-related mortality. March for Our Lives was born out of social unrest and institutional inadequacy, proving that people can and will make a change. It is very relevant to criminal justice reform in various ways. First, it demonstrates that present firearm rules are unable to prevent dangerous people from possessing firearms and endangering the lives of others. Second, the movement supports non-legislative measures such as background checks, red flag laws, and extreme risk protection orders involving law enforcement, mental health professionals, and the community.
Furthermore, this topic concerns equity, enforcement, and legislative stagnation. For instance, gun violence affects vulnerable groups, leading to concerns about the police forces. This definition of criminal justice reform also encompasses policies that prevent violence before it occurs. It also questions who can demand change as the youth and survivors are now at the forefront of the legislative agenda. They have succeeded in lobbying for measures in several states, showing that social movements can impact criminal justice policy. March for Our Lives shifted the focus of gun violence from a Second Amendment issue to a civil rights issue.
Subtopic/Theme 1: The Role of Youth Activism in Policy Change
Youth activism has historically served as a catalyst for progressive reform, and the March for Our Lives movement exemplifies this dynamic within the realm of gun control policy. The movement turned Parkland trauma into political action. According to Jensen (2023), teenage survivors’ collective trauma created a politically coherent group that used protest as catharsis and strategic pressure. These teens organized, converted sorrow into purpose, and carefully placed themselves in the national limelight. Their success shows that emotional sincerity and public awareness may boost social activism.
A major driver of their influence has been the integration of digital platforms to amplify messaging. According to Shah and Khan (2023), social media has allowed young people to skip political gatekeepers and reach large audiences directly. Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok mobilized millions with real-time information, calls to action, and engaging storylines. These technologies democratized movement involvement and allowed young activists to shape the debate. Over 800,000 people attended the March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C., which turned digital involvement into real-world advocacy.
Creative advocacy also played a critical role. Samuels (2020) describes how youth used art, music, and media for resistance and civic education. Art installations, protest signage, and viral videos conveyed complex policy demands in emotionally resonant and visually arresting ways. Cultural forms resonated with varied demographics, making the movement more inclusive and emotive. Traditional protest and internet inventiveness showed that political involvement may be effective outside conventional methods.
While the movement’s enthusiasm and visibility are evident, its ability to influence actual policy is equally significant. Sato and Haselswerdt (2022) show that Parkland marches and demonstrations increased state-level gun control legislation. Lawmakers approved background checks, red flags, and school safety measures in several states. These legislative initiatives show that youth involvement changed political agendas.
However, the movement is not without its internal struggles and issues. Stone et al. (2020) note that youth is not a homogenous category regarding their political stance on firearms. While it is true that the survivors of the Parkland shooting and their supporters call for change, subsequent polls suggest that young people are more polarized on some issues in the same way as the rest of the population. This implies that youth activism is influential. However, it is not a monolithic movement but a continuum of opinion. Nonetheless, the movement’s leaders have been consistent in their goals, advocating for simple, reasonable gun control measures as the core values.
Moreover, the youths have been unable to sustain their actions and struggle to understand the political process. Federal legislative paralysis demonstrates that resistance is possible, but not when the political climate is polarized. Although the majority of Americans have supported the concept of universal background checks, legislative measures have been slow to follow. Activists have employed long-term voter registration and civic education among the youth as an opportunity to build future elections and gain political capital.
Subtopic/Theme 2: Gun Control Legislation and the Criminal Justice System
The March for Our Lives has affected gun control legislation, which has led to policy and legislation with effects on the criminal justice system. It promoted public safety measures including background checks, red flag regulations, and large-capacity magazine limitations through policy changes. These politically charged measures attempt to prevent gun violence, a justice-related preventative strategy. Understanding how these laws fit within the legal system helps define the movement’s essence.
One of the most often proposed measures regarding gun violence is the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), or a red flag law. These statutes allow courts to temporarily disarm dangerous people by ordering them to surrender their firearms. According to Pallin et al. (2021), the Parkland shooting brought more attention to the media on the ERPO and its effects on society by focusing on the previous warning signs, portraying the Parkland shooter as an avoidable threat created a story of missed prevention. In response to this, several states either passed or enhanced their ERPO laws, demonstrating the impact that tragedy can have when paired with advocacy.
ERPOs and similar laws are examples of a shift in criminal justice from a reactive to a preventive model. Historically, the system becomes active only after a crime has been committed. Nonetheless, background checks and ERPOs are more proactive and seek to prevent criminal conduct and connect criminal justice with public health. This raises questions of equity and justice in a situation where an individual is locked out of owning firearms due to threats that have not been established. Such preemptive legislation requires monitoring and procedural fairness to ensure constitutionality as the judicial process addresses civil liberty versus public safety.
In addition to ERPOs, universal background checks remain a cornerstone of the reform agenda. Opponents continue to claim that banning gun purchase loopholes such as buying a handgun at gun shows or from private individuals may help reduce or limit handgun access to criminals or mentally ill persons. This legislative move is in response to studies that revealed that many of the mass shooters in the United State got their firearms legally despite red flag warnings. According to Dziobak (2023), March for Our Lives has helped elevate public support for such measures by emphasizing how legislative inaction contributes to recurring violence. Due to increased awareness of these risks, several states have tightened gun purchase screening protocols to match law enforcement and public safety guidelines.
However, the effectiveness of gun control legislation remains debated within the criminal justice sphere. Critics say stricter laws do not curb crime, especially among those eager to disobey the law. Opponents of change often cite major shootings in places with stringent gun regulations, arguing that enforcement—not policy—is crucial. These observations demonstrate the difficulty of gun regulation in a legal system that must balance prevention and punishment. Yet, proponents argue that risk reduction is valuable even without complete protection. Research suggests that even marginal decreases in access to firearms can result in significant reductions in suicide, domestic violence, and impulsive shootings.
Further complicating matters is the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment, which often constrains the scope of legislative innovation. Ulrich (2023) observes that recent Supreme Court cases have raised the bar for gun legislation, by which gun laws must be justified, often requiring historical analogues for modern regulations. This legal environment creates uncertainty for lawmakers and law enforcement alike. While responding to popular demand for change, the criminal justice system must function under increasingly restrictive constitutional frameworks. The implementation burden frequently falls on local authorities, who must interpret vague legal standards and enforce potentially contentious policies.
In terms of community relations, gun control laws can have both positive and negative effects. Increased regulation may make communities feel safer and more responsive, particularly those impacted by violence. On the other, overly strict implementation of the gun laws—especially when they are applied selectively—may lead to the population losing confidence in the police, especially in the communities that the police have historically targeted. This is why policy formulation and implementation should be fair to all parties involved. Grene, Dharani, and Siegel (2023) highlight the need to consider public attitudes, especially those of gun owners when making legislation. They discovered enormous private acceptance of changes even though the respondents publicly opposed them due to political affiliation or social pressure.
Furthermore, the debate on gun control measures is shifting from a singular emphasis on crime to a discussion of mental health, community development, and violence reduction. These activities promote criminal justice movements that focus on eradicating the root causes of crime. Policies that have come out of the March for Our Lives movement tend to be similarly comprehensive, calling for both gun control and increased funding for mental health, school safety, and anti-violence initiatives. This integration of gun control means that it is not only a legislative issue but also a safety feature that is part of the justice system.
Subtopic/Theme 3: Opposition and Constitutional Challenges to Gun Reform
The March for Our Lives has called for the change of the laws governing the use of guns and has been met with various issues of constitutional amendments, political procedures, and views on safety. This opposition has risen in the legal cases against gun control laws and is grounded on the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America. According to Ulrich (2023), the present Supreme Court rulings have moved towards strengthening ownership rights of firearms and at the same time, placed more restrictions on them. The landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other purposes unrelated to service in a militia, and the subsequent cases built on these rights and applied strict scrutiny to firearms regulation.
These judicial precedents have posed significant challenges to the legal lobbying efforts of March for Our Lives. Courts that are more friendly with Second Amendment rights have generally supported constitutional strikes against assault weapons prohibition, limits on magazine capacity, and other measures. As pointed out by Ulrich (2023), these legal hurdles have made gun control advocates employ more specific and precise strategies that would not violate the Constitution. These legal issues act as barriers to future enhancement of the policy even if there is demand or perceived necessity after high-profile shootings such as the one that occurred in Parkland.
The opposition to gun control is not only constitutional but also by interest groups who are very much against any move to reform the laws. The NRA and other organizations employ professional lobbying, political contributions, and community organizations in the battle against constitutional rights abuses. These groups have been able to put forward the gun ownership issue as a Second Amendment issue and not a public health issue, hence putting political pressure on any legislator who supports any form of restriction. The sequence of legislative reactions to mass shooting incidents demonstrates the strength of this political response. At the same time, there is often initial enthusiasm for change, and the process is met with countermeasures that slow, dilute or kill reform efforts.
The public opinion on guns and reform shows that there are deep divisions that make it challenging to have reform. Grene, Dharani, and Siegel (2023) stated that gun owners had different views from what was expected; that is, while most of them supported safety measures, they could not publicly express the same because of social and political reasons. This study shows a gap between the actual and the self-reported attitudes toward gun legislation, which may point to areas of agreement on measures such as background checks and red flag laws. These potential areas of cooperation are often not explored due to polarized public discourse and political incentives that encourage extreme positions.
The media has a significant impact on these discussions as well. Pallin et al. (2021) explained that the news coverage of the Parkland shooting influenced the public perception of the public on the ERPO as either a protective measure or as an infringement on Second Amendment rights. The media presents a wide range of gun control stories that are not conducive to policy discussions but rather construct information bubbles that support existing views. This media environment distorts the perception of similar policy ideas and thus makes it difficult to build consensus among the voters.
Critics of gun control argue that there are other reasons for gun-related violence other than easy access to guns. The main reasons for concern are often mentioned as mental health issues, violent video games, the breakdown of the family, and the lack of security. Though these factors do cause violence, Dziobak (2023) further explains that March for Our Lives has been keen to point out that such reasons should supplement gun control measures. The debate over whether gun violence is primarily an issue of guns or a sign of other underlying problems is a significant part of the policy debate, and each side suggests very different solutions.
Legal arguments against gun reform have become more complex. Beyond the general Second Amendment arguments, the opponents have resorted to historical evidence and semantic analyses. In recent Supreme Court decisions, historical tradition has been used as the main criterion for the constitutionality of gun regulations, which means that any modern restrictions must have historical counterparts. This is because the “history and tradition” criterion renders it challenging to regulate the modern-day use of firearms through new technology and conditions. Ulrich (2023) explains how this interpretive approach has particularly hampered efforts to ban semi-automatic guns and magazines with high capacity, as advocates fail to find enough antecedents for such bans.
Nonetheless, the March for Our Lives movement has gradually progressed by adapting to those challenges. Due to these constitutional limitations, activists have focused on more effective legal measures such as enhancing the background check systems and red flag laws with procedural protections. As highlighted by Grene et al. (2023), individuals with guns favor the implementation of particular measures rather than broad prohibitions and restrictions. This strategic change acknowledges and wants to combat it constitutionally. Conclusion
Key Findings
This research paper has provided a look at how the March for Our Lives movement has influenced gun control laws and its effects on criminal justice in the United States. The findings show that youth activism has impacted the gun policy discourse by embracing new technology, sharing compelling stories, and effective political participation that transformed protest into policy change. This has helped to reform the gun laws in the states like the Extreme Risk Protection Orders and better background checks, which have changed the way people approach violence. Recent Supreme Court rulings strengthening gun rights protections have hampered reform attempts. Grene, Dharani, and Siegel (2023) found significant discrepancies between gun owners’ private support for safety measures and their public opposition, suggesting that evidence-based approaches could bridge the polarized gun policy debates.
Research Gaps and Future Directions
This examination of March for Our Lives and gun reform efforts reveals several critical research gaps requiring future investigation. First, long-term research on youth-led gun control campaigning is lacking. Sato and Haselswerdt (2022) show that demonstrations alter state policies, although there are no long-term studies. Future studies should use mixed methodologies to quantify legislative results and qualitatively analyze how young involvement affects political discourse beyond policy changes. This study would assess if youth-led movements are transitory reactions to crises or long-term political involvement changes with gun policy repercussions.
Additionally, more nuanced examinations of the implementation challenges facing gun control legislation are critically needed. Many studies examine constitutional and political impediments to gun control measures, but few address enforcement issues after approval. There are few studies on how law enforcement organizations use Extreme Risk Protection Orders across jurisdictions. Ulrich (2023) says the gap between legislative aim and actual execution needs more excellent study to determine whether changes work. Law enforcement officials who execute these regulations should be surveyed about how resource constraints, training differences, and organizational cultures affect enforcement patterns.
References
Dziobak, M. (2023). #NeverAgainMSD and the March for Our Lives Movement: American Youth for Gun Control. Ad Americam, 24, 15–32. https://doi.org/10.12797/AdAmericam.24.2023.24.02
Grene, K. L., Dharani, A. S., & Siegel, M. B. (2023). Gun violence prevention policy: Perceived and actual levels of gun owner support. Preventive Medicine Reports, 35, 102324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102324
Grene, K., Amani Dharani, & Siegel, M. (2023). Gun owners’ assessment of gun safety policy: their underlying principles and detailed opinions. Injury Epidemiology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-023-00430-z
Jensen, K. (2023). “Our Pain Makes Us Family”: March For Our Lives and the constitutive role of gun violence trauma in youth publics. Communication and the Public, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473231186839
Pallin, R., Aubel, A. J., Knoepke, C. E., Pear, V. A., Wintemute, G. J., & Kravitz-Wirtz, N. (2021). News media coverage of extreme risk protection order policies surrounding the Parkland shooting: a mixed-methods analysis. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11909-z
Samuels, J. T. (2020). Interest-driven sociopolitical youth engagement: Art and gun violence prevention. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(2), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-2020-12-2-7
Sato, Y., & Haselswerdt, J. (2022). Protest and state policy agendas: Marches and gun policy after Parkland. Policy Studies Journal, 50(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12463
Shah, M. A., & Khan, Z. (2023). The Role of Youth Activism in Facilitating Social Change: A Catalyst for Transformation in the Contemporary Era. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.55737/qjssh.575688089
Stone, E. M., Barry, C. L., Crifasi, C. K., Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & McGinty, E. E. (2020). Support for gun policies among young adults in the U.S., 2017–2019. Preventive Medicine, 135, 106094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106094
Ulrich, M. R. (2023). FOREWORD Finding Balance in the Fight Against Gun Violence. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 51(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.37
Description
March for Our Lives
Each student is required to complete a recorded oral presentation on the same topic as their Capstone Research Paper.
Requirements:
- You must use a visual aid to support your oral presentation such as PowerPoint Canva or Prezi.,
- Your presentation must be recorded and submitted as a video file or a link (e.g. Zoom recording PowerPoint or YouTube) in Canvas by the assignment deadline.,
- The slides should be succinct visually engaging and include relevant images such as pictures or graphs.,
- Your presentation must include 5 comprehensive slides:,
- Introduction
- Subtopic 1
- Subtopic 2
- Subtopic 3
- Conclusion
- The recorded presentation should be between 3–5 minutes long.,
March for Our Lives
Grading
- This assignment will be graded using the Rubric for Oral Presentation.
- Late submissions will incur a 5% grade deduction for every calendar day past the deadline.
- March for Our Lives