Gun Control in the USA - Essay Example

Gun control Introduction Gun control is a concept that refers to policies set in place to restrict the ownership, sale, transportation, and use of firearms such as revolvers, pistols, single or double barreled guns. These policies vary across countries; however, through organizations like the United Nations, affiliate countries continue to work towards standardizing these polices on a global level in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the arms race that contributed to wars such as both World Wars. Among the major causes of these variations across the world includes the differences in ideologies possessed by different groups; whereby, a split exist between those for and against gun control. For example, as witnessed in USA, a raging debate ensues with regard to regulating firearms since the country’s emancipation in 1776. In this discussion, a comparative look of gun control, history of gun control in USA, and an analysis of gun control from the conflict paradigm in sociology is given. History of gun control in US to present day Gun control in the US has and continues to be tumultuous characterized by the institution of policies aimed at restricting ownership of military-style assault weapons such as grenades, pistols and shot guns among others, and the abandonment of these policies in the absence of unequivocal support from majority of government representatives. The need to preserve America’s heritage (viewing gun ownership as an inherent birthright) and the 2nd Amendment to the country’s Constitution are to blame, and provide the traction for those against gun control to lobby against the institution of any such policy. For example, the 2nd Amendment of the country’s constitution prohibits the infringement on citizen’s right to keep and bear arms; in fact it deems it necessary for the preservation of the country’s security (Gold 25). After the country’s emancipation, gun control policies only applied to the slaves; whereby, punitive measures were set in place to restrict ownership and possession of firearms by slaves. These policies persisted even after the abolishment of slavery under laws referred to as the Black Codes. It was not until the passing of the Civil Rights Act (1866) by the US Congress that these discriminatory laws were overrode granting the Black natives equal access to firearms. In spite of this, state governments especially those in the South devised and implemented strategies such as banning inexpensive guns and implementing high taxes on gun prices in order to limit gun ownership by the destitute, majority of who were Black. Many years later, the federal government ceased to focus on the black natives and shifted their attention to the high crime rates such as armed robbery, homicide and suicide via shooting. This saw the institution of the Gun Control Act (1968) that sought to prohibit sale and ownership of firearms to the following categories, minors (individuals below 18years), mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, illegal aliens, and individuals with a criminal record (Gold 53). Moreover other laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act further limited gun ownership by mandating federally licensed dealers to run background checks on unlicensed individuals seeking to purchase firearms (Gold 69). However, a tag of war ensued between those for and against gun control policies; whereby, each side creates laws to safeguard their personal interests. Presently, this is the case with members of the government split between supporting and refuting President Obama’s proposal of instituting stringent gun control legislation after the recent mass killings by armed culprits such as the Newtown, Ct. killings where a gunman shot dead twenty schoolchildren (Gold 110). Comparing with other nations Compared to other countries such as Canada, Japan, United Kingdom and Australia, gun control in US is less strict. In Canada, the federal state requires citizens over the age of eighteen years to undergo a public safety course and full background check before obtaining a license that permits the ownership of firearms. Moreover, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police outlines certain restrictions pertaining to the different classes of weapons, which include non-restricted (ordinary shotguns and rifles), restricted (semi-auto rifles and handguns) and prohibited weapons (fully automated firearms, grenades). For example, one must acquire a federal registration certificate in order to own restricted weapons (Gold 4). Australia sought to institute strict gun control policies after the April 1996 Port Arthur massacre (an armed young man shot dead 35 and wounded 23 people). This incident shocked the country’s conservative-led government, which saw firearm regulation as the only way to prevent the occurrence of such an incident. Their first step entailed stiffening licensing and ownership legislation and prohibiting automatic assault rifles. Moreover, the government instituted a gun buyback program aimed at purchasing firearms from civilians in order to remove them out of public circulation. Just like in Canada, the government administered a safety course to individuals seeking to own a gun (Gold 5). The United Kingdom is not different; whereby, acts of violence against the public (the August 1987 killings where a gunman killed 16 people and then committed suicide; referred to as the Hungerford massacre) forced the government to intervene and institute laws aimed at limiting gun ownership. The government made modifications to the Firearms (Amendment) Act by expanding the list of banned weapons. Moreover, it instituted a temporary gun buyback program to help reduce guns from the public (Gold 6). Japan, of all the countries mentioned above has the most strict firearm regulation. The Firearm and Sword Law permits ownership over a selected variety of firearms after an individual obtains formal instruction, undergoes an airtight background check, and passes tests that assess written, drug use and mental competence. Moreover, the governments subjects owners to an annual examinations of all weapons and ammunition to assess safety. As a result, Japan has minimal gun-relates criminal incidents (Gold 7). Sociological implication: conflict theory Unlike functionalists such as Talcott Parsons, who believe in stability (equilibrium), conflict theorists place great emphasis on change. Conflict theory is a derivative of Karl Marx’s ideologies, which recognizes the dynamic nature of society. According to these theorists, society undergoes change constantly resulting from class conflict, which is a product of competition for the scarce, limited resources such as money, land. Moreover, these theorists assert that social structures and organizations mirror inequality among the different classes and the competition for scarce resources on a larger scale. The highest class own majority of the resources; therefore, they hold the power needed to control different facets of the society such as the economy, politics and social sector. The laws they institute only prove favorable to them while functioning to undermine those in the lower classes. Inequality between the classes breeds feelings of frustration among those in the lower classes prompting them to resort to actions aimed at achieving social change. Therefore, this perspective proves useful in explaining the gun control policies in US (Andersen & Taylor 21). Conflict theorists view change as radical or revolutionary and not incremental. Looking at gun control policies in US it is evident that a conflict exists between the two sides with differing ideologies in relation to the issue. A critical analysis shows that the first time the US government chose to institute gun control policies happened with the aim of further discriminating against the slaves. Slave owners, who also ran the government, viewed the slaves as a threat if allowed to own guns as stipulated by the 2nd Amendment to the country’s constitution, which prohibited infringement on citizen’s right to own firearms. Therefore, they chose to set punitive measures to deter enslaved individuals from owning firearms. The abolishment of slavery did not bring these discriminatory policies to an end; instead, government officials in Southern states set laws called Black Codes for the emancipated slaves which still denied them ownership of firearms. It was not until the revolutionary Civil War that the government effected changes to legislative policies to bestow upon black people their constitutional right to own firearms. Conflict theorists would accredit the changes to the gun control policies to inequality between the high class comprising of white supremacists and the low class comprised of Black natives (Turner 509). Since then, two opposing sides emerged for and against the institution of gun control policies. Those against such policies emerge at the top in this tag of war because of their high social and political standing. A critical analysis of those against gun control indicates that they belong to the highest social class. These individuals view gun ownership as their inherent birthright and key to the preservation of America’s heritage or at least this is the excuse they give to support their motion against instituting legislative aimed at limiting sale and ownership of guns. The actual truth is that these individuals are elite members of social clubs that engage in pro-gun activities and require their members to do so. As a result, these individuals are blind to the high crime rates committed by armed culprits because they can afford ample security to protect themselves and their families. Conversely, those for the institution of gun control policies are aware of the plight of majority of average citizens living in constant fear for their lives. They are well aware that the implementation of legislative policies seeking to limit ownership and sale of firearms would go a long way in boosting the level of security via reducing crime rates in the country. In spite of this, their efforts to lobby for support yield unfruitful results because they lack unequivocal support from majority of Congressmen. However, this might soon change after the recent mass killings witnessed in the country; whereby, innocent children lost their lives to armed gunmen. However, grim the events, they proved to be the push needed by those lobbying for the institution of gun control policies. Spearheaded by President Obama, proponents of gun control have support from the public and might soon get the Congress votes they need to institute stringent legislative policies pertaining to ownership and sale of guns. From a conflict perspective, revolutionary change resulted from a radical situation (mass killings), which helped shed light on the helpless state of those in the lower classes (average citizens) (Turner 510). Conclusion In conclusion, after comparing gun control policies in US with that in various countries, it is clear that catastrophic events ignite governments’ need to create very strict legislative policies that limit ownership and sale of firearms. Moreover, in countries with stringent gun control policies, gun related crimes are less. However, members of the government disagree on whether these policies are necessary for the reduction of crime in the country making it difficult for such a country to create and maintain such policies. From a conflict perspective, each group strives to safeguard their own interests without considering the repercussion their choices have on the citizens. Works Cited Andersen. Margaret L., Taylor, Howard Francis. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. New York: Cengage Learning, 2006. Print. Gold, Susan Dudley. Gun Control. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2004. Print. Turner, Jonathan H. Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Springer, 2006. Print. Read More