United States Approach For almost a century firearm policy in the United States has been in the spotlight. If legislators would take a good look at the different countries and their gun laws, it would be beneficial for the people of the United States. Vizzard was looking at the federal legislation enacted in 1968 as it appeared to shift away from the lassiez-faire approach to policy on firearms (2015). When looking at the gun control laws in the past twenty years it shows nothing has essentially changed at the national level (Vizzard,2015). There is some history that should be put into account Vizzard looks at, “after the 1993 passage of both the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention and federal assault weapon restrictions, the 1994 Republican congressional victories marked the end of any momentum for additional federal legislation” …show more content…
Also in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated background checks for all unlicensed persons purchasing a firearm for a federally authorized dealer (Master, 2017). Since that has happened, the federal assault weapon legislation, which it appears to have little impact (Vizzard,2015). In 1934, the National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed then the Federal Firearms Act (FFA) came into effect in 1938 (Vizzard,2015). After a while, both public and legislative attention turned away for the issue of firearm regulation. One thing that the writer found interesting is that it took a president to get assassinated for rekindling the interest. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (Masters), prohibits persons under the age of eighteen, convicted criminals, mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel and others from
Carter, Gregg Lee, ed. “Federal Gun Laws.” Gun Control in the United States: A Reference
Public policies are developed in response to the existence of a perceived problem or an opportunity. The analysis delves into a public issue or problem and assesses a set of proposed government action for addressing the issue. The job of the analyst is to describe the background and status of an issue and then, using research and analysis, determine a proper government action to resolve the issue. By comparing options and weighing their expected benefits, the analyst should conclude with a recommended course of action or inaction to addressing the issue.
Guns have possessed the spotlight of almost every news station. From the latest tragedy of a shooting killing innocent men, women and children to the arguments centering around if our gun laws possess strict enough qualities to keep our country safe. Charles C. W. Cooke, the author of “Gun-Control Dishonesty”, spreads his conservative view on the topic by ripping away any hope for a brighter day. Cooke’s main idea states that if nothing has happened to make gun law more strict even after the lives of innocent children were mercilessly ripped away from their young bodies than nothing should or could ever change. On the other hand, Adam Gopnik wrote his article, “Shooting”, uses a more liberal approach and inspires his audience to act upon the much needed change in our society
At present there are numerous regulations and restrictions on firearms imposed by the government. However there are no national mandated requirements or all encompassing legislation. The laws in place vary from state to state and are in some cases are poorly enforced. Hard evidence as to the effectiveness of these present regulations is ambiguous. The question as to how the government and society deals with gun control is unique to the USA. In a complex issue such as gun control both sides of the equation have valid arguments to be h...
As the government became more involved with tracking these guns they began to run into trouble with people not registering their weapons that fit the guidelines of a firearm that needed to be registered. So the NFA realized that changes needed to be made and it stated that gun owners who already owned the weapon did not have to have it registered. Its main objective was to prohibit interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition, it also denied guns to specific classes of individuals such as felons, minors, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill. Despite all these provisions the law was not one hundred percent effective when came down to the specifics, as criminals were still able to find a way to retrieve firearms. This leading to
‘Useless laws weaken necessary laws.’ --- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1775) Importantly, gun ownership doesn’t create a violent society, but lenient gun control does. Nevertheless, bans do not make something disappear, rather harder to control! Therefore a strict, uniform federal gun control system is far more essential so as to ensure no collateral effects of any gun uses!
Aroung the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the controversial and widely argued issue of gun control sparked and set fire across America. In the past decade however, it has become one of the hottest topics in the nation. Due to many recent shootings, including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary school, Columbine High School, Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech, together totaling 87 deaths, many people are beginning to push for nationwide gun control. An article published in the Chicago Tribune by Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Collins, entitled “Gun Control is Long Overdue” voiced the opinion that in order for America to remain the land of the free, we must take action in the form of stricter gun laws. On the contrary, Kathleen Parker, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group whose articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan, and Fortune Small Business, gives a different opinion on the subject. Her article in The Oregonian “Gun Control Conversation Keeps Repeating” urges Americans to look at the cultural factors that create ...
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
Around 1788, James Madison stated that the Second Amendment was written to assure the southern states that Congress would not “undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South” (Bogus 1). Gun control laws, which are laws that determine how guns are used and who can own them, originated from the second amendment. Throughout American history, gun control laws have continually been altered. Beginning in the 1930s, President Roosevelt won the approval of the National Firearms Act of 1938, which “prohibited sales to individuals under indictment or convicted of crimes of violence” (“History of gun-control”). About thirty years later, the assassination of John F. Kennedy once again put gun control under the national spotlight. President Lyndon B. Johnson responded by implementing the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. These acts “prohibited all convicted felons, drug users, and the mentally ill from buying guns” (“History of gun-control”). Twenty-five years later, background checks ...
Being that this paper has objectively presented argument for both banning and not banning assault weapons, it will now proceed to briefly further develop the idea of less stringent gun control laws on the premise that until a “bullet”-proof definition can be agreed upon and a law that would not allow for any type of loopholes, banning assault weapons will do little to truly protect the American Public. The main support for this claim can be supported by the fact that the ban of 1994 was not effective, and in reality, did not protect the average American any more than before it was passed into law. Assault weapons are undoubtedly dangerous, but until their can be more effective assault weapon definition, America should not be subjected to a ban on assault weapons
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
There are gun control laws to try and reduce the number of violent shootings that occur. They are trying to put limits on weapons that Americans can own. The government is trying to take our guns away mainly because of people that are criminally insane. Most of the people who commit crimes don’t even have the weapons legally. If the government takes away the rights of people who are allowed to have firearms in their possession, it will most definitely cause an outrage. Most people believe that the people should be more capable of maintain proper use of the firearms instead of having them all taken away. Taking the firearms from Americans away would cause a lot more problems than there actually are. The people will be upset with the government taking firearms away because of the horrible people who harm innocent people using them. So they will do anything to their capabilities to keep them.
“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.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
There is an American consensus for some form of gun control. “…[F]irearms were involved in two-thirds of all murders in the United States and [t]he United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths…murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology” (Lepore). There might be some far extreme people who think that all guns should be banned but most sane Americans do not think that gun rights should be abolished. Americans regard self-defense as the most compelling reason to have a gun and twenty-two percent of households have handguns in the United States. However many people do think that gun control laws must be enacted and enforced. Pro-gun extremists and the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) must understand that there is a real for many people at the uncontrolled s...
In "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws:." the authors perform a surgical operation on the various views and issues as presented by the industry concerning gun regulation. The publication outlines the laws that have been enacted by congress concerning the regulation of firearms and shows their pros and cons. The authors suggest that there needs to be a more concerted effort by the executive as well as the judiciary so be able to enforce laws concerning firearm issuing and licensing.