This policy brief reviews the debate over gun control laws in the United States through the lens of public policy analysis. The paper applies policy analysis tools, economic models, and equity evaluation frameworks to examine arguments made by both gun control advocates and opponents. Key findings indicate that socioeconomic factors such as unemployment, poverty, and alcohol consumption are more significant predictors of gun-related deaths than gun control laws themselves. The paper concludes that substantive changes to gun control policy face formidable constitutional and political obstacles, requiring mobilization efforts comparable to those wielded by major advocacy organizations such as the National Rifle Association.
The highest and most authoritative source of law in the United States is the Constitution and its several amendments. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the Founders believed gun ownership was a fundamental right, and all public policies flow from this right. As a result, making substantive changes to the nation's gun control laws requires more than a simple local referendum; rather, it involves making an amendment to the Constitution itself, an arduous process that doomed the Equal Rights Amendment.
Despite this constitutional constraint, gun control advocates continue to push for more stringent guidelines and argue that current gun laws exacerbate crime levels. Conversely, opponents to changes in gun control laws counter that not only does the Constitution guarantee these rights, but guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually reduce crime rates. To determine the facts, this paper reviews relevant literature concerning public policies and gun control, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.
Together with Social Security, there is no quicker way for American politicians to get voted out of office than to advocate changes in the nation's gun control laws. Indeed, when most members of the powerful National Rifle Association believe that "gun control means using two hands," implementing more restrictive changes to gun control laws can result in highly charged reactions. In this regard, Utter (2000) emphasizes that, "Gun control is a fascinating public policy area that creates extremely emotional reactions among those who oppose further restrictions on firearms ownership" (p. 7).
Using public policy analysis tools such as models and simulations, organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers argue that the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens serves to reduce rather than increase crime rates in the United States. Likewise, by applying policy indicators, these groups cite various gun-related statistics that show that accidental gun deaths in the United States have actually decreased over the past 30 years during a period when gun ownership rates increased significantly (Utter, 2000).
Moreover, critics of changes in existing gun control laws consistently play their trump card by pointing out that "gun ownership is a constitutional right, and licensing and registration cannot be imposed on a constitutional right" (Utter, 2000, p. 205). The latter half of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," but the former half qualifies this right by noting that "a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state." Although the debate over the precise meaning of this terminology continues, gun control opponents routinely cite the Second Amendment in support of their position.
Gun control opponents maintain that the so-called "crime-bureaucratic complex" in the United States, which is comprised of attorneys, insurance companies, elected officials, and the courts, all profit from current crime levels and have a vested interest in seeing fewer Americans carrying guns for their own protection (Utter, 2000). A multivariate statistical analysis of the effectiveness of state-level gun control laws by Kwon, Scott, Safranski, and Bae (1999) found that gun control laws have a statistically insignificant impact on the number of gun-related deaths. These researchers, however, also found that socioeconomic factors such as a state's unemployment rate, poverty, and alcohol consumption levels have a profound effect on gun-related deaths (Kwon et al., 1999).
These findings indicate that a better use of scarce taxpayer resources is directing resources toward social programs to counter these socioeconomic factors rather than attempting to effect significant changes in the nation's current gun control laws (Kwon et al., 1999). In this regard, Kwon and his associates emphasize that, "Studies of the effectiveness of gun control laws and regulations must not ignore other pertinent variables that may contribute to committing crimes, especially socioeconomic variables" (1999, p. 42). Furthermore, advocates of changes in the nation's gun control laws that attempt to use economic analyses that fail to take these critical socioeconomic variables into account are not evaluating the complete scenario. As Kwon et al. conclude, "Excluding these important variables from the model building process, and claiming that gun control laws and regulations are solely responsible for any change in crime rates, is too simplistic" (1999, p. 42).
In a democratic society, equity in public policy is an essential element for acceptability and legality and is used to evaluate different alternatives to identify optimal approaches. For instance, according to Rossell (1999), "Equity, efficiency, effectiveness, and political feasibility are criteria for choosing policy alternatives" (p. 155). Balancing the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans with the need for improved law enforcement capabilities, though, is a challenging enterprise by any measure.
As Spitzer (1998) points out, "The gun control battle is, above all, a struggle over public policy. The gun policy struggle is one in which elephantine political forces battle over policy mice" (p. 136). In some cases, opponents of guns in America are unable to detach themselves from their personal views about weapons and the constitutional right to bear arms in the United States today. According to one authority, "Harvard School of Public Health Professor Deborah Prothrow-Stith, who studies the subject, admitted, 'I hate guns, and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one'" (cited in Doherty, 2008, p. 81).
Public advocacy is defined as follows:
Therefore, in order to effect meaningful changes in the nation's gun control laws, public advocacy must not only identify a problem but also take steps to mobilize like-minded citizens in making these changes. While the first two approaches represent a starting point for educating the American public concerning the need for changes in gun control laws, the third approach is the most important because of the longstanding views held by many Americans concerning their rights to own firearms. For instance, according to Doherty:
Today, millions of American citizens participate in public policy and advocacy through their representation in various organizations devoted to safeguarding gun ownership. For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is comprised of four million gun-owning citizens and is strongly allied with the Republican Party (Dreyfuss, 2000). As a former spokesman for President Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, pointed out: "They're good citizens. They call their congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time" (cited in NRA history, 2014, para. 3).
On the other side of the argument, organizations such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign that advocate changes in the nation's gun control laws to make them more restrictive field just a few hundred thousand members and lack the monetary and political clout that gun control opponents such as the NRA wield in the U.S. Congress (Dreyfuss, 2000). In sum, not only do opponents of existing gun control laws face a formidable lobbying force, but they also have the U.S. Constitution to deal with as well.
The research showed that protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights to own guns is the touchstone by which politicians are judged by many voters. The arguments in support of changes to the nation's gun control laws may be well reasoned and compelling, but they fly directly in the face of the constitutional right to own, sell, buy, trade, collect, and otherwise use guns of all sorts as Americans see fit within the laws of their jurisdictions.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.