Gun Violence Prevention Policy and the African American Community

Introduction

The African American community has faced the brunt of the criminal justice system in the aftermath of gun violence. The violence that emanates from gun use and other shooting incidents rips families apart and tears the community fabric. There is often a second devastating effect that results from this violence. Police frequently stop members of communities of color on the streets and conduct inspections, causing those communities to grow suspicious of law enforcement authorities. Indeed, government departments — including but not limited to the police — face thorough scrutiny regarding their treatment of people of color. There are calls for reforms in the justice system owing to the disproportionate numbers of people of color in incarceration. The increase in gun violence across states has also triggered public outcry for changes in the judicial system to bolster public safety (Urban Institute, 2016).

System failures to address systematic discrimination, the inability to restrict guns from being accessed by individuals likely to misuse them, and the failure to allocate resources to gun violence prevention programs all converge to exacerbate the gun violence crisis (Amnesty International, 2020). Societies across the globe are trying new approaches to reduce or even prevent gun violence. Some methods appear to be working and could be emulated. Enforcement-based violence reduction efforts can produce immediate results; however, they require continuous coordination. Scholars and analysts have argued for years that changing social paradigms is the true resolution to gun violence, and that altering the social norms that encourage violence holds the key to success. The public health approach to dealing with violence follows a similar template (Butts, Roman, Bostwick, & Porter, 2015).

This paper provides an overview of a policy for the prevention of gun violence.

Policy Development

A policy document is usually drafted by an individual or an agency that has been granted the authority to complete the task. For national policy issues, such an agency could be a team of government employees or a consultant contracted to act on the government's behalf. Whichever the case, the group or individual selected for such a task must be knowledgeable and conversant with policy formulation guidelines. More importantly, those chosen should have the capacity to work harmoniously with all stakeholders. The views of all stakeholders must be incorporated before a decision to formulate policy is reached. For the present project, a policy document would be crafted in an easy-to-understand form, avoiding highly technical language whenever possible (Schopper, Lormand, & Waxweiler, 2006).

Mental health professionals will also be included in the policy development process. Community trauma can be an outcome of violent experiences, and that trauma may in turn predispose further violence, promoting a vicious cycle. Mental health experts can be deployed to address psychological issues arising from violent experiences. They can help build resilience and promote healing through strategies that reconstruct social relationships and reclaim public spaces. There is a need for more research to improve understanding of impact control patterns, problem-solving, anger management, and empathy.

Similarly, more information is needed about how these functions interact with the harmful norms identified in earlier recommendations. The public health approach can help clarify the dynamics of who perpetrates violence and who is at greatest risk. This is a pathway toward permanent solutions. Detailed analysis can signal which networks are involved and how to respond when protective functions have been compromised.

Key Policy Traits

The characteristics of the proposed policy are as follows:

Restricting access to ammunition: Research has demonstrated clear benefits linked to restricting access to ammunition. The policy recommends extending background checks to the purchase of ammunition and using ammunition purchases as a means of identifying individuals likely to abuse firearms or in illegal possession of them. Access to dangerous weapons should be further limited by banning dangerous magazines and bump stocks, requiring foolproof background checks, imposing waiting periods, and urgently reinstating the ban on assault weapons (Prevention Institute, 2020).

Restricting firearm access for young people and those likely to harm themselves or others: Restricting access for individuals with a history of violence against partners or family members, and for those previously convicted of violence-related crimes, should be a priority. This can be accomplished through expanded lethality assessment checks, gun violence restraining orders, and support for legislation targeting domestic violence.

Keeping the gun industry accountable: The marketing and distribution of ammunition and guns must be adequately monitored. Research has found that 5% of gun dealers sell 90% of guns used in crimes — these dealers must be held accountable. States should be required to pass laws mandating that sellers obtain licenses, maintain open sales records subject to inspection, and meet a range of other requirements. Gun manufacturers currently enjoy special legal protections that render them largely unaccountable, and these legal provisions should be reviewed and repealed where they exist. They should also be prevented from being enacted in states that do not yet have them. Due to the absence of legal safeguards, gun manufacturing companies are increasingly being pressured by the public and consumers to account for their operations — including what they produce, quantities manufactured, and to whom and where finished products are sold.

Mandatory training for gun owners: There should be a recurrent education program, especially for permit renewal, along with a graduated licensing procedure similar to that used for automobile drivers.

Expanding mental health and social support: Extending access to culturally competent, coordinated emotional, social, and mental health support — and addressing traumatic cases — would strengthen holistic gun violence deterrence strategies. Too many instances of gun violence are linked to mental health crises even when perpetrators have no documented history of diagnosed mental illness. Communities are often able to identify individuals who need support or treatment. It is equally important to reduce the stigma associated with mental health. For this approach to succeed, communities need resources to assess high-risk individuals and connect them to coordinated social services and emotional support institutions, especially during crises. Trauma can also affect learning, damage health and behavior across the lifespan, and is particularly harmful during critical developmental stages in childhood. Trauma can increase a wide range of violent behaviors. More must be done to recognize trauma within populations, develop evidence-informed protocols for addressing it, and provide healing support for those affected — including individuals who have merely been exposed to violence, not only direct participants or targets.

Supporting gun violence research: Sufficient resources should be directed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to encourage research on the matter and provide direction grounded in scientific knowledge (Prevention Institute, 2020).

Conclusion

Everyone recognizes that many economic, cultural, and political forces drive the gun violence epidemic in America. Prevention is a well-established policy goal (Butts et al., 2015). Families, communities, and American society as a whole struggle with daily tragedies that cause profound pain and loss. Culture and policy must change to break the cycle of gun violence. We should reach a point where people can live in their homes without fear, send children to school safely, and move through public life without dreading the next gunshot (Prevention Institute, 2020). As highlighted throughout this paper, the role of targeted communities in the fight against gun violence must never be overlooked.

References

Amnesty International. (2020). Gun violence — key facts. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/

Butts, J. A., Roman, C. G., Bostwick, L., & Porter, J. (2015). Cure violence: A public health model to reduce gun violence. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122509

Prevention Institute. (2020). Gun violence must stop. Here's what we can do to prevent more deaths. Retrieved from https://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/preventing-violence-and-reducing-injury/preventing-violence-advocacy

Schopper, D., Lormand, J. D., & Waxweiler, R. (Eds.). (2006). Developing policies to prevent injuries and violence: Guidelines for policy-makers and planners. World Health Organization.

Tita, G. E., Troshynski, E., & Graves, M. (2007). Strategies for reducing gun violence: The role of gangs, drugs, and firearm accessibility. Research Report: National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC). Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rdcng-gn-vlnc/rdcng-gn-vlnc-eng.pdf

Urban Institute. (2016). Engaging communities in reducing gun violence: A road map for safer communities. Research Report, The Joyce Foundation. Retrieved from