The purpose of this executive summary is to emphasize the evidence on gun control policy and available federal data on the same. Gun culture has remained a controversial issue in the United States with polarized sides supporting their stands. This has warranted the need for research to understand the effects of gun control policies. However, research on gun control is notoriously underfunded and the federal funding is not sufficient enough. States develop public policies to respond to problems in society and deal with them, with the policies requiring states to apply stricter regulations on purchasing guns. This executive summary discusses the gun control policy in the United States including its major players and why it is an important policy. It considers what should be done about guns in the country while providing evidence from research on gun control. The executive summary presents findings of gun policy control in the United States from federal data with recommendations on solving the problem. The gun control policy emerges from the need to tackle gun violence in the country. There have been dozens of high profile mass shootings recently and other forms of gun violence that sparked the need for gun control and efficiency of firearm regulation (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015). A more mass shooting has been associated with weaker gun control laws. For example, states with weaker gun laws have recorded more mass shootings in recent years compared to states with stronger gun regulations. Similarly, more gun-related deaths through suicide and homicide are associated with weaker gun roles. Guns create an environment of mass violence when allowed in the hands of irresponsible people, which is why allowing every individual a chance to own guns can be a risk to the security and safety of a country. The gun control act of 1968 was enacted to regulate the firearm industry by prohibiting interstate firearm transfer. This act also burned the sale of guns to minors, convicted criminals, drug addicts and individuals with mental instability. As a result, it was an important aspect of a country’s approach to firearms where it regulated the manufacture, sale, possession, and transfer of firearms by civilians (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015). However, this law has not been adequately implemented as several groups oppose the legality of gun control. The National Rifle Association has been advocating for gun rights by sighting the second amendment and the right to own firearms while other organizations call for gun regulations to reduce the violence. Studies on gun control have stated that states with weaker gun laws tend to have more gun-related deaths than those with strict laws. Such states lack laws on background checks or safe storage laws before permitting gun access which increases the population of people with guns. They do not require any permit when purchasing handguns, which makes it easy to access them. For example, Gun violence is more likely to occur in the south and Midwest in the United States which have fewer gun control laws.
The rate of firearm-related homicide is low in states with strict gun control laws such as California which have implemented strict measures. States that restrict gun ownership requires all purchasers to be registered with the department of justice automated firearm system before getting access (Godwin & Schroedel, 2000). They also use huge costs of compliance that includes fees and psychological testing for anyone to be eligible for a handgun permit. Political scientists have noted that issues rise and fall in importance within a policy agenda, which can be applied to gun control. Mass shooting events in the country have led to reactions and national conversations on gun control, giving rise to two sides of the debate. The side of policy debate calling for gun rights has been winning as seen with the expansion of gun rights at local and state levels across the country. Many state legislators around the country have expanded gun rights by moving away from restrictive policies. States such as North Carolina have made it easier to legally purchase firearms and carry them in public places. Secondly, gun control policies revolve around the second amendment that grants every American a right to own guns. The pro-gun activists argue against gun control by mentioning the second amendment and infringing on citizen’s rights. This is because guns were a vital asset in the foundation of the country and are stated for personal protection. However, gun control policies in America vary state by state with California enacting a law that bans sale and transfer of assault weapon while Colorado implementing a model that allows gun ownership (Godwin & Schroedel, 2000). Studies of gun deaths by Pew Research Center have found that gun-related homicides have reduced over the last 30 years, but marked a sudden increase in the last few years. A dramatic increase in gun ownership since the 1990s can be used to explain the reduced cases of criminal violence until recently. The idea of reducing gun-related violence is by identifying the risk factors contributing to this gun control policy include access to weapons, insufficient security measures in some states and mental health status of some gun users. These factors can then be considered for gun control orders and making appropriate recommendations. The federal government has a crucial role in gun control policy since its interpretations can influence congress in passing an amendment. The government provides data on gun violence and appropriate regulations to stop the violence. Federal data on gun control shows that a large percentage of Americans own guns. In the United States, civilians owned an estimated 393 million firearms with an average of 1.2 firearms per person. At the same time, handguns comprised 55 percent of all new guns purchased in the country ( Lott, 2013) . The number of accidental gun deaths in America is higher than any other country, yet only 13 states have laws requiring universal background checks. The toll of gun violence in America is horrific with over 1.2 million people dying from gunshots in the past decade. 2017 alone registered more than 35,000 deaths with 73 percent of these deaths committed with firearms. On average, more than 100,000 Americans are shot by a firearm each year with the rate increasing each year. More than 36,000 people die by the bullet in the US every year, which makes it the leading cause of death in the country ( Lott, 2013) . Among these deaths, nearly two-thirds are suicides, with a gun in the home increases the risk of someone dying from suicide. In essence, suicide attempts from guns are fatal compared to other forms of suicide, raising an important issue regarding gun control. The social, psychological and financial burdens of gun violence in society make gun control an important debate. The economics of gun control focuses on the effect of gun violence in the economy with studies showing that individuals between 15 and 24 are 50 times likely to die from a gunshot. Close to 40,000 people were killed with a firearm in 2018 with more people dying in the previous years. In essence, the biggest cost of gun violence is the loss of human life, which raises the need to look at the gun control policy. Results from past research on the effectiveness of gun control legislation have been mixed with benefits registered in all sides of the debate. For example, gun control has also been seen to provide an economic boom by reducing the economic losses related to gun violence. Americans pay a lot in hospital costs due to gun violence that can be reduced (Huff et al., 2017). On the other hand, studies have shown that a ban on firearms through gun control laws makes them valuable to criminals because they will be certain that their victims will be unarmed. However, the specific regulations on gun ownership can be economically efficient by maintaining the current contribution of the firearm industry to productivity. The gun and ammunition manufacturing industry earn collective annual revenues of approximately $13 billion as the figures rise each year with a surge in consumer sales (Huff et al., 2017). The firearms industry has been shown to employ Americans, and gun control legislation does not seem to reduce production and sales. A majority of arms produced in America are handguns and short guns as opposed to military ammunition, which means gun regulation will not reduce the numbers. Crimes of interest comprise of the intentional premeditated crimes committed by offenders and the unpremeditated crimes of violence such as suicide and accidents. All of these crimes can be committed by anyone who has access to a gun. As a result, gun control policies are represented by the price of guns and the expected penalty for possessing a gun, where an increase in the price due to taxes or making the sale of guns illegal reduces the ownership (Huff et al., 2017). At the same time, demand for guns is high in states with weaker gun control measures. Recommendations to gun control include introducing criteria for owning guns, where individuals can only have the right to ownership if they meet the set criterion. For example, the criteria can involve conducting background checks on anyone coming to purchase a firearm to determine their mental status, criminal history, and other socio-economic factors. States that perform background checks for gun licenses have reported a drop in the number of gun-related violence. This is because the background checks prohibit any criminal or irresponsible individual from possessing handguns. The use of universal background checks can be effective in implementing restrictions on who has access to guns, thus having an impact on the homicide rate. Other recommendations include ensuring that individuals obtain a permit from specified authorities before purchasing or carrying firearms. There should be policies in place that controls the possession and use of firearms, including the sale of guns by ensuring only certain individuals get the permit. The federal government should take measures of filtering certain individuals from acquiring firearms in the United States. In essence, gun control policies should focus on controlling the possession and use of firearms to reduce homicides and mass shootings. Thirdly, individuals with mental instability should never be allowed access to guns as this can increase the risk of homicide. Allowing unregulated gun ownership allows people with mental illness to access and use these guns in perpetuating violence. Irresponsible people can also use their firearms to perpetrate crime such as engaging in robbery and cases of a mass shooting. The universal background checks that have been a priority for gun control appear to have the biggest impact on reducing firearm homicide rates. Laws prohibiting minors and convicts from possessing firearms were also effective in reducing the rate of gun violence in the country. Gun control policy should also seek to balance the constitutional right of owning weapons and the efficacy of the law in reducing violent crimes. Banning the weapons will not do too much in curbing the overall number of gun deaths. Therefore, the idea is to regulate their sale through proper background checks and restrictions. The second amendment can coexist with gun control legislation that increases the control of assault weapons. Common ground can be stated between pro-gun and pro-life individuals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Godwin, M. L., & Schroedel, J. R. (2000). Policy diffusion and strategies for promoting policy change: Evidence from California local gun control ordinances. Policy Studies Journal, 28(4), 760-776.
Huff, A. D., Barnhart, M., McAlexander, B., & McAlexander, J. (2017). Addressing the wicked problem of American gun violence: consumer interest groups as macro-social marketers. Journal of micromarketing, 37(4), 393-408.
Lott, J. R. (2013). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws . University of Chicago Press.
Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. American journal of public health, 105(2), 240-249.
