Issues in gun policy range from the moral to the practical, with implications for law, economics, public health, and a host of other disciplines. At the center of the debate is the fundamental question of whether firearms, specifically those owned and wielded by private citizens, do more harm than good in deterring violent crime. Despite intense scrutiny from so many fields, however, scholars have reached few solid conclusions to date.

The answers to even basic questions who is victimized, how many are victimized, and at what cost are they victimized are fiercely disputed, resulting in a nebulous yet hotly contested understanding of the interplay between guns and crime. Gun policy is a complex and difficult issue characterized roughly by its two diametrical sides: the pro gun or gun rights camp, which argues that guns are a constitutionally protected social necessity, and the anti gun or gun control camp, which asserts that guns are a fundamentally unsafe and extremely costly means to facilitate a variety of social ills. Data exist to support both sides the difficulty lies in separating partisanship and underlying attitudes from empirical observation and objective analysis. Outside the united states, guns are sometimes a contentious issue, but rarely at the level witnessed here.

Many westernized nations feature tighter controls on private firearm ownership, particularly for certain types of weapons that could, in the view of their governments, be more readily used to facilitate crime. Australia, for example, experienced a period with relatively little gun regulation prior to the 1980s and 1990s, when a series of high profile shooting incidents incited progressively harsher reform. Now, guns in australia are tightly controlled, with restrictions on ownership based on the category of firearm and the evaluation of so called genuine need on the part of the possessor. Although some low level debate remains over gun control policies in other countries, there is a veritable firestorm of political, academic, and litigious action on all sides of the gun control issue in the united states. Broadly, the amendment is concerned with security through self defense the key difference between the gun rights and gun control perspectives lies with precisely who is entitled to self defense and how that defense is to be manifested. Supporters of gun rights believe that the second amendment applies to individual level possession of firearms, whereas supporters of gun control argue that the intent was to provide for the formation and readiness of peacekeeping forces such as the army or state militias. Since the federal militia act of 1903, individual state militias have been organized into the national guard and have been tasked with supplementing army units overseas and providing domestic support in relief of natural disasters.

In the former perspective, the right and responsibility of self defense carries an individualistic connotation. In the latter, self defense is provided for generally by the state, through publicly governed mechanisms such as police, who are entrusted with powers of arrest and tasked with maintaining order. Additional points concerning the amendment have also been debated and promoted, including the right to rebel against government tyranny. At present, the prevailing attitude in the united states asserts the gun rights perspective that the second amendment protects and guarantees individual possession. Gun rights supporters, particularly the national rifle association nra , endorse the interpretation that a well regulated militia, as quoted in the amendment, refers to an armed populace and not only to governmental bodies such as the u.s. The nra, founded in 1871, is the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization in the united states.

Psc Essay Topic

It is also, perhaps more significantly, one of the largest and best funded lobbying organizations in the united states today. Beginning with a more conservative shift in the late 1970s, the nra has championed laws that promote gun rights and emphasize gun safety for millions of shooting enthusiasts. The opinion about gun rights and the second amendment is consistently reflected in public opinion polls on gun ownership. For example, a gallup poll conducted in 2008 demonstrated that 73 percent of respondents believed that the wording of the second amendment indicates a guarantee of private ownership as well as the formation of state militias gallup 2008. Legal opinion on the gun control issue seems divided, with both sides claiming victory.

In some instances, both pro and anti gun advocates claim victory in the very same case. Miller 1930 , for example, is cited by the brady campaign 2007 as evidence of the courts’ interpretation in favor of gun possession by militia members only, whereas the same case is cited by the nra tahmassebi 20 as evidence of support for the constitutional guarantee of individual ownership. Dozens of other contradictory instances may be found in federal and circuit court opinions dating back more than a century. The use and control of firearms in the united states has traditionally been approached from a fundamentally permissive position, with individual ownership largely unregulated.

Notable exceptions to this position exist for the nature and type of firearm, the characteristics of its owner, and the provisions of its transfer all factors that are monitored by the government. A series of federal laws have provided the framework for this means of gun control in the united states since the prohibition era. The first and perhaps most influential of these laws was the national firearms act of 1934, which placed severe limitations on individuals who wished to own small arms and accessories that were generally assumed to facilitate violent crime. Among the regulated items covered in the act were sound suppressors or silencers , destructive devices such as hand grenades, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and fully automatic machine guns. The act makes the unlicensed possession or transfer of such items a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and/or a substantial monetary fine plus forfeiture of all items that violate the act.

The national firearms act has remained in effect, largely unaltered, and has enjoyed bipartisan support for more than 70 years a remarkable feat, given the frequency of legal challenges to legislative gun control. Specific forms of gun control in the united states have also been enacted through laws intended to supplement the national firearms act of 1934. Code , was established following the high profile assassinations of martin luther king jr. This act provided tighter regulation of interstate commerce dealing with firearms, established the federal firearms license program to prevent individuals from purchasing guns through direct mail order or from out of state dealers, and mandated that all firearms produced in or imported into the united states bear a serial number for identification purposes.

Certain provisions of the gun control act of 1968 were later clarified and amended in the gun owners protection act of 1986 18 u.s.c. First, it included a formal prohibition of governmental registries linking private guns to individuals. Second, it offered protection for federal firearms licensees from abusive inspections on the part of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Third, it established a safe passage clause for gun owners traveling to and from legal shooting related sporting events, effectively immunizing them from prosecution for possession or transportation of firearms outside their home jurisdictions. Finally and most critically, the act also clarified the list of persons denied private firearm ownership on public safety grounds, such as individuals who are fugitives from justice or those who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill. An amendment was added in 1996 the lautenberg amendment to prevent ownership for those who have been convicted of domestic violence and those subject to court issued restraining orders.