The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

When John Hinckley, Jr. attempted the assassination of then President Ronald Reagan, his ability to purchase and utilize a hand gun even though he suffered from demonstrable mental illness was the impetus for the creation of the Brady Bill, more formally known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This Act is named after James Brady, former Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary who was shot in the assassination attempt and suffered irreparable brain damage, the Act sought to place controls on guns, including background checks for the acquisition of handguns. The Act prevented the sale of firearms through dealers by convicted felons, those with mental defects, and those who are fugitives of justice. Supports maintained
that this kind of measure, first enacted in 1981, provided greater security in the distribution of firearms and prevented access by criminals.
The problem in this assumption related to the Brady Bill and subsequent other pieces of legislation designed to limit access to firearms is that restrictions are applied to the traditional methods for purchasing firearms either through a dealer or through a reputable business, and criminals often do not pursue this method of purchase. Critics have argued that firearm legislation that restricts access by the public just means that the criminals have guns and the general population does not have the weapons they need for self-protection.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution maintains the necessity of a "well-regulated Militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free State," and further argues that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Advocates of gun control maintain that the protections afforded under this Amendment were created at a time when these ideals were necessary and that they no longer apply in the modern era.
In fact, individuals seek support of police and criminal justice agencies to resolve matters that would be resolved in the past using individual weaponry. Opponents of gun control argue that these rights are essential. Advocates of gun control have argued that there is a definitive need for greater management of access to guns, while those opposed to gun control often cite the Second Amendment as the underlying principle for maintaining
access.
Major criminal events involving firearms, including Columbine and Springfield High School shootings and the events in Tucson that resulted in the death of 6 and injuries to a U.S. congresswoman, have led to questions about the need for gun control measures (Miron, 2011). Though this has led to measures in some states to implement greater police involvement in reducing firearms on the streets, individual access to firearms has not significantly decreased in recent years. Even in New York City, police efforts at detecting the presence of weapons, including their “stop-and-frisk” measures, have not resulted in widespread detection of handguns or significantly reduced gun violence in recent years (Weiss, 2012).
The research will help to provide information about the public support or opposition to the use of specific measures to reduce the presence of guns in the community setting, including stop-and-frisk measures.
Because these measures are at the discretion of police and because they can unfairly target ethnic minorities, consideration for the public views of this process should be considered when proposing these measures in the community setting. The outcomes of this study should be utilized to inform practices in the criminal justice setting, including evaluation of the criteria used by police for stop-and-frisk procedures and the issue of racial and ethnic disparities in the application of these methods for reducing gun violence in a multicultural society. The research provided can be utilized to support improved systems for monitoring the behaviors of police using stop-and-frisk procedures used by urban police officers and could also address some of the questions regarding the use of these techniques in specific neighborhoods or in the presence of socioeconomic disparities. This will help to provide a foundation for this kind of approach to reducing guns in community settings and could enhance the police operations for reducing gun
violence. This study will help as a foundation for additional studies, including comparative studies of multiple communities and different gun control measures to show whether some types of programs work better than others in reducing gun violence in the streets. This study will address the connection between community support for gun control measures and levels of gun violence.
Research Questions The questions raised by the issue of gun control and the conflicting views of its impact are:
1. Do the stop-and-frisk procedures used by police to reduce guns on the streets deter criminal behavior?
2. Have legislative measures to reduce access to guns resulted in decreased gun violence?
3. Do measures to reduce access to guns hinder the ability of average citizens to protect themselves from criminal behaviors?
4. Does requiring an individual to possess a license to own a handgun violate Second Amendment rights?
Hypothesis
In the case of gun laws as a deterrent to violence on the streets, gun control laws might prevent some people from purchasing weapons, but may not ever really result in safer streets. One of the most common assertions in defense of firearm use is the argument that guns are used millions of times a year in self-defense and are therefore effective crime deterrents.
H1-Gun control restrictions reduce gun-related violence by increasing the obstacles of access to guns for potential criminals, such as prolonging the wait period for purchasing a gun, or adding additional requirements to acquire a gun (Kleck 2001, unpublished paper).
The study of views of the utility of extreme community-based measures at gun control could be an essential part of the debate regarding gun control legislation and its impacts. This kind of research is important considering the varying views of gun control and the effectiveness of gun control measures. This study is feasible however, one of the limitations of this study is it may require a considerable amount of effort to secure all the data required through the data collection process. The use of a mailed questionnaire to willing participants is one approach and the use of a shorter questionnaire that could be distributed to those willing to stop and take it could be another approach to secure the response of a community-based subject population. An additional lamination of this study might be the instrument, which may drive respondents into certain answer categories because of constrained range of answers accessible for selection. Survey instruments don't permit elucidation. Another limitation is the likelihood of bias because of response rates, which are regularly low for mail studies. Likewise, issues contacting individuals who need capability in English (the expenses for translating into language other than English, and for data entry and analysis of these responses can be critical). Lower quality of data gathered, since individuals tend to stay away from open-ended question and don't generally follow instructions or write legibly. Response rates are a shortcoming with mail survey, and there is no real way to ensure that individuals will respond to a mail review. The last constraint of the study is that low response rates mean outcomes may not completely mirror the characteristic of the population being studied.