Gun control is a topic that is hitting the headlines in different print media in the public policy debate due to an increased rate of gun-related violence in the country. The gun law policy makes it clear that people have the authority to possess guns as this is their constitutional right. However, the government has restrictions concerning the types of people to possess guns and the type of gun they can possess in the country ( Charles, 2019). On this matter, a section of citizens thinks that the government is doing less to control the availability of guns in public. They contend that gun control techniques and restrictions the government implement are not effective in controlling guns in the hands of those who misuse them. On the other side, some people trust the government’s lone programs on gun control. Such people claim that government programs are enough to reduce the number of illegal gun holders in public. The gun control policy in the United States is evaluative. The second constitutional amendment allows every person to possess a gun. However, the government restricts different individuals and specific types of firearms in public with an attempt to reduce illegal possession of firearms in the country.
Policy-relevant knowledge: At the center of the gun control policy debate is the claim that the availability of guns and the ease at which people acquire guns is the reason behind the increasing gun-related violence in the country. The claim is that due to the high rate of gun availability, it becomes easy to commit a crime using guns, thereby increasing gun-related mortality in the country. Therefore, reducing the availability of guns by placing restrictions is likely to reduce the high rate of gun-related crime and deaths. In an attempt to check the level of gun use in the country, the United States government has various legislations that control gun use. A good example is The National Firearms Act of 1934 which mandates different government bodies to remove specific firearms from the public to increase safety.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Warrant: The supporters of the gun control policy contend that the lone government measures are enough to reduce the illegal possession of firearms in the country. In this sense, the supporters assure the citizens that they are safe without possessing any gun because the government restricts gun use to licensed individuals only.
Qualifier: To qualify their warrants, the gun control promoters such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) claim that there is no necessity of citizens to possess guns because the government, through responsible bodies, check access to ensure that only those who have license possess guns.
Backing: The gun law promoters further back their arguments by claiming that government agencies ensure that gun enrolment activities are competent to account for the legality of all the number of guns in public ( Charles, 2019). In this sense, such activities ensure that people who have guns have a valid license to own them. Besides, it ensures that those who have a license to hold guns have the right firearms and not illegal ones.
Objection: the oppositions claim that the government’s lone strategies are not good enough to control illegal possession of guns in the country. For instance, gun control organizations such as the National Rifle Association testify that the government agencies for gun control regularly make intricacies for honest residents and encroach upon their established rights given by the second amendment of the constitution rather than controlling illegal possession of guns in the country.
Rebuttal: The opposition further contends that citizens are much safer with guns than without guns. From their viewpoint, most gun-related attacks take place in locations where people do not possess guns such as churches and schools. It implies that if the citizens have guns, they are less vulnerable to attack than when they do not possess them. The most plausible reason supports the idea that the government faces a tough test in restricting the illegal possession of guns in the country. From this argument, the complexity of the National Rifle Association that allows it to make an extra budget of nearly $20 to $30 million is an added cost to taxpayers on matters that rarely succeed. Such arguments further explain that at the center of the National Rifle Association is politics that forces it to come up with guns control arguments that favor specific people at the white house and not the public. Stakeholders are people who feel a direct or indirect impact of a specific policy. In the gun control policy debate, many stakeholders stand the opposite of each other in the gun law argument. The American Firearms Association (AFA) is an example of a stakeholder that has a neutral stand on the gun control debate. Despite the organization conceding to the fact that people are safe with guns in their hands, it also contends to the fact that the government has effective strategies that aim to control the guns that are likely to fall on the wrong hands. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) stands opposite the American Firearms Association in the gun control policy debate ( Haberman, 2018). These organizations argue that government gun control restrictions and control strategies cannot deter criminals from acquiring guns. They claim that criminals have an extensive network through which they can illegally acquire guns.
The United against Gun Violence or the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (BCPGV) is other stakeholders that campaign against gun violence. The United against Gun Violence claims that the availability of guns in society is the reason behind the high rate of gun violence and gun-related deaths in the country. The organization, therefore, stands firm that the government restriction strategies on gun control in the country are not doing enough to prevent the availability of guns for the wrong people (Miller, 2019). The table below is a Frequency distribution for the ideas from the stakeholders. Unlike the case in figure 3.1, where the graph flattens after the twenty-second stakeholder, the graph, in this case, did not flatten. From case 3.1, the graph flattens at the point where there was some agreement between the stakeholders on the matter under discussion. At the point where the graph flattens in case 3.1, the assumption is that the stakeholders hold similar opinions after the discussion. The case of the gun law debate is different. The gun control debate is a two-sided discussion where no party is ready to side with the opposition. Organizations or stakeholders that support gun law restrictions claim that the government has strategies that can control guns and restrict them from the hands of those people who can misuse them. The adversaries point at the constitution and gun violence as ways to justify their claim that people need to have guns so that they protect themselves from violence and exercise their constitutional rights. The conclusion, therefore, is that the gun control policy debate is a topic that may take some time before policymakers find the best way to frame the gun control policy. Group interviewing as a way of data collection approach emphasizes analyzing the content of different ideas from a discussion. For instance, the policy discussion, such as gun control policy debate, is a good example where the group interviewing approach of data collection is excellent. It involves detailing the idea from each party at the discussion and later comparing them with each other at the analysis stage. On the other side, the content analysis gives focus to an analysis of the different reports and positions of the stakeholders. Data collection approaches such as note-taking and sketching the metrics and graphical representations are critical.
In case 3.1, the graphs flatten at a point. The graphs are uniform from the beginning, but as it continues, it curves out and flattens. The flat surface could represent a peak point in the policy discussion (Miller, 2019). The assumption is that at the beginning, the stakeholders have divergent ideas on the subject of discussion. However, the stakeholders begin to hold a uniform opinion on the matter, and their ideas begin to converge. At this point, the graphs begin to flatten. Boundary analysis examines the extreme ends of an issue. For instance, when there is a policy discussion on any matter, for instance, gun control policy debate, the boundary analysis examines the ideas on both ends to determine the neutral ground from where the policymakers can draw the line while formulating the policy (Miller, 2019). The idea is to select the variable at their extreme ends or consider both the lowest and the highest ends of an issue. In this sense, the statement means that boundary analysis generates a diverse way of analyzing an issue at the center of policy formulation by considering all dimensions of a specific issue before concluding on the policy formulation.
References
Charles. (2019, September 5). Stop Lying About Gun Control. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/beto-orourke-gun-control.html
Dunn, W. N. (2017). Public policy analysis: An integrated approach. Routledge.
Haberman, C. (2018, April 30). Do Stronger Gun Laws Stand a Chance? It has Been an Uphill Battle. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/us/gun-control-laws-retro-report.html
Miller, S. V. (2019). What Americans think about gun control: evidence from the general social survey, 1972–2016. Social Science Quarterly , 100 (1), 272-288.
