Gun Control and Legislating Monitoring Systems in the United States

            Ossification about gun control and brief media displays in the United States have been the main contributors to the redundant actions by state and federal lawmakers, and the lack of sufficient knowledge about the entire gun issue in the nation have given citizens a limited understanding about effective procedures that they should be supporting.  Without the proper comprehension about firearms in the United States, there will be no effective strategies to hinder the homicides that occur from the utensils (guns) and any control efforts will not be able to be enforced.  As previously mentioned, biased understandings occur and usually are permeated immediately after high-profiled shootings by short media conveyances and policymakers.  The focus of the proceeding law making, or conversations about gun policies, is concentrated on the specific terrible event(s), and it (the law making or speeches about law making) has yet to account for the massive number of guns to citizens ratio in the country, prior unsuccessful laws, the availability of firearms and ammunition, the types of guns that are mostly used in gun-related deaths, and that many of the homicides caused by guns involve people who are already restricted from having them and are living a criminal lifestyle.  These knee-jerk reactions to mass casualties are simply a political element to comfort the victims and to quell the unfavorable thoughts by other American citizens and, unfortunately, do little to the effort of effective gun control and lowering the rate of deaths by firearms.  Therefore, this blog explains the history of gun control in the United States, media issues, and provides the statistics in a format to render better monitoring systems for firearms in this country and to lower the rate of gun violence in the United States.

History of Gun Control

             As the country progressed through the detachment from the British Crown, the Second Amendment allowed Americans the right to bear and keep arms.  This notion came about because of overzealous influence by the Crown and fear of possible retaliation for rebelling against the foreign government.  The idea within the Second Amendment has been confused with the concept of the government’s restriction of firearms and ammunition.  It needs to be known that the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been highly skewed by lobbying groups for gun rights who have ascertained a massive following and made significant political contributions.  These definitions about gun rights did not manifest until the beginning of the 1900s; prior to this era (early 1900s) in American history there were essentially no state or federal laws that prohibited firearms and the technology was nowhere near our current firearms industry.  In 1822, one of the earliest attempts to restrict gun rights was ruled to be unconstitutional by the government, thus allowing Americans to carry concealed weapons.  Firearms in the nineteenth century were sold in very common places; such as local hardware stores and other retail outlets and were not viewed as a social-degenerative utility as they are seen by people today. This momentum was carried on for the entire century (1800s) and, again, there were no full restrictions of gun possession for any category of people.

             It was not until the Sullivan Law in 1911 – passed in New York as a reaction to a spike in gun violence – that Americans were subjected to acquire a license for owning a pistol.  The urbanization certainly affected these policies and as people gravitated toward industrialized living in New York the notion of public safety transpired because of the population density and reliance on the capital system rather than an agrarian state.  Modernization had a serious impact on gun laws, as well as the aforementioned organized lobbying groups.  In 1919, the mass hysteria from social groups contributed to the enactment of the Volstead Act, which prohibited the sales of one of America’s favorite past times – drinking.  This federal law caused Americans to turn to the criminal underworld and in turn gave criminals the platform to be better organized.  Crime groups emerged and operated with racketeering schemes that included arming themselves and using the weapons to not only protect themselves, but to also decrease the competition from liquor sales and to threaten, or assassinate, the purchasers of the products (alcohol) that the organized crime groups were selling to.  As a result, gun violence in the United States – especially in highly urbanized areas – skyrocketed and state and federal governments rallied at their legislative houses to pass laws to protect Americans via the restriction of firearms possession.  For the first time in American history there was a national effort to pass laws regarding firearms, explosives, and ammunitions restrictions. 

             As the violence in the Roaring Twenties occurred, coupled with the progression into the Great Depression, the federal government passed the National Firearms Act in 1934.  This law regulated the registration of machine guns, silencing mechanisms, and various types of long-armed firearms.  Moreover, this law forced a tax on gun transfers; albeit it was not well-regulated due to the lack of enforcement and technology that we are privileged with today.  Numerous states copied the federal law and thus the nation became saturated with gun restrictions and Americans were presented with the notion that gun violence would be greatly hindered because of these enactments.  These progressions were maintained until further federal legislation was manufactured during more times of civil unrest in the United States.  During the 1960s, the country was engaging in major social movements that entailed characteristics of social justice.  The killings of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King gave federal lawmakers the structure for the Gun Control Act of 1968.  This law furthered the restrictions of gun rights; including increasing the age of purchase, mandating that interstate sales by licensed dealers be monitored, eliminating felons from buying firearms, disallowing people escaping justice to legally acquire guns, prohibiting individuals with mental illnesses from obtaining weapons, as well as drug addicts, illegal aliens, and military personnel who were dishonorably discharged from their service.  Simultaneously, states began their law making with similarities to the federal creation.    

For the second time in American history, the country was subjected to gun restrictions and the lobbying groups used the agenda as a method to grow in areas where urban gun violence was not typical.  Suburban and rural residents protested on faulty claims that their Second Amendment rights were being violated.  These outliers contributed to the gun advocates increasing the firearms sales because of fear of “government oppressions.”  As untrue as the propaganda was by the lobbying groups, the fact is that firearms were still readily available to millions of Americans, and the propulsion of sales during these rocky times unfortunately contributed to additional gun violence and the purchasing of weapon systems that were atypical.  High-powered assault rifles became a second-time controversy in the United States because of the fraudulence of the lobbying groups and previously mentioned high-profile homicides, and as a result the patronage to these gun rights groups became greater in numbers and political influence.  Gun violence was now more mainstream in American politics than it had ever been.

The gun law debate acquiesced during the 1970s because of the Vietnam War and insurgence of mellowness that followed the 1960s, but the issue resurfaced in the 1980s with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley.  Elaborating further, James Brady was severely injured because of the attempted homicide on President Reagan and, in turn, his wife, Sarah Brady, became a non-stop advocate for more strict gun policies in the United States.  As her initial policy changes for tougher gun policies were somewhat ignored, the Reagan administration implemented a new form of drug laws that catered to opponents of less regulated gun policies.  Rather than simply concentrating on Mrs. Brady’s and other social activists’ requests, Ronald Reagan used a new philosophy of the War on Drugs that was engineered by his wife, Nancy Reagan, and other federal executives.  The “just say no” campaign gave the federal criminal justice system the ability to punish offenders with exuberant penalties for possession and use of firearms during drug and violent criminal activities.  These laws did not simply focus on handguns; meaning that very stringent sentences for semi-automatic and automatic weapons came into effect after the enactment of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. 

The government-based crack-cocaine scare carried over into the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and he followed the trumpet of his predecessor with even tougher drug and gun policies.  As this new era of drug policies became evident, the United States’ citizens were swarmed with anti-drug propaganda and horrible stories about the repercussions of illicit drug use and thus the states again performed similar actions in their legislative bodies.  Sarah Brady’s relentless efforts finally made an impact at the height of the crack-cocaine epidemic with the Democrat, and President, Bill Clinton.  In 1993, the Handgun Control and Violence Prevention Act furthered the restrictions on who could buy firearms by extending the restrictions on transactions for handguns.  In 1998, the law was amended and changed to regulate high-powered long arm guns and domestic violence misdemeanor offenders were routinely being denied the right to acquire guns.  Right before the turn of the millennium a horrible event changed the United States’ crime rates for the worse.  This event was the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado (Columbine High School Shooting).

After the mass murder in Columbine, state and federal lawmakers proposed thousands of new bills for gun regulations.  Laws were put into effect that, again, restricted the sales of firearms and many of the policies were curtailed to mandatory trigger-lock devices and other safety requirements.  Nonetheless, these new laws were simple adjustments to the previous acts and gun violence on an overall level in the United States did not see much of a significant decrease. With this being stated, the history of gun control transformed from stereotypical urban gun crime, assassinations, and domestic issues to massive carnage in environments that were not regularly depicted by policymakers or lobbying groups.  The notion that deranged individuals could acquire firearms and cause many casualties began to be common talk in social activist groups and law enforcement agencies.  For the fourth time in American history, gun control became a national priority; however, this era did not have the idea of drug dealers, gang members, or rogue political killings.  It was now an agenda that encompassed a mass panic about shootings in settings that were once considered to be impervious from such violence.

After the turn of the millennium, the United States unfortunately entered the international spotlight because of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City.  Gun control and mass murders caused by firearms became categorized as acts of terror and synonymous with dissent against governmental operations.   With the country dealing with international threats against national security, the domestic operation against mass shootings almost became non-existent.  The reason why the mass panic about public shootings remained in the minds of lawmakers and civilians is because of the copy-cat renditions of school massacres and other large amounts of deaths in additional public arenas.  Statistics demonstrate that mass public shootings slightly decreased after the Columbine event, however after the World Trade Center attack in 2001, the amount of massive public killings by use of guns began to rise.  Gun laws, at this point, were thought to have covered every type of provision in respect to who could acquire the weapons and the safety methods for the lethal inventions. 

Since the state and federal systems believed that existing laws incorporated the many variables of gun violence, the idea of policing mental illnesses arose and more detailed laws about reporting possible homicidal and suicidal behaviors was the focus.  The latter half of the first decade in the twenty-first century had the terrible experience of having more public shootings than ever before in the history of the United States.  Gun control via legislation was not working.  Social perceptions had to be geared toward positive thinking because the lawmakers were losing the war against gun violence.  The solution to these negative discourses was found in sections of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 – the Patriot Act.  As previously discussed, domestic mass shootings were categorized as terrorism – and rightfully so.  Still, the laws were not decreasing gun violence in the United States and pro-active and preemptive tactics were thought to be the best approach to ending the gun-related homicides. 

Law enforcement toward gun violence went into action and, basically, said to hell with the arguments about constitutional rights.  Spying became the norm for gun control, and the technology in the era allowed federal law enforcement agents, and state and local police departments, to monitor the gun industry and all its ancillary components.  Corporate transactions were being watched, trade shows were infiltrated with undercover police officers, and the list of possible terrorists grew to an unprecedented number of people; which in turn allowed law enforcers to engage in clandestine operations to observe the daily activities of people who were thought to be participating in gun violence.  Making America safe again required a massive observation that ended with the criminal justice system looking quite unethical years after the initial approach began.  Gun violence was still a serious problem and the statistics suggest that the efforts by law enforcement were unsuccessful.  In fact, in 2005 the lobbying groups uprooted the public cries for better gun control and the federal government sided with the manufacturers and sellers in the gun industry by producing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; which prevented parties from suing gun makers and dealers for negligence.  From 2007 to approximately 2009 gun violence decreased, yet a serious increase occurred shortly after without much insight to why there were so many massive public shootings and other gun crimes.  The undercover operations were not working, nor were any of the gun control policies, and the gun industry was now protected from liabilities.  Gun sales were still high, and assault rifles were a multi-million dollar business.  Politicians spoke out about the issue and, once more, started drafting bills and amendments to cease the negative public attention to the subject.  However, nothing was successfully accomplished.     

It was not until a disgusting incident in 2013 were many elementary school children killed by a young adult in Connecticut that gun laws came back into the public sector.  This time the national debate kicked off with a state law that was permeated by Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York – the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, also commonly referred to as the "Safe Act."  This law restricted the number of bullets that could be entered into high-powered rifles as well as performed the traditional approach to regulating the procedures for acquiring weapons, and revamped mental health laws.  Federal discussions about the same concepts began to emerge because of the quick executive action by Governor Cuomo.  Yet, as the conversations were ongoing, not much on the federal level was done to compliment the New York State legislation and the gun violence in America continued to rise.  The federal stall was partially due to lobbying groups challenging the Safe Act and its constitutional adherence.  Such action by the pro-rights activists was eventually quelled when the Honorable William Skretny, a federal judge in the Western District of New York, ruled in favor of the Safe Act; noting that the right to bear and keep arms was not being infringed upon by the New York State policy.  Soon after, the debate on gun control was mainstream once more.  The arguments began because more horrific violence by lone-wolf psychopaths was occurring.  Gun violence in domestic issues and urban communities was not talked about with the prior vigilance that there once was.        

The second decade in the twenty-first century saw the worst of the worst in respect to gun violence.  Mass killings at workplaces, nightclubs, and other social events delivered a notion to the American citizens that gun control was certainly not working.  Domestic terrorism by international terrorist groups was stirring the uneasy feelings too.  Gun-related hate crimes, and domestic incidents by foreign terrorists, caused such an uproar that Americans were actively engaging in social rights movements and using the social justice protests as a channel to regulate broader background checks and magazine capacity.  Little did the citizens know, that much of what they were protesting was already covered in existing federal and state laws.  Politicians routinely spoke in Congress and other assemblies, but to this date nothing on a federal level was ordained.  Discussions about better background checks and limitations on magazines were the primary topic, as there was nothing else left to regulate in the use and sales of firearms.

Media Coverage

             Coverage of the gun violence is still too brief and does not properly depict the overall picture of firearm issues in the United States.  The media companies are attracted by “breaking news” pieces and in turn Americans do not get the full understanding of gun violence in the nation or worldwide.  Local and national media groups present the facts of a horrible mass killing and then investigate the reasons why the homicides transpired in very short spurts; then they move onto other “breaking news” in order to be seen as proactive in their journalism.  Gun violence, in its full breadth, is not covered in the United States because of the formatting of many news companies.  In other words, short versions of the gun-related homicides are squeezed between deliverances of weather and sports broadcasts, as well as other pieces of journalism.  Additionally, segments on urban shootings or domestic violence issues are uprooted because of the concentration on higher mortality rates and the viewer retention that such journalism acquires.  The media tends to concentrate on ratings and entertainment rather than informing the public about complex issues in an educational manner.  Another problem that the media is responsible for is the lack of statistical information being displayed on evening broadcasts.  General numbers are presented to the public without informing them of the methods used or how the information was received.  Gleaning information about gun violence in the United States currently includes a passive trust by the public.

             Situations that involve Caucasian tragedies appears to gather more media attention when compared to incidents of gun violence that include other races and ethnicities as well.  Meaning that when White people are the victims and perpetrators, then the media companies subtlety focus the story with ideas of how the event is abnormal in such areas of our society.  It is not said by news broadcasts, but gun violence in impoverished minority communities is comprehended as normal occurrences and part of these jurisdictions’ culture.  Passive xenophobia is apparent in news broadcasts throughout the United States.

Statistical Information

             Proper analyses about gun violence must be presented to the public so that the violence decreases.  Most homicides in the United States involve use of firearms; however, these deaths are not mass shootings, nor do they include the use of an assault rifle.  Many of the incidents are caused by handguns by people who are having domestic issues or living a criminal lifestyle.  The percentages do not show that deaths by guns are caused mostly by people who are lawfully allowed to possess a firearm.  So, the gun control policies are not only ineffective, but also do not consider the specifics of gun violence in the United States.  As regulations are given, many straw purchases allow disenfranchised persons to obtain guns with relative ease.  The sheer number of approximately three-hundred million firearms in the country should get more attention when discussing gun violence and the measures to counteract the behaviors.  Uniform Crime Report statistics presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ought to have more attention by public officials, lobbying groups, and citizens so that a clear understanding of the gun violence issue in the country is acquired.

Policy Implications

             Rather than only relying on computer databases and basic law enforcement tactics, a monthly monitoring system for registered firearms owners should be implemented.  Federal and state governments need to create new agencies that routinely check the weapon systems owned by American citizens.  This includes safe storage and checks of firearms that are purchased by citizens who can lawfully obtain guns.  Any changes in the ownership must be mandated to be reported to these government-based monitoring agents.  In-home and business visits would effectively deter gun violence and in turn allow for better criminal prosecution for those who attempt to bypass the monitoring system.

             Gun violence in communities needs constant police work as previously used in programs like Operation Ceasefire and Project Safe Neighborhoods.  Widespread police patrols and communal meetings with the inclusion of law enforcers has shown to be effective in decreasing gun violence.  Funding for these programs should be constant and aggressive police work should be reserved for actions that will not conform to public safety virtues.  Connecting the public with police officers, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and an array of social workers allows the government and citizens to work together toward positive decision making and eliminates distrusting attitudes toward public service professionals.  With this being said, better hiring and training procedures ought to be sustained for law enforcers.  Any callous or disheartening activities by persons working in public service should never be condoned and any unethical or illegal actions by such individuals ought to result in serious penalties for such outlandish professionalism.

             Lastly, the jail and prison systems in the United States needs to be converted to hold only authentically dangerous criminals.  Prosecuting individuals for serious violent crimes has to be the priority and false claims of dangerousness need to stop being interjected upon offenders who are not horribly violent individuals.  The corrections industry in the nation is disgusting and is simply operating on conjecture and reasons to maintain employment.  In other words, too many jails and prisons exist because of job scarcity and false propaganda by the correctional unions.  Eliminating these traits would allow for safer communities and long-lasting productivity by people who become involved in the criminal justice system.  Gun violence reduction and better control methods can be maintained by simultaneously changing the structure of our criminal justice apparatus to a more humane rendition.