Gun Control and Laws - Research Paper Example

Contemporary United States is dominated by gun violence (Goss 12). In the United States, gunshot wounds occur to at least 31,000 persons every year. In most of the gunshot cases, the victims are excessively young thereby making gunshots the leading cause of premature mortality. According to Webster et al., an approximated 337, 960 non-fatal violent crimes occurred in 2010, all of which involved the use of guns (2). In the US hospitals in 2010, an estimated 73, 505 persons were treated in emergency departments for wounds resulting from non-fatal gunshots. Compared to other high income countries, the rate of firearm homicide in the US is twenty times greater than that of other high income countries (Webster et al. 2). The extremely high rates of firearm homicide are contributed by the high gun accessibility and ownership prevalence (a gun in every two homes) counteracted by much less restraining gun laws (Goss 27-35). As a result, firearm crime in the US is much fatal than other identical income level countries. For the US economy, the high prevalence of gun ownership is a cause of enormous economic costs since injuries and death arising from firearms result to medical expenses and expenditure from lost productivity. Based on the findings from Webster et al., there was about $32 billion of economic costs in 2005 (2-5). In the United States, gun control is a controversy that is debated on arguments about whether guns formulate the safety of citizens or not, while gun control is equated to restricting gun ownership (Sowell, para 1). As of the United States federal laws, only certain categories of people are prohibited from possessing firearms as stated in the Gun Control Act (1968). However, 24 states allow persons 18 years and over to purchase a gun from any store by just filling out the required paperwork. However this minimum age restriction has elevated the risk of victimization or perpetration given that grave aggressive crimes are at peak intensity throughout adolescence and in early 20s (Webster at al. 3). Among others, those prohibited from owning firearms include felons; persons involuntarily committed to a mental institution; illegal aliens; persons obsessed or illegitimately using illicit substances; persons with limiting orders for matrimonial violence; and fugitive. Nevertheless, the United States Bill of Rights outlines the right of people to keep and bear arms and is supported by the American constitution. The anti-gun control laws argue that with everyone given the right to defend self using guns there would be less illegal gun use (Sowell para 2). Conversely, the opponents of the gun control laws argue that with more people owning guns, the higher the number of people suffering from violence and gun crime. Gun control and laws directly impact public administration given that proper governance is responsible for promoting public safety and security. In order to reduce firearm violence, stricter prohibitions for high risk group will result to long term violence reduction and save lives. The proposal for gun control is through the use of necessitating the certification of gun owners just like car motorists certification. In order for one to earn a license, background checks, fingerprinting and free arm safety training should be done (Gold 29). Overview of gun control After the California statehouse invasion in May 2, 1967 by black panthers, the current gun-right movement began. Prior to this invasion, gun control was intrusive and did not focus on disarming the citizens but denying guns to slaves, free blacks and white men not royal to the revolution (Winkler 1). The selective implementation of gun control was triggered by restriction of public administration to government bureaucracy which encouraged neglect of the reaction of the blacks in response to bureaucratic policies (Khan 3). The 1967 California statehouse incident was triggered by opposition to gun control by frustrated black militants for failure of civil-rights movement’s promise provided through the Civil Rights Act (1964) and 1965’s act of Voting Rights. By 1967, there was not any sign of equal opportunity delivery as promised in these acts. Conversely, oppression and violence rose and was associated to the police who according to public administration were anticipated for public defense and service. Inspirations to the resistance actions of the Black Panther Party was from the perception that there was unwillingness or inability by the American government to defend the lives and possessions of blacks leaving them with the option of self defense through any necessary means, the gun (Winkler 1). The use of guns by Panthers led to the passing of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968) while the act on gun control was enlarged. In essence, American measures to control guns were not intended at promoting public safety, crime reduction or firearms related murder but on oppressing African Americans (Winkler 2). The National Rifles Associations NRA was the leader in enacting gun control in the 1930s. Fredrick, who was then NRA president assisted in drafting the Uniform Firearms Act for gun control in the state level. In this model, a permit was required for one to carry a gun in public, reporting of any gun sale by dealers and a waiting period on guns sales (Winkler 3). However, today, NRA condemns gun control insisting that it is a form of violation of allowance of arms. In 2008, the Supreme Court revealed the impossibility of the government to completely remove weapons from citizens owing to the second amendments rights for individuals to possess guns. Today, the uniquely easy way of accessing and owning guns in United States serves in increasing the number of firearms in both right and high-risk persons. As a result, the society in America is defined as increasingly getting gun-ridden. In addition, Kate and Mauser (652) reveal that the American society tends to substitute guns with other weapons for murder during gun-scarce periods. As a result, it is common to have high murder rates in areas with low gun ownership rate in the United States cities and counties among other areas. The successful implementation of gun control in Australia and Israel is associated to the fact that the scarcity of firearms did not see people seeking for alternative weapons for murder. On the contrary, individuals shunned from firearms violence (Spross para 6). Over the course of history, the United States has witnessed numerous murders ranging from beloved public figures, massacres in schools and gun violence epidemics that terrorize neighborhoods while claiming thousands of lives (Kates and Mauser 651). Despite numerous campaigns on gun control, the existing gun control laws in different states have weakened the long term restrictions. In order to understand the inefficiency of current gun control policies, the case study of Washington D.C gun ban is examined. Conversely, in order to understand the fact that stricter firearms restrictions for high-risk groups will reduce violence and save lives, the case study of Australia gun control law is examined. Washington D.C gun ban Washington D.C. is one place in America where everything must always run well and smoothly as the nation’s capital city. In order to uphold proper, safe and efficient governance of Washington D.C, the D.C. gun ban (1976) was enacted. In this ban, only the law observance officials would legitimately carry firearm in the city (Shapiro, para 3). In addition, the ban prohibited residents from keeping guns for self defense in their homes. Registered firearms owners in Washington D.C. were also allowed to keep guns provided they remained disassembled and unpacked. Shapiro (para 4) reveals that even for indexed gun owners, it was prohibited to take out the activate locks for self-defense. According to Greenfield (para 4), the D.C. gun ban led to unexpected effect of reinforced criminals who took advantage of the vulnerable and defenseless law abiding citizens. As a result, violent crime rate increased from 188 in 1976 to 369 in 1988. Seventeen years after the enactment of the ban, the number of annual homicides rose to 454 in Washington. The D.C. gun ban remained active until the Supreme Court struck it down in 2008. In 1995, the Metropolitan department efforts to wage war on firearms only resulted to the confiscation of only 282 guns out of thousands in circulation (Shapiro para 6). By 2012, Shapiro reveals that the District of Colombia experienced the lowest number of murders, 88, since the enactment of the ban in 1976 and since the lifting of the gun ban in 2008 (186) (para 11). The decline in murders declined against the expectations of many in the District and was as a result of numerous factors. According to Kates and Mauser (655), England experienced a similar unexpected effect of increased crime after implementing inflexible controls banning all handguns and majority of long guns while confiscating hundreds of thousands from patriotic citizens. By 2000, England and Wales had the highest rates of crime rates higher than that of United States. Australian Gun control Law The gun control law in Australia was triggered by the worst of mass shootings in the history of the nation. 35 people were killed in Port Arthur, Tasmania on April 28, 1996 (Spross para 2). In response to the tragedy, the then prime minister, John Howard administered the passage of removing new gun control legislation. The automatic and semiautomatic shotguns and rifles were banned and a buyback mandatory program enacted to collect the illegally owned weapons. The outcome of the move was hilarious since homicides by firearms declined by 59% between 1995 and 2006 coupled by no increase in non-firearm homicides. In addition, there was a fall of 65% in gun suicide while firearms related crimes declined significantly. Despite the belief that firearms served in crimes determent, Spross reveals that there were no associated increases in home invasions (para 3). The fact that non-firearms suicides and homicides did not rise indicated that there was no shift to other methods to harm self or others. Instead, individuals shunned from committing violence acts given the difficulty in accessing arms. Through buyback of 3,500 guns in every 100,000 persons, there was a reduction of about 74% decline in suicide associated with firearms. A comparably effective measure in reducing firearm suicides and homicides was evident in Israel when soldiers we prohibited from taking their guns home during the weekend. The result was 60% decline in suicide on weekends. The efficiency of the moves in Israel and Australia is attributed to reduction of the density of guns within a population resulting to reduction in the chances of a person taking their life or that of others (Spross para 5). Analysis of gun control in the political, social and administrative context Administrative context According to Patil, public administration covers all government activities and therefore the three components of government which are executive, judicial and legislative and their associations. In addition, administration plays a crucial role in public policy formulation thus it is part of the political process. Conversely, public administration is the non-political bureaucracy that functions within a political system. In the government, public administration is the business side which deals with policy execution and policy making. Additionally, public administration offers to the people regulatory and service functions such that they have a good life Patil. Politics of gun control Since inception, public administration is viewed as solely identifying with the executive branch of government. Public administration deals with people, structure and politics as exemplified by the executive branch (Horn 1). The executive branch comprises of cabinet departments, independent agencies; Bureaus and field offices. The legislators have the responsibility of determining the form of institutions. The legislators also decide the type of organization to be used in which instance; specify participation and design rights for various parties and influence financing of administrative activity (Horn 2). In the United States, gun control has resulted to being the role of the executive branch in that the current president, Barack Obama, issued a presidential memorandum that in effect reversed a ban by the congress on national research into gun violence causes (Stern para 8). Stern reveals that president Obama also required heath care providers, states and federal agencies to share information with the NICS in efforts to curb guns to persons with backgrounds with criminal disqualifications or issues of mental health (para 9). In his actions on gun control, President Obama has bypassed the legislative branch, the congress. In the United States, the congress makes the laws and has a role in voting for gun control. Through the concept of logrolling, the congress members may be influenced to vote for or against the gun control bill from the president or executive branch. Such politics would mean that the American nation would remain under the threat of illegal gun use. Through the bypassing of the congress, the president exercised his executive power which is the highest form of bureaucracy and can rarely be reversed, not even by the Supreme Court. Social context of gun control According to Boylan, gun owners argue that like any other tool, guns are tools that can cause evil or good and the determinant of the good or evil result is solely the choice of the gun owner (25). Conversely, the gun control advocates focus on the damage associated with gun possession that makes them dangerous and worth of regulation. However, the example of Norway as the Western European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership and the lowest rates of murder and Hollad’s lowest rate of gun possession with very high murder rates leaves the use of gun as the sole decision of the owner (Kates and Haus 252). Today, personal safety or self-defense of gun owners depends on false apprehension that eliminates the use of alternative risk control methods and advocating for regular use of guns (Boylan 26). The issue of gun control has affected people and communities leaving them wondering how to deal with this modern day phenomenon of rifles and guns. Boylan reveals that the US lacks a single comprehensive and internally coherent gun control perspective that is not only good but one that acts out in individuals’ daily lives (19). Consequently there is no universally coherent, comprehensive and good standards on gun control and people do not act in sincerity and authenticity founded on reflection and choice. As a result, United States has lethal firearms crimes. Assessment of gun control The regulations of gun ownership should not just focus on controlling gun ownership but also on eliminating reliance on false apprehension of one’s personal safety or self-defense. Individuals should understand that owning a gun does not make one safer (Boylan 26). On the contrary, owning guns results to increased crime because Americans have become self-interested and at times shoot others at will. The high prevalence of self-interest in individuals results to wrong conception of self-defense and low commitment by Americans to form a civil society. Through passing or repealing gun laws in America, the attainment of a civil society America is the responsibility of each individual given that an estimated 310 million firearms are in circulation and retrieval of the same seems impossible. At this point, the solution is dependent on the morality of each one and not the number of guns in the hands of the citizenry (Webster 5). In Georgia City, all households are required to have at least one firearms and the number of violent crimes have fallen below national figures. The case of Australia also indicates that the will of the people to form a civilized society led to declined firearms and non-firearms crime (Spross para 5). According to Webster (6), the effective gun policy does not just rely on people’s morality and repealing gun laws. Gun prevention of distribution to criminals and other juvenile persons is crucial. This means that the government should invest in identification of higher-risk and other prohibited individuals attempts to acquire gun and prevent any purchase. Despite the presence of Brady law in regulating the sale of guns to prohibited persons, only purchases from licensed gun dealers and not private sellers, perform a check on the buyer. Sealing the private gun sellers’ loophole should be implemented through policies that adequately hold gun sellers accountable for practices that are illegitimate and hazardous. Through effective regulation of gun sellers illegal trafficking of guns is reduced (Webster 7). Proposed policy on gun control and the consequences of implementation According to Gold (53), gun violence control requires the support of both the individual and the society. Individuals have to have the right skills and minds and then given the chance to actively live in and serve in a society. Conversely, the society is required to be free of violence, supportive and caring. Through the observation of sincerity, the intention behind actions is understood while authenticity oversees the execution of objective within the right formation. With sincerity and authenticity, Boylan reveals that individuals will be able to actualize their purpose in the world and become self law makers (3). Apart from taking personal responsibilities for actions, individuals are called to partake in the establishment of a shared community worldview. The proper running of community institutions is reinforced through the use of proper policies. Finally, the community institutions must be such that they are framed within the core values of the people making up the society. Works cited Boylan, Michael. “Gun Control in the United States: Ethical perspectives for the twenty first Century.” Clinical orthopedics and related research. 406 (2003): 17-27. Gold, Susan D. Gun Control. New York: Benchmark Books, 2004. Print. 12-53 Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print. 12-71 Greenfield, Daniel. “How Washington D.C.’s gun ban led to a crime wave in the 1980’s.” Front Page Magazine N.pag. 17 Jan., 2013. Web. 7 April, 2013. Horn, Murray J. The political economy of public administration: Institutional choice in public sector. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print. Kates, Don B and Mauser Gary. “World Bannin firearms reduce Murder and suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence.” Harvard Journal of Law and public policy. 20.2 (2004): 6464-694. Print. Khan, Mohammad H. public administration: revisiting the state of the discipline, the definitions and heralding the paradigm shift for the third millennium. Canada: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2008. Print. Patil, Swapnil. “Scope of Public administration.” Pubad-ias BlogSpot N.p., 27 Aug., 2013. Web. 7 April, 2013. Shapiro, Jeffrey S. “Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: A Gun Ban That Misfired.” Wall Street Journal 15 Jan., 2013: N.Pag. Web. 7 April, 2013. Sowell, Thomas. “Do Gun control laws control guns?” Spectator. N.p., 22 Jan., 2013. Web. 9 January, 2013. Spross, Jeff. “Australia’s Gun Control Law Caused a Drop in gun-related deaths, and An even bigger drop in suicides.” Think progress. Center for American progress action fund, 18 Dec., 2012. Web. 7 April, 2013. Stern, Marcus. “Obama extends presidential power in bypassing congress on gun control.” Reuters 17 Jan., 2013. Web. 7 April, 2013. Winkler, Adam. “The Secret History of guns.” The Atlantic 24 July 2011: N.Pag. Web. 7 April, 2013. Webster, Daniel W et al. The case for Gun Policy reforms in America. Baltimore: John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, 2012. Print. Read More