Regulation Concerns in the Gun Market - Essay Example

Regulation Concerns in Gun Market Current gun regulations, despite their best efforts, still provide the opportunity for the illegal sale and ownership of guns. Sales that, had they been executed according to the text of present laws, would not have occurred in the first place. Illegal means of accessing guns that in turn, can lead to drastic consequences for thousands of individuals, who find themselves the victims of gun-related crimes. According to group Women Against Gun Violence (2008), “..Firearms are responsible for over 28,000 deaths in America a year, approximately 2,500 are black youths,” (Gun Statistics, para. 1). Those numbers become even higher, according to the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. From their perspective, as it comes to making an argument against the position of the NRA. According to Coalition To Stop Gun Violence (n.d.), “The NRA steadfastly maintains that the 30,000 gun-related deaths with firearms in the United States every year are a small price to pay to guarantee freedom,” (para. 1). For many individuals who seek to follow the given laws of the land, as it would come to possession of guns, there are others who wish to do so outside of the realm of the law. With the elected decision of some to purchase firearms through other than legal means, the overall debate over gun ownership has been placed under a wider lens of observation and debate. For many individuals questioned as part of a survey, it would make sense to maintain a licensing system for handgun ownership and an even higher amount of those people questioned, felt positively towards the process of performing checks into people’s histories for any criminal practices. (Rummel, 1997-2003). Options 1. Presence of funding for the process of checking into those who wish to purchase firearms. Such checks that would include observation of any criminal background history. 2. Overhauling any present state law that would provide leeway for previous criminals to possess firearms. 3. Initiate fines towards those individuals and/or groups, who seek to go around pre-existing gun regulation laws and provide those persons with firearms, who would have otherwise not been eligible through regular channels. Decision Criteria The main objectives would be the reduction of: 1. Poor access to information about current regulations having to do with gun ownership, as well as unawareness about proper safety measures in terms of their use. 2. Meager access to the most up to date records about criminal histories from any state and on any individual person(s). 3. Companies/Individuals who deliberately seek to sell firearms illegally. 1st Option: Having state agencies in place that seek to maintain a presence within the public for the sole purpose of education. Also, the overall awareness of all issues/laws relating to gun ownership. This initial criterion is supported through the existence of a program in the state of California. It would be the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms. According to California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (2010), in this case, “The Bureau of Firearms serves the people of California through education, regulation, and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sales, ownership, safety training, and transfer of firearms,” (Welcome to the California DOJ Bureau of Firearms Page, para. 1). With this group, they provide total access to their website, which provides information pertaining to things like current laws on the issue, for both firearms, as well as other weapons listed as being dangerous. Another group that would promote the education of individuals about the dangers from gun violence, would be the group called New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. According to NYAGV (n.d.), “..reduce gun violence through advocacy and education designed to encourage action, influence public opinion and lead to policy change,” (about NYAGV- Mission, para. 1). According to statistics, “Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder,” (Cook, et.al., 2003). 2nd Option: Setting aside funding to provide each state with the opportunity to access the most current information about document criminal histories of any gun purchaser. Supporting the above mentioned criteria for seeking stronger access to criminal records across state lines, according to the Omnibus Consolidated & Emergency Supplemental Appropriations act passed by the House in 1998 and placed into law in 1999, under section H11060 it states that there would be $2.4 billion allowed for programs that would educate about crime and an additional $45 million that would enable the access to the most up to date criminal records and allow the states the opportunity to access the records held within the federal records database (Anthony & Korwin, 1999). 3rd Option: A fine system for those who desire to initiate sales of firearms to the public in such a manner that falls under illegal means of ownership. Falling in line with the third and final criteria mentioned, a major US retail chain, Wal-Mart would find itself slapped with a hefty fine package for violations found, resulting from sales made of guns within a number of their stores. The total amount of the fines to be paid by the retail giant would come out to be $19 million dollars, according to the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia. Taking into consideration the given time period of 2000-2003, the retailer would be found with multiple violations numbering in the thousands. These violations would be failure to go along with present laws in place for gun sales. Fines would cover such things as making sure that the retail chain would be in line with present state and federal laws on the issue of gun regulation (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2005). From a consideration of statistics, according to a recent report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, the guns that are part of criminal trafficking and linked to gun shows, came out to be 30%. (A Project of the City of New York, 2009). Exhibited behaviors by gun show promoters, as well as retail store chains, that seek to promote illegal actions, can best be approached with compensation sought through fines put into place. Recommendation/Critique The strongest recommendation to provide would be the continued implementation of fines to those companies and/or individuals that seek to sell any form of firearm outside of the legal channels in place. With monetary implications against those who seek to go outside of the law, may provide the motivation to in fact, stay inside the law and abide by what was has been written about the subject of gun sales. For those individuals and/or companies that seek to repeat their previously fined behavior, creating a system in which those repeat offenses are met with increased fines. The best option to effectively implement the core aspect of this recommendation would be the maintaining of a record system that would provide a detailed account of previous instances of illegal gun sales by companies, or representatives of specific sellers. Based upon the interests of their group’s membership, the National Rifle Association (NRA) will likely continue their argument that such government intervention, would continue to degrade the rights afforded to the American public through the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The argument against such an assertion would be that, while the amendment would protect the right to bear arms, it would have been intended to be something that was done so with the foresight to remain legal and responsible while doing so. Action Plan Shorter term (present- 1year) Maintain fine schedule for those companies and/or individuals who seek to sell guns outside of legal means. Provide regular access to all interested parties, the detailed and up to date listing of fines that are in place for the purpose of dissuading the sales from occurring at all. Encouraging participation from local law enforcement agencies to take part in educating local business and the public about the dangers of possessing guns illegally. Longer term (1 year & later) Keeping records of those companies and/ or individuals that continue behavior that allows other individuals the opportunity to purchase guns without consideration of existing laws in place. If individuals, or companies seek to continue such unlawful behavior, they will in turn find themselves faced with increased monetary fines that go up in accordance with the number of violations that they would be known to have committed. Continued education of the public about the laws in place for gun sales and making clear the dangers present for those who seek to provide weapons to buyers in an illegal manner. Budget/Funding In terms of funding for programs that educate the general public about gun safety measures, one such program would be the project funded through the US Department of Justice. According to Bureau of Justice Assistance- Office of Justice Programs (n.d.), This program provides funding to PSN Task forces to (1) aggressively promote the message that all firearm-related violent crime will be met with strict enforcement and swift and certain punishment; (2) to encourage citizens to work with local, state, and federal law enforcement to address firearm-related violent crime within their jurisdiction; and (3) to promote gun safety at the local level. Approximately 94 grants (up to $170,000 each), representing each of the U.S. Attorneys Districts, are being made in this program. The project period for the community engagement initiative grants extends at least two years. (Category 2: The Media Outreach and Community Engagement Program, para. 1). References A Project of the City of New York. (2009). Gun Show: Undercover. Retrieved from http://www.gunshowundercover.org/main.cfm?s=gunshow Anthony, M. P., & Korwin, A. (1999). Gun Laws of America. Federal Gun-Law Updates, (), p. 341; Section H11060. Retrieved from http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup.htm#H11060 Bureau of Justice Assistance- Office of Justice Programs. (n.d.). BJA Programs. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov /BJA/grant/psnfs.htm California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. (2010). Bureau of Firearms. Retrieved from http://ag.ca.gov /firearms/ Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. (n.d.). Guns, Democracy, and Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom Cook, P. I., & Ludwig, J. (2003). Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. : Brookings Institution Press and Brookings Metro Series. Retrieved online through http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2003/evaluatinggunpolicy.aspx NYAGV. (n.d.). New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. Retrieved from http://www.nyagv.org/about.htm Rummel, B. (1997-2003). Common Dreams progressive newswire. The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. Retrieved from http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/ 0612-05.htm The Sydney Morning Herald. (2005). US retail giant fined $19m for illegal gun sales. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Retail-giant-fined-19m-for-illegal-gun-sales/2005/01/06/1104832226789.html Women Against Gun Violence. (2008). 8 kids a day are too many. Retrieved from http://www.wagv.org/gun-statistics.php Read More