American gun policy has the potential to impact at least a billion lives. As leaders in the free world American decisions drastically impact economies and societies around the world. One drastic deviation in American gun policy will forever change the world as we know it. Today’s politicians seek a way to decrease the violent crime rate in extremely different ways. Examining how American politicians may manipulate or create legislation to decrease the crime rate while ensuring life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as our founding fathers intended. My research analyses the current Republican and Democratic beliefs on gun policy and details what may be the cause of a change in policy and who is likely to lead this revolution. To get my results I studied 33 politicians’ publicly decarded stances on gun control and their parties’ agendas. From said results, I learned that any imminent major change in gun policy is unlikely. Implicating that with current-day politics America will continue to lead the free world and not cause any world-encompassing revolution pertaining to gun policy.
Gun ownership was instituted by the founding father for the continuation and success of the newly created country. The now prosperous 240-year-old United States of America was founded upon civilian’s rights. Over this time her constituents have become experienced with many political, social, and economic aspects pertaining towards the preservation of America including her interactions with citizens and foreign nations. America has created many new legislation and rolled back other legislations to continue the prosperity of the country and her citizens. Distinguished examples of rolling back legislation can be seen 85 years into the country’s life, the debate over slavery. Slavery had a massive prevalence in the south of America, but in the North and other countries like England, slavery was becoming a discontinued practice. Politicians in America represented both sides and could not come to a peaceful conclusion, resulting in Civil War. Will we find the same events reoccur on the basis of gun control?
The right to bear arms has been guaranteed to American citizens since the country’s fruition. “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” (US Const. amend. II, sec. 3). Throughout the country’s lifetime, gun control has been used as a weapon to keep track of various groups of people, ranging between religious and ethnic. “Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned”(William, 2017, p. 5). More recently over the past few decades, gun control has been up for debates in America, and Australia. Australia has constituted legislation which restricts their citizens from obtaining guns alike citizens in America in effort to impact their violent crime rates in a noticeable manner. Many politicians now ask to secure the preservation of a prosperous America with safe opportunities for her citizens. Should we do the same? To formulate and explain the reasoning behind each separate belief, being yes and no, we must first define what is the same? Then we will need to analyze the impact gun control legislation has had on external countries so we may predict results of internal gun control. Continuing to apply gun control to the America by using the experience of her citizens and public police officers who are very experienced regarding the matters of the law, its enforcement and impact upon her citizens and their well-being, represented as a lessening crime rate. In different geographical areas in America, we see the prevalence of different gun laws and restrictions, allowing for analyses of the impact gun control legislation has had in America. This will allow us to further define how influencing American gun culture is upon her citizen. With the conjunction of two studies, which analysis gun culture in America, and contrast that with Australiana’s gun culture we will detail differences in among each societies. With the combination and partnership of all the proceeding documents and studies, two separate conclusions will be made and backed up by this study which aims to identify and formulate an explanation of the reasoning behind each separate stance of gun control held by the Republicans and Democrats.
The current Democratic stance upon the second amendment and gun control supports extensive background checks ensuring only just citizens have access to firearms. Directly from the DNC’s website (DNC-Democratic National Convention) - “We believe…expand and strengthen background checks for those who want…a firearm – because it shouldn’t be easier… [to obtain] then a driver’s license. We believe we should ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, or those who have shown signs of danger toward themselves or others. And we believe we should treat gun violence as the deadly public health crisis it is” (DNC,2018). In summary, Democrats believe in strong government intervention towards citizens with guns, as interfering would make people safer from the common criminal. Republicans stance on gun control differs in many ways from the Democrats. Main concepts that Republicans stress is the lawful use of guns for the protection of all persons. Directly from the RNC’s website (RNC-Republican National Convention) - “Republicans will not strip away the right of self-defense. We uphold…the Second Amendment. We believe the Constitution gave…citizens this right…we oppose…Administration’s attempt to take it [guns] away. In support of the 2nd Amendment, we…recognize…responsibility to safely use and store firearms. The Republican Party supports citizens’ right to protect themselves and…[their] families” (2018, RNC). In summary, Republicans believe in little if any government intervention towards citizens with guns, as doing so would violate rights and make people more vulnerable to aggressors. Through our analysis of documents, we will be able to determine the influencing factors which shaped these major parties gun control stance to its current state.
In the mid-1990s a horrible tragedy took place in Australia which forever changed her gun ownership and culture. One man armed with two rifles killed 35 civilians, from his actions and the lives that were lost leaders pushed for new legislation restricting gun availability to create a safer Australia. The Australian government had enough with gun violence, so they spent over 300 million dollars on a buyback program which greatly lessened gun ownership, in total around 640,000 guns were removed from circulation among citizens. A task which we would have great trouble accomplishing due to America's sheer number of firearms and our numerous amendments. Best said by web, “However, instituting a national confiscation scheme of these weapons would be difficult, expensive and, done incorrectly, has the potential to violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures” (Weg, 2016, p. 24). Officials also placed new laws into fruition which had a noticeable impact on their crime rates and guns per capita. Unlike America, Australia did not have an equivalent of our second amendment right, there was no legal protection for the existence or resistance of gun ownership. “The Australian Constitution does not provide an explicit individual right to bear arms” (Weg, 2016, p. 24). Australia banned automatic and semi-automatic guns, confiscating them during the national buyback program. Most of the guns before the buyback program were rifles, with handguns making up a fraction of total firearms throughout the country. Within America, we see many parallels and non-uniformities with Australia in the 1990s. There are horrendous mass shootings which take place in America, politicians want to act upon this and there are gun buyback programs that happen throughout America, but on a local level. Some American democratic politicians believe that the best option would be to follow Australia’s lead and get rid of these guns. After every media covered mass shooting, we see Democrats fight for gun reform much like what happened in Australia. Will there be one event that pushes America over the wall establishing the same gun laws that Australia has? Differing from Australia’s situation in the 1990’s we have mass amounts of people who disagree with this approach, Republicans. Could there be an event horrible enough for these gun supporters to change their mind or will it only affirm their beliefs? Could we even go the opposite way and completely abolish any restrictions on guns? What is the right approach?
Knives kill more people per year in the USA then rifles, our real problem lies with handguns. Handguns are responsible for most of America's violent crimes, these firearms are easily concealable due to their small profile and large presence within America. “By contrast, the number of homicides committed with handguns is much higher and more highly variable” (Stell, 2004, p. 3). Even though most of our violent crimes are committed with handguns, the sheer number of guns we have is enormous. In America we a country with around 330 Million residents, we occupy almost half of the entire worlds’ guns, nearing 400 Million, averaging around six guns per five people (William, 2017, p. 3). This is absolutely astonishing and stresses how important guns are in American culture. America makes up only a fraction of the total population, yet we own half of the world’s entire guns. For this reason, a buyback program seems almost illogical. Referencing Australia who spent over 300 million on their buyback program for 640,000 guns, we would have to spend over 450 times what they did, because that’s how many guns are in America.
Australia currently has a lessening violent crime rate since the enaction of their gun control legislation. Many individuals believed that after these laws passed their violent crime rate went up. In actuality, the robbery rate rose 40% over 5 years and then quickly lessoned below its starting point, simultaneously every other form of violent crime decreased (Weg, 2016, p. 24). Throughout the late 1980s, Australia’s violent crime rate was already decreasing. Many people believe that this trend just continued to happen because there were fewer criminals within Australia, rather than being directly related to gun control. Nevertheless, gun control did not result in a surge of violent crime. Furthermore, gun control did not result in an extreme decreasing prevalence of violent crime, which was the aim of enacting said legislation. Like America two thirds of Australia’s citizens live out of the city, from the perspective of American police officers they believe that this and technology may have to do with the lessening violent crime rate “Many officers held the conviction that rural parents are more accountable for their children’s safety because they socialize them into firearm fundamentals in order to proactively prevent accidents. In this way, gun knowledge and responsibility are part of rural pride and identity” (Woldoff, 2017, p. 15). People believe various reasons for the lessening crime rate in Australia and credit it to many factors. Australia was provoked to employ this legislation because of a mass murder, but how do mass murders happen, what is there reason? “finding that gun control strictness was not strongly related to incidents of mass murders per state, this study considered whether or not mental illness may contribute to the phenomenon” (Lewis, 2018, p. 13). Continuing onto America if our aim is to prevent mass murders, it this the outline we must follow.
In America to look at previous success or failure of gun control we should look at cities with the most extensive gun control laid out among a large population. The best contesters for this category would be Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. Each city was once a prosperous hub for growth and showed major potential, but now one will surely see one of these cities on a crime tv show. Each have abysmal gun crime rates yet have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. “In 2012, there were 500 murders in Chicago, more than New York City (419) or Los Angeles (299). In Illinois, 86% of homicides were with guns, the highest percentage in the nation; in the United States overall, 69% homicides involved guns. In 2012 in Illinois, all rifles comprised only 0.9% of gun homicides, compared to 3.6% nationwide” (Lindgren, 2015**,** p. 7). What happened? As Trotter and the NRA suggest with the sheer volume of guns in America, we simply need to be able to defend ourselves. “Concealed-carry laws reverse that balance of power even before a violent confrontation occurs” (Trotter, 2013, p. 2). This is the same theory that we see above in the RNC’s stance and is also paralleled in many other people’s beliefs. “Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime” (William, 2017, p. 7). It is suggested that we are just too far down this road with too many guns in circulation. It would be just about impossible to rip all guns from the hands of criminals, so not allowing law-abiding users to participate in the gun battle outnumbers the guns in the hands of the good from the gun in the hands of criminals. “While armed security works, gun bans do not. Anti-gun legislation keeps guns away from the sane and the law-abiding — but it does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Nearly all mass shootings have occurred in “gun-free” zones.” (Trotter, 2013, p. 3). Gun violence frightens many guns and law enforcement experienced individuals when it comes to a confrontation, and if it frightens Americas esteemed officers wouldn’t it frighten experienced criminals who are frightened of the police. “The same officers who described the role of guns in their childhoods, families, and rural identities changed their tone when we began to ask about their work experiences and guns” (Woldoff, 2017, p. 17).
Throughout America, there is no absolute federal standard of gun control. Gun control laws in California differ dramatically from gun control laws in Alaska, being polar opposites. Louisiana and Alaska have some of the least restrictive gun control laws in America, while New Jersey and California have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. Each example is from a completely different part of the country, Alaska and Louisiana are northwest and south, while California and New Jersey are West and East. This should allow us two completely diverse perspectives within each gun control category. Louisiana does not require that their gun owners to even have a license or register their firearms upon purchase, Alaska being less lenient still do not mandate background checks upon transfer of guns between private parties. California mandates that all sales and purchase must go through a California licensed firearms dealer, while in New Jersey it is completely unlawful to possess a firearm without first acquiring an FID card. Among each police officer stationed in these states, we find a correlation between all who live in a rural city “Theme 1: Rural Identity and Symbolic Rejection of Gun Control” (Woldoff, 2017, p. 12). “Matthew also defended the merits of gun-oriented rural parenting. Like many officers, he specifically brought up the comparison to urban parents, arguing that they are less responsible than rural parents. He asserted that city people are not usually gun owners, so they simply lack the knowledge and skills needed to teach their children how to be safe” (Woldoff, 2017, p. 15). This account of a police officer’s belief summarizes reasons behind keeping guns in and out of citizen’s hands. These police officers can all identify on one thing, we need a well-trained public. “Many officers in our sample also voiced support for more gun control legislation increasing the required amount of training” (Woldoff, 2017, p. 15). Main ideas from the police are that gun owners need to know how to use their gun and that it must be treated as a weapon capable of deadly force.
American citizens have had the right to bear arms since the creation of their country. America was founded upon ideals of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) to ensure that these ideals would stay protected the founding fathers went to great lengths. Following the revolutionary war, American leaders were fearful that the government they set up would become monarchical and tyrannical, to avoid this from happening they created the second amendment enabling their constituents to have a viable way to create a militia to oppose a rancid and derailed government. “State constitutions (and early commentaries) protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms “for the defense of themselves and the state.” (Lindgren, 2015, p. 9). Guns played an integral role since the dawn of America and continued to become even more crucial to America's culture. The Civil war was a perfect example of the second amendment being used by the citizens to create a militia which challenged the central government. The Civil war acted as a second revolutionary war continuing to keep the pro-gun culture alive and at the forefront of the American identity. Firearms define Americans and have been an integral part of rural American life. “Officers often described a “proper” rural upbringing as one in which parents teach children about gun safety, and officers believe that the correct and honorable way to raise a child is to socialize the child into the world of responsible gun use” (Woldoff, 2017, p. 13). Stripping the Second Amendment rights from these communities would have an impact on more than just America but her culture, would it be for the better or for the worse?