At the outset of this study, it is evident that the media landscape is inundated with reports of gun violence in the United States. Mass shootings occur with alarming frequency, and suicide by firearm has become a critical public health crisis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2017 alone, approximately 173,500 individuals were shot, with more than 39,700 fatalities, translating to an average of nearly 109 deaths and 366 nonfatal gun injuries each day (Sadat et al., 2019). These figures underscore the stark reality that the United States experiences a significantly higher rate of firearm-related deaths compared to other high-income nations. Despite accounting for only 4.3% of the worlds population, Americans own nearly 46% of all civilian-held firearms globally. Alarmingly, estimates suggest there are now more guns than people in the United States, with firearms and ammunition evolving to become increasingly lethal (Sadat et al., 2019). The legal foundation for widespread gun ownership in the United States lies in its Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, which grants individuals the right to bear arms. This right is often interpreted not only as a mechanism for national defence but also as an essential component of personal liberty-allowing citizens to protect their lives, freedom, and property (Halbrook, 1994). In contrast, other nations such as Japan, with strict firearm regulation, and Bangladesh, as a developing country with differing enforcement challenges, present markedly different legal and societal responses to gun ownership and violence. This comparative analysis aims to explore how differing legal frameworks impact firearm-related outcomes across these three jurisdictions.

Objectives of the Study

There are certain objectives of this study, which are mentioned below:

1. To examine the constitutional and legal frameworks governing gun rights and firearm regulation in the United States, Japan, and Bangladesh.
2. To analyse the relationship between gun laws and gun-related violence, including homicide, suicide, and mass shootings, in each country.
3. To assess the effectiveness of gun control measures implemented in Japan and Bangladesh compared to the relatively permissive approach in the United States.
4. To identify social, cultural, and institutional factors that influence the enforcement and public perception of gun laws in the selected countries.
5. To explore the implications of firearm ownership for individual rights, public health, and national security within different legal and political contexts.
6. To provide policy recommendations aimed at balancing the right to bear arms with the need to reduce gun violence, based on comparative legal insights.

The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms in the United States

The right to keep and carry weapons is legally guaranteed in the United States by the Second Amendment, which states: “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. Constitution, Amendment II). This clause has long been seen as a basic part of American liberty, with roots in English common law traditions that predate the United States Constitution (McAffee et al., 1997; Halbrook, 1994; Alam et al., 2021).

Legal interpretations of the Second Amendment have changed throughout time. The landmark decision District of Columbia Vs. Heller (2008) was the first to confirm that the amendment protects an individuals right to own weapons for legal purposes such as self-defence, regardless of militia duty. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that the operative phrase protects private ownership, but the prefatory clause speaks to the militias need (Stevens, 2019). In contrast, Justice Stevens dissented, criticising the majority for failing to appreciate the provisions original communal purpose (Greenhouse, 2008).

Subsequent decisions, such as McDonald Vs. Chicago (2010) extended the individual right against state and municipal governments outside federal authority (Gostin, 2008). Earlier rulings, like as United States Vs. Miller (1939) limited the scope of the Second Amendment to firearms fit for militia usage. However, the current understanding emphasises personal autonomy and self-defence (Duke Center for Firearms Law, 2025).

Despite constitutional protection, the Court has recognized limitations to this freedom, allowing for reasonable control. Justice Scalia stated that Second Amendment rights are not absolute and may be limited to specific types of weapons or ownership circumstances (District of Columbia Vs. Heller, 2008). Nonetheless, critics claim that the broadened interpretation has contributed to gun-related catastrophes that are uncommon in other developed countries (Sadat et al., 2019).

U.S. Gun Control Reasons

The United States ranks first globally in both gun violence and firearm-related deaths (Sadat et al., 2019). This alarming reality necessitates the implementation of stronger firearm legislation. Effective gun control laws can reduce misuse and enhance public safety (Gostin, 2008). Regulations should prevent access to firearms by children, the mentally ill, and those at risk of suicide. Mandatory comprehensive background checks are essential to screen potential gun owners. Legal measures must ensure firearms are protected from theft and illegal use (Duke Center for Firearms Law, 2025). Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines contribute to mass shootings. Banning such weapons can help curb mass murder incidents (Greenhouse, 2008; Arifuzzaman et al., 2021). Preventive policies must balance constitutional rights with public health concerns. Court rulings have affirmed the possibility of “reasonable restrictions” under the Second Amendment (District of Columbia Vs. Heller, 2008). Public health advocates view gun violence as a preventable epidemic. Stronger laws are vital to securing the lives and safety of all Americans (Sadat et al., 2019).

U.S. Gun Control Opponents

Opponents contend that civilians must protect themselves before the police come (Kopel, 1997). According to Halbrook (1994), states that allow gun ownership have lower violent crime rates. They consider gun control ineffectual owing to the illicit market and organised crime. Despite strong legislation, nations such as the United Kingdom continue to endure mass shootings (Sadat et al., 2019). Opponents associate gun rights with liberty, self-defence, and opposition to tyranny (Halbrook, 1994). Many Americans believe that owning a weapon is a constitutional right based on the mindset of the Founding Fathers. John Lockes views on individual rights and property had an impact on those who drafted the US Constitution (Locke, 1690/1988). Federal intervention, not state regulation, was initially restricted by the Second Amendment (Madison, 1788/2001). Politicians, according to gun rights activists, are behind the current reinterpretations (Stevens, 2019). Gun ownership, according to some, empowers individuals and discourages authoritarian rule (Greenhouse, 2008). According to opponents of control measures, aggressiveness is fueled by violent media rather than gun access (Gostin, 2008). The right to carry weapons is still defended by many as being essential to American liberty despite gun fatalities (Sadat et al., 2019).

The Courts Role in Gun Control

The U.S. Supreme Court has played a crucial and contentious role in determining gun control laws. The dominant judicial reading of the Second Amendment for a large portion of the 20th century supported the idea that participation in a state militia was expressly linked to the right to carry weapons. The Court unanimously decided in United States Vs. Miller (1939) that the Second Amendment only guaranteed the right to carry arms in the context of a “well-regulated militia” and only for weapons judged appropriate for military use, confirming this notion.

However, the Courts 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia Vs. Heller (2008) fundamentally changed this interpretation, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a persons right to own a firearm for customary legal uses, like domestic self-defense. In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the amendments operative clause-” the right of the people to keep and bear arms”-protects a personal freedom that is unrelated to militia duty. In a strong dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens attacked the majoritys conclusion for being historically faulty and legally unsound. He notably referred to Heller as “the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench” (Stevens, 2019). Until his death, Stevens continued to openly question the decisions rationale, claiming that it skewed both the historical background and the original purpose of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision represented a fundamental shift in Second Amendment interpretation, paving the way for more legal challenges to gun control measures and sparking ongoing discussions over the boundaries of firearm regulation in the United States.

Original Public Meaning Originalism: Heller, McDonald, and Stevens in Dissent

Dick Heller, a special police officer, challenged Washington, D.C.s tight weapons rules after being denied the right to retain a pistol at home for self-defense. The case reached the United States Supreme Court, culminating in the historic decision District of Columbia Vs. Heller (2008), in which the Court acknowledged an individual right to carry weapons under the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, used the interpretative theory of “original public meaning originalism,” which stresses how the constitutional text was commonly understood at the time of ratification (Scalia, 2008; Parvin, 2025).

Scalia separated the Second Amendments “operative” section (individual right to carry weapons) from its “prefatory” militia clause, rejecting both the “living Constitution” and “original intent” arguments. He concluded that the right went beyond military duty. He referenced historical documents like the English Bill of Rights and Blackstone. In a scathing dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens referred to Heller as “the worst self-inflicted wound in the history of the Court,” contending that extensive interpretations of the Second Amendment make mass shootings more common in America (Stevens, 2019). He supported eliminating the amendment because he thought that gun rights and control could coexist.

Proposals Made by the Obama Administration

After the devastating mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, President Barack Obama released a comprehensive strategy to combat gun violence on January 16, 2013. The Now is the Time program was a direct response not only to Sandy Hook but also to the larger scourge of mass shootings in the United States (Obama, 2013). The proposal recommended a mix of new federal legislation and 23 administrative actions to improve gun control measures.

A ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, universal background checks for all gun purchasers, and more financing for mental health services and school safety were among the main legislative recommendations. By removing financial limits on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the executive orders aimed to improve data sharing for background checks, promote responsible gun ownership, and advance research on gun violence (Gostin, 2013).

However, Congress was unable to approve any significant gun control legislation, even though the public supported many of these ideas. Proposed legislation, such as the Manchin-Toomey amendment for broader background checks, was defeated because of political opposition, particularly in the Senate. As a result, no significant federal gun control legislation was put into effect during President Obamas administration, despite the fact that he signed a number of executive actions (Gostin, 2013; Obama, 2013).

Gun Violence and Gun Death in the USA

The U.S. Constitution protects the right to bear arms, a deeply rooted aspect of American identity, particularly in the West and South (Spitzer, 2017). In 2019, the United States recorded over 14,400 gun-related homicides (CDC, 2020). Globally, more than 250,000 firearm deaths occurred in 2016, with 50.5% concentrated in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, and the U.S. (GBD 2016 Injury Collaborators, 2018). Of these deaths, 64% were homicides, 27% suicides, and 9% accidental (GBD, 2018). Besides these, Annual gun manufacturing in the United States has expanded significantly in the twenty-first century, after being relatively stable in previous decades. By 2023, the majority of US states would allow adults to carry concealed firearms in public. Now, the Gun production in the US has been graphically mentioned below first:

Here, the Fig. 1 shows the number of guns produced in the United States, annually over time (Mascia, Jennifer; Brownlee, Chip). The number of weapons manufactured in the United States has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, from around 3.9 million in 2000 to over 12.5 million in 2021. Since handguns account for the bulk of weapons manufactured, this increase was mostly caused by growing demand for them. When political unrest and worries about safety caused record gun sales during the COVID-19 epidemic, the manufacturing rise was particularly noticeable. In 2021 alone, almost 21 million weapons were imported and manufactured in the United States. 

Fig. 1: Gun Production in the U.S., (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States).

However, output fell marginally in the following years, reaching around 18.9 million in 2022 and less than 15 million in 2023. These patterns indicate Americas developing gun culture and the critical role that manufacturers play in weapon availability and distribution (Statista, 2023; PBS NewsHour, 2023; NSSF, 2024; The Trace, 2023).

Numerous studies demonstrate that gun-related fatalities, including suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury, are more common in areas where individuals have easy access to weapons. Now Firearms homicide rates in the developed world has been graphically mentioned here below:

Fig. 2: Firearms Homicide Rates in the Developed World.  (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States).

Here, Fig. 2 describes that Gun ownership and gun murder rates in industrialized nations are strongly positively correlated, according to the scatter plot made by Fox, Shveda, Croker, and Chacon (2021). It demonstrates unequivocally that countries with greater rates of civilian gun ownership, like the US, tend to have a disproportionately larger number of gun-related homicides than do those with less gun prevalence and more stringent gun laws. For example, while the United States has the largest gun ownership among industrialized countries, it also has substantially higher firearm homicide rates than countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where both ownership and violence are far lower. This visual evidence supports the wider conclusion reached by several studies that greater gun availability contributes to an increase in firearm-related mortality, even if causality cannot be definitely demonstrated from correlation alone (Fox et al., 2021; CDC, 2020). Therefore, here is a scatter plot showing gun murder rates versus gun ownership rates in industrialized nations. Source: Kara Fox; Krystina Shveda; Natalie Croker; Marco Chacon (November 26, 2021). The number of fatalities from mass shootings in the United States since 1982, which are defined as four or more individuals shot and killed in a single occurrence at a public location (not including the shooter) and do not include gang-related homicides. Now, Mass shooting deaths in the U.S. have been graphically mentioned below:

Here, the Fig. 3 states that this chart, which starts in 1982, displays the number of fatalities from mass shootings in the United States along with a 5-year moving average (Follman, Mark; Pan, Deanna; Aronsen, Gavin). Therefore, mass shootings have left a devastating impact on American history, with multiple occurrences resulting in significant numbers of deaths.

Fig. 3: Mass Shooting Deaths (U.S.) (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States).

These incidents, which frequently occur in public settings like as schools, concerts, and places of worship, have prompted widespread outrage and sparked national discussions about gun regulation and safety. Understanding the deadliest mass shootings highlights the critical need to combat firearm violence in America. Now the state of the worst mass shooting in America has been mentioned below:  

Fig. 4: Worst Mass Shooting in America. (Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/11339/mass-shootings-in-america/)

Here, the Fig. 4 shows the worst mass shootings in America, ranked by victim count from 1982 to 2017. The worst shooting took place in Las Vegas in October 2017, when a shooter murdered 58 people and injured over 500 at a music festival, making it the greatest mass shooting in modern US history. Other noteworthy instances include the Orlando Pulse Nightclub massacre in June 2016, which killed 49 people, the Virginia Tech campus shooting in 2007 that killed 32 people, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, which killed 27 people, the majority of whom were young children. The Sutherland Springs church massacre in Texas in 2017 claimed 26 lives, making it the bloodiest church shooting in US history. These terrible instances, albeit rare, illustrate the tremendous human cost of mass shootings in the country and highlight persistent issues with gun legislation and public safety (Statista, n.d.). The Parkland massacre is the mass shooting that took place on February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. A former student opened fire on the school, killing 17 students and staff members and injuring many more. This tragic occurrence became the eighth-deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. It not only devastated the local community but also sparked national rallies led by student survivors calling for stricter gun control regulations. The tragedy raised major concerns about school safety, mental health, and gun access in the United States (Krishnakumar, 2018). Now, deadly mass shootings in the U.S. have been mentioned graphically below:

Fig. 5: Florida shooting among the worst in modern U.S. History. (Source:  https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ar-15-story.html).

 

Here, the Fig. 5 states that on February 14, 2018, Nikolas Cruz, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, opened fire with an AR-15 type rifle, killing 17 students and staff and injuring another 17 in under six minutes. This terrible occurrence is significant for being the worst mass shooting at an American high school and the eighth-deadliest mass shooting in contemporary US history. The extent of the loss, paired with the victims ages and placement in a school, horrified the nation. It also sparked a strong response from survivors, including the formation of the March for Our Lives campaign, and renewed national discussions about gun control, school safety, and mental health legislation (Priya Krishnakumar / Los Angeles Times). In 1997, the American Journal of Economics and Sociology published research that revealed that local factors such as unemployment, drunkenness, and drug usage had a bigger influence on the frequency of gun-related crimes and fatalities than laws and restrictions. According to the Center for Responsive Government data, organisations that want stricter gun legislation spent more money than those that support gun rights. Now, Gun rights groups have spent more than gun control groups in the most recent years, as graphically mentioned below:

Fig. 6: Gun rights groups have spent more than Gun Control Groups in the most recent years. (Source: Center for Responsive Government).

Here, the Fig. 6 depicts how, between 2012 and 2020, gun rights groups, most notably the National Rifle Association (NRA) and related organisations, spent much more on lobbying, political contributions, and public advocacy than gun control groups. This includes sponsoring pro-gun candidates, lobbying Congress to avoid new weapon regulations, and waging media campaigns to promote Second Amendment rights. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), gun rights supporters outspent gun control groups by millions of dollars during this time. This financial advantage enabled them to have more influence over politicians and public discourse, making it more difficult for new gun control measures to gain momentum at the federal level. In reality, gun violence is a huge concern in the United States, as seen by the July 2021 weekend, which saw over 150 people killed in nearly 400 shootings. In contrast, Japan continues to have the worlds lowest firearm mortality rate. Now, between 2015 and 2019, around 40 people were killed daily due to Gun Violence in the U.S. Gun deaths surged in 2020 and continued to rise in 2021, as graphically mentioned below:

 Fig. 7: Between 2015 and 2019, around 40 people were killed daily due to Gun Violence in the U.S. Gun deaths surged in 2020 and continued to rise in 2021. (Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/14/2021-gun-violence/).

Here, the Fig. 7 shows that between 2015 and 2019, the United States had an average of 40 gun-related deaths per day, underlining the countrys persistent and deeply established issue with weapon violence. These deaths comprised killings, suicides, and accidental shootings, suggesting that gun violence was more than just criminal actions; it also entailed mental health and safety concerns. Gun fatalities skyrocketed in 2020, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused economic hardship, social isolation, increased handgun sales, and disruptions to community support services. This rising trend persisted until 2021, indicating that the situation has deteriorated despite increased public knowledge and discussion over gun control measures. The Washington Post reported a sharp rise in gun deaths across the United States in 2020, with increases evident not only in urban centers but also in suburban and rural communities. While city areas experienced the most significant spike, the expansion of gun violence into less densely populated regions reflects a broader national crisis in firearm-related fatalities (Washington Post, 2021), which is shown below graphically:

Fig. 8: Gun deaths rose nationwide in 2020, with urban areas hit hardest, though Suburban and Rural regions were also affected. (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/14/2021-gun-violence/).

Here, the Fig. 8 describes that in 2020, the United States had a large increase in gun-related deaths, a trend that was evident throughout the country. However, the effect was most severe in cities, where increased population density and socioeconomic differences led to higher rates of violence. During the COVID-19 epidemic, cities saw a spike in killings, which was typically connected to growing tensions, economic difficulties, and a reduction in social services. While urban regions witnessed the most dramatic increases, suburban and rural areas also reported rises in gun violence, indicating a broad surge rather than a localised urban epidemic. According to a New York Times, 2023 survey of active shooter incidents, the assailant was personally stopped by law officials in 42% of cases. The percentage of occurrences in which bystanders-who may be armed civilians-intervened was lower, at 5.1% of all incidents. The idea that citizen intervention, particularly through armed “good guy with a gun” responses, is a key component in putting a halt to mass shootings is called into question by this data [Buchanan, Larry; Leatherby, Lauren (June 22, 2022)], which has been mentioned here below graphically:

 Fig. 9: Outcomes: Active Shooter Attacks. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States).

Here, the Fig. 9, according to a New York Times research that examined the results of active shooter situations, the decision of who intervened frequently determined how the crisis was resolved. In 42% of the incidents, the police stopped the gunman by making an arrest, using force, or engaging in dialogue. A lower percentage of incidents included onlookers, who may have assisted others in escaping or physically restrained the gunman. One noteworthy finding is that a citizen with a firearm-often referred to as a “good guy with a gun”-successfully stopped the assailant in only around 5.1% of all occurrences. This figure casts doubt on the widely held belief that arming people effectively deters or prevents mass shootings. Unintentional shootings and events involving minors increased during the 2020 spike in gun violence, but there was no comparable rise in defensive usage or murder-suicide cases, which are mentioned below graphically:

Fig. 10:    The surge in gun violence in 2020 was accompanied by a rise in unintentional shootings and incidents involving children. (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/14/2021-gun-violence/).

 

Here, the Fig. 10 states that overall gun violence in the US increased significantly in 2020, especially in gun-related killings and assaults. But this increase did not coincide with a corresponding spike in murder-suicide or self-defense instances using firearms. Rather, there was an increase in unintentional shootings and instances involving minors and firearms. This implies that when more firearms entered homes-particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic-many of them were handled or kept improperly, which increased unintentional harm rather than protective or purposeful uses. Worldwide, over 250,000 people died from firearms in 2016 (GBD 2016 Injury Collaborators, 2018). Of these deaths, approximately 64% were homicides, 27% suicides, and 9% accidental injuries. These patterns reflect the global distribution of firearm-related mortality. Similar factors contribute to high rates of gun violence in various regions. Understanding these causes is essential for effective policy interventions.

Gun Violence and Gun Deaths in Japan and Bangladesh

Japan has a far lower rate of gun violence than nations such as the United States. This is mostly due to its rigorous weapons prohibitions, smaller population, and higher standard of living (Hemenway, 2011). Japan has some of the worlds strictest gun control regulations, resulting in fewer than 100 gun-related deaths per year in a population of over 127 million, with a firearm fatality rate of about 0.06 per 100,000 persons (Small Arms Survey, 2018). To lawfully acquire a handgun, candidates must complete a written exam, a mental health and drug screening, and a shooting competence test with at least 95% accuracy (Akiyama, 2019). In contrast, Bangladesh has a low number of firearm-related deaths, since gun permits are seldom obtained except in extraordinary situations (Islam, 2020). The stringent restriction on weapons possession, along with robust licensing systems, contributes to low levels of gun violence and deaths. Both nations demonstrate how strict regulation and rigorous screening may considerably reduce firearm-related deaths, which contrast strikingly with the far higher rates found in the United States.

Right to Bear and Keep Arms in Bangladesh

Since unfettered access to weapons may endanger public safety, Bangladesh imposes extremely severe gun control legislation. To apply for a weapons license, a citizen must be at least 25 years old (30 for handguns), under 60, have a valid national identification card, and be a regular taxpayer (Hasan, 2019). 

To support gun ownership under the self-defence category, applicants must additionally show a real threat to their safety or life (Rahman, 2020). Police verification and background checks are part of the drawn-out licensing procedure. Even yet, people are only allowed to own one handgun (a pistol or revolver) and one long gun (a rifle or shotgun) (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2021). Importantly, license holders are not allowed to use their guns in any guard service or professional security job. According to the Arms Act of 1878 and the amended Arms Rules of 2016, unlawful firearm ownership or usage entails harsh penalties, including life in jail or, in extreme circumstances, the death sentence (Bangladesh Gazette, 2016). In comparison to international standards, the nations comparatively low rate of gun violence can be attributed in part to these strong regulatory limitations.

This study takes a qualitative research technique, investigating gun rights and gun violence from a comparative legal standpoint. The study relies heavily on secondary sources, such as statistical information, legal texts, policy papers, and academic studies. Data on gun violence and firearm-related deaths were gathered from respectable sources such as the Washington Post, BBC News, the Gun Violence Archive, and official government and international organisation publications.

Various graphs and visual data representations are used to show trends, frequency, and comparative information from the United States, Japan, and Bangladesh. These graphic tools serve to understand the present state of gun-related occurrences and the efficacy of legislative frameworks. The study depends solely on documentary review and comparative legal analysis, with no primary data or fieldwork collected.

This comparative analysis indicates that gun rights and laws differ dramatically in the United States, Japan, and Bangladesh, with serious consequences for gun violence. The United States stands out for its constitutional protection for gun ownership, which contributes to the greatest number of gun-related deaths among developed countries (CDC, 2021). In contrast, Japan has one of the worlds strongest gun control regimes, which coincides with an almost nil gun murder rate (Fox et al., 2021). Bangladesh, despite its restrictive policies, struggles with illegal arms circulation and weak enforcement (ASK, 2020). Active shooter data from the United States suggest that police involvement stops most assaults, whereas civilian resistance is uncommon, happening in only 5.1% of occurrences (New York Times, 2023). The devastating effects of lax gun restrictions are highlighted by mass shootings in America, such as the 2017 Las Vegas disaster (Statista, n.d.). In Bangladesh and Japan, these kinds of instances are almost nonexistent. According to the report, there is a direct link between increased gun violence and lax gun regulations. It suggests that to lower the number of firearm-related fatalities, U.S. officials take into account the lessons learned from Bangladesh and Japan.

At the end of the study, Gun violence and firearm-related deaths continue to be major concerns in the United States, setting it apart from nations such as Japan and Bangladesh, where stricter gun restrictions result in far fewer incidences. While the right to carry guns is protected by the United States Constitution, their abuse has resulted in catastrophic mass shootings, suicides, and killings (BBC News, 2022). The ongoing discussion between gun rights and gun control activists highlights the critical need for a balanced approach.

Comparative research indicates that tight legal measures can significantly reduce gun mortality. Bangladesh and Japan demonstrate how effective weapons regulations may improve public safety. US policymakers must explore these overseas models while respecting democratic norms. Unless aggressive legal and policy reforms are implemented, gun-related tragedies are likely to continue. According to this research, thorough and sensible gun regulation is not just recommended, but required. Therefore, some recommendations are mentioned below after analysing the study

1. The United States should adopt stricter licensing procedures similar to Japans, including mandatory mental health and drug tests (Chapman et al., 2016).
2. Universal background checks should be enforced for all gun sales in the USA, as practised in Japan and partially in Bangladesh (Everytown Research, 2021).
3. Restrict civilian access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, drawing from Japans total ban and Bangladeshs selective licensing (BBC News, 2022).
4. Introduce a national firearms registry to track legal ownership and reduce illegal transfers (Giffords Law Center, 2021).
5. Create mandatory firearm safety training programs, modelled after Japans written and practical tests (Miller, 2020).
6. Limit the number of firearms per person to one or two, as seen in Bangladeshs firearm regulation system (Arms Act, 1878).
7. Increase penalties for illegal firearm possession and trafficking, following Bangladeshs life imprisonment provision (Rahman, 2021).
8. Impose age restrictions of 25 or above for firearm ownership to reduce risk among younger populations (UNODC, 2017).
9. Strengthen public education campaigns to raise awareness of responsible gun use and the impact of gun violence (CDC, 2020).
10. Promote interagency coordination and data-sharing to monitor gun-related crimes effectively across all three jurisdictions (ATF, 2022).
11. Encourage international cooperation to control cross-border arms trafficking, particularly between South and Southeast Asia (UNODC, 2017).
12. Emphasise a balance between constitutional rights and public safety, learning from Japans public safety priority and Bangladeshs restrictive model (Scalia, 2008; Ain o Salish Kendra, 2020).

In conclusion, the recommendations based on comparative analyses of the United States, Japan, and Bangladesh clearly show that tougher and more organised gun control measures may dramatically reduce gun violence and deaths. While the United States continues to suffer from mass shootings and gun-related fatalities owing to lax gun legislation, Japan and Bangladesh offer contrasting examples of more effective limitations, licensing requirements, and enforcement procedures. Finally, from the above recommendations, which seek to find a compromise between individual rights and societal security, pushing for universal background checks, age limitations, safety training, and limited ownership--principles that have previously proven effective in Japan and Bangladesh. Implemented with political will and public support, such measures might significantly lessen the frequency and severity of gun-related catastrophes in the United States and elsewhere (Chapman et al., 2016; BBC News, 2022; Ain o Salish Kendra, 2020).

The authors are first and foremost grateful to the Almighty for granting them the strength, knowledge, ability, and opportunity to conduct this research study. Without His blessings, this work would not have been completed satisfactorily. The authors would like to express their heartfelt appreciation to their mentors, Professor Dr. M. Anisur Rahman and Professor Dr. M. Ahsan Kabir, Department of Law, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh, for their proper supervision and enthusiastic encouragement. Finally, the authors thank anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for their insightful suggestions and comments that helped to improve the manuscript.

There are no conflicts of interest from the authors end with respect to the research work.