Throughout the United States the policy process is the same. It starts with extra-constitutional actors, which are political parties, media, public opinion, and interest groups. These actors find a problem or issue and effect policy makers to get it known. These policy makers then use their concerns and create policy. The policy is then implemented by the bureaucracy in some way. The people and these extra-constitutional actors then evaluate this policy. Some may like it and let it be, while others may start the process all over again. According to Smith, “the states share similar political structures and follow the same overall set of rules, but they make different choices” (Smith, 8). This means that all states have a similar policy process, but that they still have different laws. This can be seen in how they create laws on guns. Each state has different gun laws and this is due to the effect of extra-constitutional actors in each state. Extra-constitutional actors affect the policy process in regard to gun laws in each state differently. In this paper, this will be looked at by using the comparative method. According to Smith, the comparative method “uses similarities and differences as the basis for systematic explanation” (Smith, 7). The comparative method will be used by looking at how each extra-constitutional actor has effected gun laws in each state recently and comparing them. From this it should be seen they have all created different gun laws in the state from
In the Unites States of America Federalism is the basic structure of the American government; it is the distribution and balance of powers between the National government and the States government. In order to obtain a compromise between those who wanted stronger state government and those who preferred a stronger national government the founding fathers arranged and settled for a federal system rather than the alternatives of a unitary or confederal system. While both National and State governments each have specific powers and authority, they also share certain powers and must be able to cooperate effectively with each other.
America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.
Wayne LaPierre, a gun rights advocate and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Gun control is laws that regulate the sale and possession of firearms. These laws have become a more prominent discussion due to crime, and they attempt to reduce violence. Many countries have some sort of gun control, but the United States have different rules for each state. The United Kingdom have some of the strictest firearm laws. Guns in America are a constitutional right, increase personal safety, and decrease crime.
Guns and weaponry have always been a major part of the cultures of the world since the beginning of time. For the United States of America, gun use can be traced back to the colonial days, our revolutionary roots. They have helped the United States turn the table specifically in times of dire need such as the Revolutionary War. Not only have advances in weaponry influenced the U.S., they have also helped to shape events across the globe. In 1791, this was understood by the Founding Fathers while writing the Constitution, which can be seen in the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”[1]. With the advancement of guns specifically, there has been a rise in mass shootings, casualties, crime and controversy that has begun to split the United States. All a person has to do is turn on the television to a news channel, and at any given time, heartache, most often linked to guns, can be found. Some cry for a need for better gun regulation or sometimes complete abolishment for recreational use, while others cling to their weapons with claim of self-defense and economic profit. Violent crimes have been on the rise years; there has been an estimated 1.2 billion crimes of violence that occurred in the United States alone [2]. One thing is certain: gun trade and regulation boosts the economy. Last year, 301,
legislation varies in every state. In some states gun policy is stricter than in other states.
Gun control has been a long debate to determine if it’s better to have stricter access to firearms. America is one of the few countries that has gun rights embedded in their constitution. But what makes the US exceptional is that it has the right to keep and bear arms, other countries do not provide the right to have access to them, but rather, the government is allowed to regulate its use. The right to bear arms has also been the cause of growing violence and crime, at least according to anti-gun lobbyists. Citizens should be aware the dangers and harm that guns present to society. Controlling the sale of firearms can greatly decrease the number of violent crimes.
On Wednesday June 18, 2015 nine shot dead at a historical black church in Charleston, South Dakota and only a month later on July 16, 2015 in Chattanooga, Tennessee with five dead leaving citizens devastated. The past year contains more than 350 mass shootings, averaging 1.02 shootings per day and continuous growing number of deaths, multiple mass shootings around the world leaving dozens of victims in its path. There is no exact definition of mass shootings, but most sources believe it is when four or more people are shot in one location. Citizens in America are easily able to obtain a gun and the growing issue is whether this should change and stronger laws in place. Although citizens believe gun control laws take away second amendment and right to protect themselves, mass shootings are increasing yearly and action needs to happen to prevent the next attack.
In about every nation, gun control has always been an issue of controversy. Gun control laws are quite different from country to country, each possessing different requirements, specifications, and ordinances, so on and so on. What will be examined are the specified gun control laws in three international countries, ranging from Canada, Australia, and Japan, as well as a comparison and contrast of the the similarities and unique differences toward American gun control laws and those in other countries, and finally, the effects of having loose gun control laws. Unlike America, these countries possess stricter laws regarding gun control.
In the Constitution, the second amendment gives the American people to have the right to possess and bear arms. This amendment has been the most controversial issue since guns have been around. Issues such as gun control and gun ownership have remained a matter of debate and have been floating around in Congress. It has been rumored that Congress is forced to draft certain legislation in order to come up with a law against unlawful use of arms, and only owning them for safety purposes. When it comes to congress, Republicans and Democrats have debated their views on gun-control in the United States to best fit the overall well-being of the citizens. These different points of views have caused many discussions on how this controversial topic should be handled and whether or not it conflicts with the second amendment. Throughout this topic, Republicans and hardcore NRA supporters favor with less strict rules of gun-control while Democrats want stricter rules such as a background check for every citizen that poses a threat to either the United States of America or the average citizen. The debate on guns in America has essentially become one more distracting, off-point topic in culture wars.
The world is a dangerous place to live. Every day, we wake up, send our children off to school and spend most of our lives working. We put ourselves in harm’s way every time we leave our homes. At any moment, we could be killed in an automobile accident, plane crash, gunshot wound or any other random occurrence that happens in this crazy world we live in. There have been so many advancements in technology and medicine to protect ourselves from these lucks of the draw events that life throws at us, but some people seem to have a problem with gun ownership. Gun ownership for many is viewed like the seatbelt of a car or the vaccine given to us to prevent the Flu, it is a form of protection and security. Some people in our country would argue that there needs to be a banning of fire arms or more restrictions to keep fire arms out of people’s hands. I disagree with this idea. I feel that Federal and State governments should not bad firearms or make the purchasing process more difficult. It is every legal citizen right to bear arms, whether it is for protection or sport.
A very popular debate statement is whether the government should have stronger regulations on the restrictions of gun usage. “In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois , 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated.”
The United States of America is one of the very few countries in the world that allows their citizens to bear arms. The right to bear arms traces back all the way to the times of the 13 colonies. The Second Amendment has been up for many debates, especially in the recent light of mass shootings in the US. But does the entire removal and ban of firearms really work? Gun control and the second amendment has been a never ending conflict between politicians. As we look further into gun control there are more draw backs for the citizens than benefits.
Taking into account of the recent shooting sprees, the gun control debate has started again. However, people have contemplated: “Why does America need gun laws” and “Why are so many states disagreeing about the restrictions that need to be put in place for civilians looking to purchase firearms.” The reasoning for such contemplation is that the fluxuating strictness of gun laws have led to several incidences within states that have strict gun laws due to the fact that the perpetrators of these incidences have purchased their firearms either from black markets, or states where the severity of gun control is at minimal levels.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Agresti, 2009, para. 2). Based on a simple reading of this, it would seem that people do have the right to own and use firearms. So why are so many people trying to ban guns? Maybe it is because they do not understand what the Second Amendment actually means. Maybe it is because the media only reports the crimes committed with guns and not the lives saved with them. What would happen to the crime rate in the United States if guns were banned altogether as other countries have done? While some people think guns should be banned, it has been
The ongoing debate about gun control i largely intertwines with the 2nd Amendment. In 1791, our founding fathers ratified the 2nd amendment to the constitution, allowing the “right to bear arms”. As law-abiding citizens, we should exercise our right to carry a gun responsibly. A large portion of the American population feels that any form of gun control enactment would infringe on their rights as a gun holder and eventually eliminate their privilege to possess a firearm. Which could possibly lead to challenging other civil liberties. However, due to the carnage left from mass killings, mentally disturbed attacks, assault weapons, and terrorist, stricter