The Contentious Argument of Gun Control - Research Paper Example

Running Header: THE CONTENTIOUS ARGUMENT OF GUN CONTROL The Contentious Argument of Gun Control BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Gun control legislation continues to be debated by many members of society as to whether it can reduce violent crime or provide substantial long-term advantages to all communities and the nation as a whole. From government efforts to impose stricter gun control to Second Amendment-related arguments about human rights protections, gun control continues to be a point of contention with no substantial resolution on the subject. This study utilized a qualitative methodology to examine different secondary literature sources and primary sources such as government publications to determine the advantages and disadvantages of gun control legislation from a social, political and criminal justice-related perspective. The study found many different advantages and drawbacks of stricter gun control policies, all of which are outlined in the research project that include potential increases in domestic terrorism, violation of protected Constitutional rights, social discrimination, policing agency problems, enhanced youth violence prevention, and the ability to keep guns out of the reach of convicted criminals. The study found that, due to the many advantages and disadvantages of gun control measures, it will likely remain a point of severe contention from disparate members of American society for years to come. The Contentious Argument of Gun Control Introduction There is an ongoing debate in society, government, in the criminal justice systems and in politics as to whether controlling firearms would be an effective policy to reduce violent crimes. In the United States’ executive branch, Democratic President Barack Obama believes that stricter gun control laws would dramatically reduce the prevalence of gun-related crimes in the country. This sentiment follows on the proverbial heels of recent school shootings that have taken the lives of children and educators, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident in Newtown, Connecticut in which 20 children and six adults were killed by gun-related violence (Barron, 2012). In fact, the president is so committed to this agenda as a matter of reducing gun-related crimes that Obama recently stated that he would enact legislative gun control measures “with or without Congressional support” (Siddiqui, 2014, p.1). However, there is considerable criticism for Obama’s attempts to enact stronger Federal background check systems and other control measures in an effort to control firearms in the country. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individual citizen rights to keep and bear arms (Epstein & Walk, 2012). Republican representatives on Capitol Hill do not share the same sentiment of the president, suggesting that stricter gun control measures would infringe on citizen rights and, therefore, recent attempts to enact tougher legislation in this direction is being stalled by Republican values. Is President Obama correct? Can more stringent gun control laws actually curb the prevalence of violent crime? The United States National Academy of Sciences conducted an empirical study in 2003 that involved analysis of 253 different journal articles, 99 books and gathered data from 43 different government publications on the issue. The study concluded that gun control measures have little impact on violent crime frequency (CDC, 2003). This research study examines the available literature related to gun control in an effort to provide an unbiased and balanced assessment of the issue of gun control and the potential impact of such measures on society. The impartial approach to this qualitative methodology is aligned with SLU core values of excellence, recognizing the ethics-based ideology of academics provided by the university and moral attempts to promote a greater good for society. With the researcher not taking a specific position and abandoning personal preconceptions about gun control, the study illustrates the character of the researcher which is a fundamental core value of the SLU experience. Furthermore, the study relates to the criminal justice program as it explores the phenomenon of gun control from the viewpoint of police officers, politicians and government, whilst also examining the role of gun control on general society. As criminal justice involves institutions that maintain and defend social control principles, the rule of law in United States society, the potential benefits or hindrances of gun control have significant implications for criminal justice practitioners charged with protecting society. Gun Control Disadvantages At the dawn of the 21st Century, public funding for policing systems across the entire country were beginning to experience financial strain and limited local budgets. The ability to staff higher volumes of police officers was restricted by these budgetary problems, leading to a need to privatize policing forces. Forst (2000) reports that as a result of this phenomenon, local governments charged with maintaining the social order began to hire private security officials in order to sustain the welfare of citizens due to funding problems for policing organizations. Concurrently, laws were being enacted at the state level that allowed for citizens to carry concealed weapons which began to revolutionize security in local communities in an environment where tangible, paid police officers no longer could monopolize public health and safety measures (Forst). At the same time, such budgetary problems began to include private community citizens and local government representatives in community policing efforts. By the year 2008, coordination between private security officials and existing police representatives became more commonplace and privatization of policing forces was an integral part of local policing models. In order to effectively secure the public interest, policing leadership teams and private individuals charged with policing authorities were beginning to share data and altering policing protocols to include websites and distribution of crime maps to make policing more efficient and transparent (Diamond & Weiss, 2008). Why is this important for understanding the impact of gun control on society? These partnerships between police officers and the general public required individuals in security agencies and other partners to carry weapons as a means of fostering effective policing efforts. Joint operations in controlling crime, which is becoming a routine methodology for national policing efforts, could not be carried out without more citizens and privately-hired individuals to keep and bear firearms. If there were more stringent gun control measures enacted in the country that limited access for private citizens to procure firearms, it could potentially, radically deconstruct contemporary policing models that have significant reliance on individuals outside of the policing agencies in order to secure public order. There are many in society that believe access to guns should be strictly regulated and firearms only available to select individuals in society. What would policing agencies accomplish in terms of securing public welfare, in an environment where local budgets and funding is strapped, if private citizens and security agents could not quickly and effectively acquire weapons? It has been reported by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009) that a whopping 60 percent of all homicides in the U.S. were carried out using firearms. Private citizens and private security agents charged with preventing such crimes would have no effective and productive defense against criminals that carry out violent crimes using firearms without comparable protections and offensive capabilities to protect the welfare of the public. Hence, strict and rigid gun control measures that might be enacted as a means of curbing gun violence could have significant ramifications for today’s policing models across the country, putting private agents charged with policing in considerable personal danger as a result of stern and inflexible gun control legislation. Furthermore, practitioners in the criminal justice system, designed to uphold social order and advocate citizen protection, must be aware of the established Constitutional rights of citizens across the country. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, ensuring that all citizens can keep and bear arms, is a secured protectionist ideology and a foundational human rights assurance afforded to all citizens of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld that the Second Amendment is relevant, viable and ensures complete fortification of this right to bear arms. In a landmark case, Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found that this right could not be infringed upon. The presiding judges concluded, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm when unconnected with militia service and using that arm for lawful purposes such as home self-defense” (Cornell University, 2008, p.2). In yet another landmark case, the Supreme Court, in McDonald v. Chicago, struck down a Chicago law attempting to ban handguns for private citizens. In this case, a 76 year old retiree was witness to the breakdown of his neighborhood in Chicago, forced to live by drug dealers and gang members that were dilapidating the community. McDonald experienced recurring litter on his lawns, had experienced five different break-ins at his garage and, as a result, sought procurement of a handgun to ensure his own personal home defense. Chicago refused to legally register his handgun as a result of a lingering 1982 law which prevented McDonald from legally owning a handgun. The subsequent lawsuit that followed reinforced that the Second Amendment cannot be dismissed which changed Chicago gun laws to permit legal registrations of these firearms. In the case of McDonald v. Chicago, it seems to illustrate that when strict and inflexible gun control laws are enacted, it puts citizens at risk without the ability to defend themselves from criminal activity and community erosion. One of the most fundamental ideologies of the construction of the Second Amendment was to ensure that citizens were free from tyrannical militant groups and could protect themselves from foreign invaders during a period where Britain was attempting to seize America for its own personal gain and economic growth. Hence, if gun control laws such as that in Chicago which attempted to completely ban handgun ownership for all city citizens were allowed to be enacted, citizens would be putting themselves at risk for harm from modern invasive criminal organizations that erode the quality and sanctity of lifestyle for community citizens. As consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court, any gun control legislation that infringes on the Second Amendment violates basic and fundamental human rights of citizens. When considering the relationship between the Second Amendment and citizen legal protections for firearm procurement, should society and government, in an effort to promote the welfare and utility of the majority, be allowed to violate established human rights for the minority? Voeten (2012, p.1) offers the same argument, referencing the Sandy Hook incident that took the lives of 26 people: “The only way such a ban would make sense is if we, as a society, are prepared to admit…these 26 deaths are vastly more important to us than the 26 killed in ‘ordinary’ firearms homicides every day or so”. This is a philosophical argument provided by a member of the online magazine, The Monkey Cage, however it does illustrate that there might potentially be social bias about who legitimately deserves protection and which members of society are more relevant and important when determining the viability of gun control laws. Are the victims of the Sandy Hook incident legitimately more important than others who are murdered via firearms on a daily basis? This is a morally relative argument, however the contention does highlight how it appears some members of society are willing to forgo protections of the Second Amendment in order to protect the interests and welfare of select or exclusive members of society. It would seem that if we, as a society and in the criminal justice system, are to embrace and uphold the laws of the United States, then any violation of a dimension of the Bill of Rights should be opposed and chastised even if such a rights-based infringement protects individuals in the country that society deems more relevant and significant. Consider an argument offered by a blogger member of The New Jersey Second Amendment Society, strongly arguing against stricter gun control policies. Offers Frank Fiamingo: “Drug dealers can operate without abandon throughout New Jersey because government is too busy throwing up obstacles that prohibit law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms. Criminals have no reason to fear the unarmed residents of New Jersey” (NJ2AS, 2014, p.2) Is this a valid and responsible perspective by this particular member of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society? It is the role of criminal justice practitioners to maintain systems and legalities that uphold social welfare protections and the social order that has benefit to the majority in a community and national society. Fiamingo attempts to illustrate that gun control measures which allegedly violate Second Amendment freedoms are putting criminals and drug dealers at an advantage over that of citizens that should be afforded the right to defend themselves against such activities. When determining whether stricter gun control measures would be effective and relevant for all members of society, an unbiased individual should be considerate that when gun control laws such as those described in New Jersey attempt to prevent firearm ownership by all citizens, it could potentially reduce personal safety, security and even liberties afforded by established Constitutional Laws. Outside of the Second Amendment debate (which has raged for decades), there is yet another potential disadvantage of enacting more stern gun control laws: disparate and discriminatory treatment for those seeking self-protection. Results of empirical data show that guns are most often used in relation to criminal activity is defensive rather than offensive, with more self-defense attempts by the victim (Kleck & Gertz, 1995). There are many gun control advocates that want to emulate the historical gun control models used in England and extend these into the United States. In England, highly stringent gun control measures were enacted that forbid citizens from owning guns. This control legislation was so rigorous that even police offers were forbid to carry guns to protect citizen welfare. The government was charged with legal authority in this country to confiscate handguns from private citizens. However, despite these massive control methodologies, England witnessed increases in violent crime and by 2000, England surpassed America as one of the most violent crime-ridden countries in the world. In one particular situation, an elderly woman, terrified of being violated by gang members, fired a non-lethal blank using a toy gun she had been carrying in England to scare off potential criminal behaviors. To her surprise, the woman was arrested with the charge of intimidation against others using an imitation firearm even though there was a legitimate, potential threat by menacing street gangs that had approached the elderly citizen (Malcolm, 2002). Hence, there seems to be a legitimate risk as an outcome of strict gun control policies that provide disparate and discriminatory treatment against those who are or might become victims of violent crimes. In the English case, the gun control legislation did not punish the individuals using threatening behaviors, but instead focused on what was considered to be illegal gun-bearing activities of a private citizen. If such strict laws were to be enacted in the United States, would similar prejudicial legal charges be placed on citizens that fear for their safety when confronted by gang members or drug dealers (or other menacing individuals)? As a future practitioner of the criminal justice system, it would be responsible and mature to view situations such as this and determine whether majority social order can be sustained when certain gun control legislations serve to show prejudice toward citizens who are unable to protect themselves as a result of unbalanced and impractical laws in the effort of controlling firearms. It would appear to be a pragmatic consideration as to whether gun control measures as strict as those in England (which did not reduce crime long-term) would be of benefit for all members of society. Could forbidding firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment, place American citizens in a similar legal conundrum for attempting to seek self-defense? There is yet another case that is worthy of reflection that might serve as a disadvantage to more stringent gun control laws. In 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by two domestic terrorists, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. This building served as headquarters for many Federal agencies including the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Secret Service and the Social Security Administration. Both of the perpetrators who performed the bombing of the building were active members of the Michigan Militia and were infuriated at the Federal government for then-recent efforts to improve gun control (Michel & Herbeck, 2001). The Michigan Militia maintained an ideology that the best defense against corrupt and tyrannical government and policing forces was to carry powerful assault weapons to ensure domestic tranquility. Additionally, the perpetrators of this crime were incensed when the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency was given legal authority to storm the Branch Davidian compound (a religious cult) in Waco, Texas. One of the most obsessive ambitions of this cult was to procure guns and the ATF had been granted a warrant to ensure seizure of these weapons. As a result of storming the compound, a standoff between authorities and the religious cult ensued, which led to a fire that destroyed the compound and killed the followers of this religion. Though the criminal activities conducted by McVeigh and Nichols were fanatical and unjustified under any moral or legal ideology, it does tend to illustrate that there could be negative outcomes of more stringent gun control legislation that allows for seizure of weapons from private citizens in similar fashion to the situation with the Branch Davidian cult and the ATF federal agency. Could individuals in society who strongly advocate the merits and relevancy of the Second Amendment become so incensed by gun control measures that the welfare of public citizens becomes affected by fanatical and outrageous behaviors in order to disseminate their Second Amendment-related agendas? Many acts of domestic terrorism occur as a result of conflicting political ideologies which leads to radical terrorist methodologies to gain support and attempt to prevent government from becoming invasive and all-powerful. Stringent gun control laws, such as those aforementioned in Chicago that once forbade all handgun ownership, could potentially infuriate those who prescribe to militia-related principles and beliefs, creating opportunities to put the public welfare at risk. If similar terrorist related activities were to target mall shoppers, citizens in airports, or even bombing activities in residential neighborhoods, the volume of citizens murdered by these domestic terrorism objectives might surpass the volume of deaths that occur as a result of allowing Second Amendment-protected firearm ownership. This, too, when considering the radical efforts undertaken by McVeigh and Nichols in Oklahoma City, should be painstakingly measured before enacting vehemently-strict gun control legislations. From the perspective of a criminal justice professional, the welfare of majority society should be measured against the potential gains of powerful gun control laws that might only provide protection for a select group of citizens in American society. Gun Control Advantages In 1998, as a result of legislation supported by the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993, the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that was designed to ensure that guns cannot be procured by criminals. This system has been set-up to ensure an instant determination as to whether a prospective gun buyer maintains legal eligibility to buy a firearm. Gun salespersons, before closing the sale, are authorized to contact the FBI or other related agencies charged with authority in this legislation, to assess whether the buyer has a criminal record or maintains other ineligibility to finalize the purchase (FBI, 2014). A dedicated, toll-free number has been established to assist in this instant check and is available seven days per week. However, what are the tangible benefits and success rates of this new background check system and what impact does this have on society? First, a total of two million gun sales have been prevented as a result of the NICS system (Sullum, 2013). This has ensured that those with criminal records, who are the most high risk group for performing future criminal activities, are unable to victimize society members using firearms. Brent, Miller, Loeber, Mulvey & Birmaher (2013) reinforce that the current state of the government and criminal justice systems make it nearly impossible to predict when imminent violence might occur, hence establishment of this preventative background check methodology attempts to close the gaps in predictive competencies that make it difficult to inhibit future criminal behaviors using guns as the weapon of choice. As a future criminal justice practitioner, it is also ethically and realistically as responsibility to recognize where public welfare systems maintain inadequacies and lack of competency in order to consider continuous improvement as part of the criminal justice model. The advantage of this particular element of gun control is that it serves as a method to thwart gun-related criminal activities amidst a system that does maintain certain limitations as it pertains to sustaining public order and human welfare. Furthermore, with the growing volume of school shootings being perpetrated by youths using firearms as assault weapons, gun control measures serve a positive public good. There are some adolescents in society that maintain psychiatric disorders, however they do not manifest obvious signs that would be apparent to adult figures charged with their care. Such disorders as Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder are difficult to diagnose unless an individual has already been charged with the care of a professional institution or psychiatrist. These and other disorders impact youths’ impulse control capabilities and can lead to antisocial behaviors (Loeber & Farrington, 2011). Not all gun control measures are designed to forbid gun ownership, but establish security methodologies that prevent troubled youths from gaining access to firearms. For instance, there is legislation established at a state-by-state level that demands adult authority figures that have registered handguns to provide adequate locking and security systems which forbid easy access to adolescents. With the acknowledgement that youths that sustain mental disorder is difficult to recognize and diagnose without professional assistance, such gun control measures work toward reducing the volume of homicides that might be conducted by youths at higher risk of conducting gun-related criminal behaviors. It is also recognized, in reference to youths, that media coverage of violence involving guns maintains a strong influence on some impressionable youths. There are many television shows which depict gun usage as a routine type of aggression on both adult- and youth-oriented television programs. This potentially serves as an incentive for adolescents to emulate these observed behaviors in absence of more careful and thoughtful teachings by competent and responsible, law-abiding adults charged with their care. Hence, there would seem to be significant advantages in gun control measures that demand proper storage and locking systems for firearms in a family-oriented household when there is dramatic multi-media representation of gun violence involving adults and youths. Conclusion This research study, in an effort to provide impartiality in analysis and the use of an unbiased research lens, identified the plethora of potential pitfalls and advantages to seeking better gun control legislation establishment. Government reports, journal articles, statistical and empirical data, and social sciences professionals provided that gun control could potentially discriminate against the private citizen, enrage domestic terrorists, potentially violate established human rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, or disrupt effective and established policing systems. Additionally, the research highlighted that better gun control methods could prevent troubled youths from conducting gun-related crimes and serves to keep firearms out of the reach of high-risk, convicted criminals which has substantial benefit for securing the interest of the general public. In accordance with the SLU core values of excellence, this study examined the problems and solutions afforded by stricter gun control policies and legislation, taking into consideration ethical factors and practicality required of a student of criminal justice and the social sciences. Though no particular set of conclusions could be drawn as a result of the research, due to the existing contention of the gun control argument, the most appropriate deduction that can be reached is that gun control will likely be a topic of hot debate in society due to its empirically-supported disadvantages and statistically-advocated benefits for society. Gun control measures clearly have benefits for society whilst also creating problems that are difficult to resolve, especially in a nation where individual opinion and self-interest conflict creation of a unified social stance on gun control and achieving cohesive measures to make this effort the most productive and effective for majority society. References Barron, James. (2012). Children were all Shot Multiple Times with a Semiautomatic, Officials Say, The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in- connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html?_r=0 Brent, David A., Miller, Matthew J., Loeber, Rolf, Mulvey, Edward P. & Birmaher, Boris. (2013). Ending the Silence on Gun Violence, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(10), pp.1-6. CDC. (2003). First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, Mortality & Morbidity Weekly Report. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm Cornell University. (2008). District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 7-290). Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=heller&url=/supct/html/07- 290.ZS.html Diamond, Drew & Weiss, Deirdre M. (2008), “Community Policing: Looking to Tomorrow”. U.S.Department of Justice. Retrieved July 17, 2014 from http://cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e050920207- CommPolicing_Looking2Tomorrow.pdf Epstein, Lee & Walk, Thomas G. (2012). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justice (8th ed.). CQ Press. FBI. (2014). National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Retrieved July 21, 2014 from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics Forst, Brian. (2000). “The Privatization and Civilianization of Policing”, Boundary Changes in Criminal Justice Organizations, vol. 2. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_2/02c2.pdf Kleck, Gary & Gertz, Marc. (1995). Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, Journal of Criminal and Criminology, 86, pp.150-187. Loeber, R. & Farrington, D.P. (2011). Young Homicide Offenders and Victims: Development, Risk Factors, and Prediction from Childhood. New York: Springer. Malcolm, Joyce L. (2002). Guns and Violence: The English Experience. Harvard University Press. Michel, L. & Herbeck, D. (2001). American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Harper. NJ2AS. (2014). Coming Soon to a Town Near You, New Jersey Second Amendment Society. Retrieved July 17, 2014 from http://www.nj2as.com/blog?pg=3 Siddiqui, Sabrina. (2014). Obama Pledges Gun Control ‘with or without Congress’ in 2014 State of the Union Address, The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/obama-gun-control-state-of-the- union_n_4684426.html Sullum, Jacob. (2013). Checking the Logic of Background Checks, The Reason Foundation. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/17/checking-the-logic- of-background-checks United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2009). Percentage of Homicides by Firearm, Number of Homicides by Firearm and Homicide by Firearm Rate per 100,000 Population. Retrieved July 18, 2014 from http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and- analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls Voeten, Erik. (2012). Slippery Slopes, the Second Amendment, and Political Compromises on Gun Control, The Monkey Cage. Retrieved July 19, 2014 from http://themonkeycage.org/2012/12/18/slippery-slopes-the-second-amendment-and- political-compromises-on-gun-control/ Read More