Senate voted on, but did not pass, a measure to expand background checks for gun purchases. Do you think the Senate should or should not have passed the measure to expand background checks for gun purchases? Asked of those who do not want Senate to pass bill to expand background checks What are some of the reasons you did not want the Senate to pass expanded background checks for gun purchases?
Next, suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Require background checks for all gun purchases? Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that was in place from to ? Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Limit the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less?
Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Increase government spending for mental health programs for young people? Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Increase government spending for training police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks? Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Increase criminal penalties for people who pass the required background check but who buy a gun for someone who has not passed a background check?
Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement?
How often does the NRA reflect your views about guns -- always, most of the time, only sometimes or never? Just your opinion, what do you think are the one or two most important things that could be done to prevent mass shootings from occurring in the United States?
Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U. Have you, personally, ever fired a gun, or not? Asked of gun owners Next, please tell me whether you own a gun for each of the following reasons. Do you think courtrooms would be safer places or more dangerous places if judges were armed with guns?
Do you think schools would be safer places or more dangerous places if school officials were armed with guns? Do you think airplanes would be safer places or more dangerous places if pilots were armed with guns? Which of the following do you think should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in a public place, such as a restaurant or movie theater -- only government safety officials, such as police officers, only government officials or private citizens who have a clear need for a weapon, such as those who transport large amounts of cash, or any private citizen, except those who would be a potential threat to public safety, such as convicted criminals?
Only safety officials Only those with clear need Any private citizen Any one vol. No one vol. If you were in a public place such as a restaurant or movie theater, would you feel more safe -- or less safe -- if you knew concealed firearms were allowed?
More safe Less safe No difference vol. Foreign Trade: Opportunity or Threat to the U. Sign Up. Reports of Crime Victimization at Year Low. When the Supreme Court has ruled, it has been more likely to allow regulation than to prohibit it, at least at the state level. Even Daniel Polsby, a lawyer and one of the most eloquent and persuasive opponents of gun control, suggests that seeking constitutional protection under the Second Amendment is a flawed approach.
He argues that a guaranteed right to bear arms under any circumstances, including those that might endanger public safety, would provide grounds for repeal of the amendment rather than a case for respecting it. Instead, Polsby argues that the best reason for opposing gun control is that "gun control laws don't work. The terms, but not the tenor, of the debate have changed. Some of the most persuasive of the gun control opponents employ economic arguments, using rational choice theory to demonstrate the inability of regulation to stop the flow of guns into neighborhoods where crime is the dominant employer in local labor markets.
Gun control advocates argue from a public health standpoint, noting that while guns may not cause violence, they do cause violence to be far more lethal. This "lethality," in suicide and accidents as well as homicide, is the imperative from a public health perspective for regulating guns like other deadly substances.
I recently listened to a debate, staged by a public policy school, that featured two respected figures hurling statistics at each other. They treated each other with disdain. I was appalled that this was the way in which we modeled "public affairs" for adults, let alone for young people. Despite my own bias in favor of regulation, I found myself wondering if such regulation could be effective in a society so full of discord and so lacking in civil discourse.
Opponents of regulation argue that laws are not the primary arbiter of behavior. On the other hand, there is surely a social cost when "bad" laws are disregarded, divert resources, or produce a false sense of security. Others would argue that the role of law is not primarily to change behavior, but to reflect the behavioral norms that a society professes. Even when these norms conflict, the process by which they are negotiated suggests a value in accepting the outcomes. An Alternative Process Consider the following primary learning objectives established for a curriculum that addresses public policy approaches to reducing gang violence: 1 to increase student knowledge of the problem, substituting facts and specific information for stereotypes and generalities 2 to listen to a range of opinions, gaining practice both in persuading others to change and in being open to change 3 to understand that laws need not only to have worthy ends, but must provide effective means 4 to demonstrate the role of ordinary citizens in shaping good laws.
These objectives apply equally well to the study of gun control or to any other public policy issue. It is not necessary that issues be violence-related in order to teach the fundamental concepts of social justice, public responsibility, tolerance, and equity. But issues related to violence underscore form with function.
A classroom debate on gun control as part of a violence-reduction curriculum offers an appealing option, but also presents a situation to be avoided. The appeal of a point-counterpoint method of engaging students in learning models the real-life process of public policy making. But the rancorous, uncivil, and often unproductive nature of the debate-as it has been conducted in the real-life models of state legislatures, the national media, and the halls of Congress-is at odds with producing either good citizens or effective policy.
The challenge is to combine the attraction and inherent interest of the issue with a genuine desire to seek information, solutions, and above all, effective public policy. In attempting to reduce gun violence, the policy debate has focused on regulatory vs. As students consider policy alternatives, it can be helpful to examine the truth of these beliefs and to investigate the context that gives rise to these notions about the so-called American gun culture. While it is difficult to deny the existence of those ,, guns, it is worthwhile to examine how and why they came into the possession of their owners, and what factors influence their use.
Students might also look at other problems with parallel conditions that might suggest solutions to the problem of gun violence. The following list is merely suggestive of topics that may crop up in your curriculum. Some provide support for popularly held notions, while others might cause students to examine the motives as well as the content of some policy stances. For instance, some of the earliest gun legislation passed during the post-Civil War era was aimed at disarming recently freed slaves.
On the other hand, while we think of the Old West as a place of unfettered freedom, frontier communities often exercised their own controls, as demonstrated by such familiar images as cowboys checking their guns at the entrance to the dance hall.
Much of the debate about gun control concerns handguns. There are various proposals at the city, state, and national level.
They range from registration to outright bans on handguns. Below are some of the most frequently heard arguments in the debates over handgun laws. Arguments against Handgun Control American citizens have a legal right to own handguns under the Second Amendment, which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
People do. Imposing mandatory, long prison sentences on criminals will reduce crime more effectively than gun control. Stronger gun control laws will make it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves and their families. Crime threatens everyone, and the police are not usually around when a criminal appears. Americans have owned handguns throughout our country's history.
Gun control would destroy this time-honored tradition. There is no evidence that existing gun control laws have reduced crime and violence. New York City and Washington, D. Even if gun control laws did reduce the use of handguns, criminals would simply shift to other weapons. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees states the right to maintain militias.
It doesn't give private citizens a right to own guns. Criminals use guns because handguns are so readily available. They will continue to use guns as long as there is little control over their sale and possession. Guns are far more likely to harm members of the owner's household than offer protection against criminals. Gun control does not reduce crime. Guns don't kill—only people kill. If more people carried guns to protect themselves, there would be less violent crime.
Evaluating gun control. Proponents of gun control suggest that some of the arguments against gun control are invalid. For example, they cite statistics that support the fact that if more citizens carried guns to defend themselves, there would be little decrease in crime because crime victims rarely use weapons anyway. And they point to the fact that, so far, the U. The case most often cited is U.
0コメント