Analysis of Gun Control - Research Paper Example

Analysis of Gun Control Introduction Gun availability is one of the main problems in the USA and UK. Social regulatory policies seek to apply governmental authority in a direct and immediate way to shape individual actions in the realm of values, morals, and norms. As with other forms of government regulation, this shaping is usually accomplished by the enactment of specific rules accompanied by specific sanctions or penalties. According to social regulatory policy theory, certain distinctive political patterns and characteristics are associated with social regulatory issues related to gun control. These patterns are observable among the major elements of the political process, including the political behavior of the courts, interest groups, the presidency, political parties, Discussion Section In order to propose the best policy for the USA, it is important to describe gun control measures and social attitude towards gins in the UK. By far the most common reasons for gun ownership are hunting and related recreational uses, a fact consistent with the prevalence of long guns over handguns. Self-protection is the second most frequently cited reason (mentioned about a third as often as hunting/recreation), and it is the main reason cited for handgun purchases. In public policy terms, legitimate hunting purposes are not questioned, aside from issues related to safety (Squires, 2008). The self-protection issue, however, poses a different problem. Those who acquire or own guns for self-protection are reacting to the perceived and real threats of modern American life. One study of those who own guns for self-protection found key explanations in feelings of vulnerability to crime and police ineffectiveness. In addition, men are more likely to purchase guns for security, as are those who have been victimized by crime or who believe the risk of crime is increasing (Kelly, 2004). One other consideration in this already complex equation is the theft of legally owned guns. Gun control opponents are quick to point out that stricter gun laws would result in less gun availability for law-abiding citizens but that criminals would continue to get guns anyway, since most obtain them by illegal means to begin with. The problem with this logic (leaving aside for the moment the self-defense side of the equation) is that it begs the question of where the guns used by criminals come from. Most stolen guns, and guns used to commit crimes, begin as weapons produced and sold legally (Ludwig and Cook 2003). In an effort to find a more effective political approach, the state agencies in the UK has launched a new political assault by accusing gun control supporters of being soft on crime, urging the construction of more prisons and tougher sentencing, and avoiding any direct claims about gun control (Squires, 2008). The initial and most important fact about public opinion on gun control has been its remarkable consistency in support of greater governmental control of guns. As the survey results from questions on gun registration, waiting periods, assault weapons, and even a ban on handguns make clear, the British decisive support for stronger gun control is not the product of misunderstanding or a failure to comprehend what the gun debate is all about. Americans may not possess the knowledge of the gun specialist, but the policy options under public discussion are straightforward and clear, as are public preferences (Kelly, 2004). The Congress should take into account that gun ownership and opposition to gun controls are closely related. Those most likely to oppose gun controls are male (about three-quarters of gun owners are men, as are 87 percent of hunters), reside in small towns and rural areas, are registered as Republicans, are white, and live in the South (Squires, 2008). The important factors that tie these demographic traits together include the male "rite of passage" connection between guns and maturity (a value rarely found in the socialization of females), the rural setting where guns and hunting activities are more common. The particular importance of population is examined in a separate study that concluded that the subculture is one where the sporting use of guns is emphasized, as is the "attribute of being more defensive"; that is, there is greater suspicion of outsiders, and a stronger belief in the need to rely on personal self-sufficiency (Ludwig and Cook 2003). The disjunction between broad popular support for firmer gun laws and the failure to enact most such laws might be interpreted as a failure of democracy. Yet the connection between public opinion and public policy should be far more complex than is suggested by such a conclusion. In the absence of a national system of governance by nationwide referendum, it is all but inevitable that such disjunctions will exist. The explanation rests, first, with the difficulty of translating social regulatory policy preferences into policy enactments. Like trying to build a house in the middle of a hurricane, the effort to construct or alter social regulatory policy is notoriously difficult because of the passion and intensity surrounding such issues. This fact takes on added significance when we note that, other things being equal, the enactment of policy is always more difficult than blocking the enactment of policy. Thus the weight of political inertia rests with gun control opponents (Squires, 2008). Clearly, public opinion swings in recent years have helped win passage of the ban on armor-piercing bullets, the Brady bill, and the assault weapons. Yet the outrage-action-reaction cycle means that public outrage is limited in intensity and duration, especially since the gun issue is but one of many that compete for attention on the national issue agenda. Once the outrage has subsided, gun control opponents retain a political edge that generally works against a direct translation of public preferences into policy enactments (Ludwig and Cook 2003). As in the case of other social regulatory policy issues, the national political parties have consistently disagreed with each other on gun control, although the degree and emphasis of rhetoric used has varied according to the nature of the gun debate at the time and the political posturing of the party nominees (Squires, 2008). This fact takes on added significance with the recognition that America's two major parties have a long-standing reputation for seeking to minimize their differences and for addressing issues in broad, abstract terms, rather than through unambiguous advocacy of specific policies. As measured by national party platforms, the Republicans have expressed long-standing support for gun ownership free of government regulation (except for gun use by criminals), and the Democrats have exhibited a similar consistency in favor of gun regulations (Squires, 2008). In the USA, the political parties should respond to the gun issue as well. While their stands in particular years have been alternately modest and symbolic, on the one hand, and aggressively specific, on the other hand, they have identifiably split with consistency, as critics would expect for social regulatory policy: the state parties have opposed new gun laws. In this instance, at least, the parties have offered voters an identifiable choice on the gun control issue. These party differences have not had a greater effect on the national debate because single-issue appeals are rarely decisive in national politics and because the influence of the national parties has decreased in recent years (Tushnet, 2007). These gun control efforts share several traits in common. These forces by themselves were relatively ineffective and unsuccessful in battling the well-organized and motivated forces opposing such controls as the measures moved through Congress. The fates of these bills should all resolve in congressional committees. Unlike gun bills to come, no grand floor fights broke out over any of these bills in either the House or the Senate, again a reflection of the relative political weakness of gun control proponents. The bills that passed do so with little or no debate, or public attention. The opposition to these bills is fed less by material or business concerns than by the deep-seated, personal feelings of opponents that these bills would impinge on the values identified here as the gun culture Thus, except for the absence of nasty floor fights, the political dynamics of these bills reflect gun control as a social regulatory policy (Tushnet, 2007). The best implementation strategy lies in the nature of regulatory policy. Recalling the discussion of the four types of policy (distributive, regulatory, redistributive, and constituent), previous analysis has shown that regulatory policy is both the most controversial and the one over which presidents have been able to exercise the least influence (Squires, 2008). This does not mean that successful enactment of regulatory policies is impossible, but that the odds of enactment--much less enactment in the form presented--are longest for this type (Tushnet, 2007). In the USA, the gun control battle is, above all, a struggle over public policy. As the many elements and cases of the gun issue analyzed in this book reveal, the gun policy struggle is one in which elephantine political forces battle over policy mice. This conclusion is surely no surprise to anyone with a passing acquaintance with the gun issue. At the same time, only a full understanding of the policy issue's scope and its political consequences can hope to yield any sort of policy synthesis (Squires, 2008). Buttressed today primarily by the hunting/sporting ethos, the gun culture resists further efforts at regulation. As public opinion polls reveal, that resistance is based less on objections to the content of proposed regulation than on (1) the slippery-slope concern that regulation, whether reasonable or not, will inevitably lead to more regulation, and ultimately the banning of many, if not most, weapons (the NRA's primary clarion call); and (2) the subjective but deeply felt belief that such regulations may or do infringe on "rights" (Tushnet, 2007). Conclusion The program will be evaluated on the basis of effectiveness and reduced crime level in one particular area. Even though no such rights infringement exists from a constitutional perspective, the belief itself is an intense motivator for most. As international security specialists well understand, the constant threat posed by the security dilemma would be no threat at all if a powerful international authority existed that could impose order, and accompanying standards of behavior, on the nations of the world. The startling parallels between the behavior of nations and that of citizens within the United States is less surprising when one considers the primeval need for social order as the first purpose of governments. References Kelly, C. (2004). Blown Away: American Women and Guns. Routledge. Ludwig, J., Cook, Ph. J. (2003). Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. Brookings Institution Press Squires, P. (2008). Gun Culture or Gun Control: Firearms, Violence and Society. Routledge; 1 edition. Tushnet, M. V. (2007). Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns (Inalienable Rights). Oxford University Press. Read More