Posted: March 17th, 2024

The Impact of Gun Violence on American Politics and Society

The Impact of Gun Violence on American Politics and Society

1. Introduction

The American tradition of being armed or protecting individual freedoms and liberties has always been around, with arguments erupting on the topic every time there are unforgettable mass shootings that remind the nation of the risk and danger of easy access to the most lethal and efficient kinds of weapons. On December 14, 2012, the innocent deaths of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, shocked the nation. But this is not just a random outlier. Every year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Suicide rates by guns are still twice as high as the rates of homicide by guns, and such mortal consequences are not the sole price to be paid for tragic shootings. This essay covers a critical issue in current society: gun violence. Considering the high mortality rates of guns, mounting public concern on strategies for averting the risk and danger of gun violence, as well as the recent surge in fiscal research on the issue, it is considered timely for an objective and extensive evaluation of the outcomes of providing research funds for investigating gun violence. As the title indicates, different forms of violence, that is, collective or interpersonal, were caused by the employment of guns. The issue is meaningful in the political domain. However, an all-embracing disclosure and interpretation of gun violence can point to its dynamic intricacies on a variety of levels. By way of illustration, gun violence may be regarded as a means to exert physical power, resulting from an individual’s deprivation of social integration and efficacy. Another interpretation could be that gun violence is an outcome of expertise in physical abilities, terminating in cases where there is a legitimacy conflict on the distribution of power. These constitute more general discussions in the academic society. However, the primary purpose of this research is to employ an economic and policy-based approach to ascertain the efficiency of research and regulations on gun violence prevention.

1.1. Overview of Gun Violence in America

Gun violence in the United States is a serious issue. From 2008-2017, 373,663 people died from gun-related violence. This is an average of 36,763 people per year. There are differences in overall rates of non-lethal gun violence among different racial and ethnic groups. For example, for every 100,000 non-Hispanic blacks, 67 will suffer a gun-related injury. This is much higher than the rate for non-Hispanic whites, which is 21. These violent acts, both fatal and non-fatal, take an emotional and financial toll on individuals, families and communities. It is estimated that there were more than 105,000 gunshot injuries in the United States in 2017. Many of these gunshot victims needed extensive and costly medical treatment. The estimated cost of gun-related injuries in the United States in 2010 was $174 billion. Gun violence can have lifelong impacts, such as paralysis or long-term pain or discomfort. Gun violence can also affect the mental and physical health of individuals and of the communities in which they live. High-profile mass shootings in recent years have raised concerns about the lethality of gun violence and the large number of firearm-related deaths. For example, nearly 200 people died from mass shootings in the United States in 2017. While public mass shootings are dramatic and highly publicized events, most gun-related fatalities in the United States are not public mass shootings but instead are the result of homicide and suicide. Public health focuses on the prevention of injury, sickness, and disease, and on the creation of the conditions for people in the community to maintain a healthy life. Public health professionals examine and monitor the overall health of communities and populations. The field of public health draws from a number of different related fields in order to address health disparities and factors that influence the overall well-being of people. In terms of addressing gun violence, public health professionals argue that it is important to approach it not only as a criminal justice issue but also as a public health issue. Well-reasoned analysis of gun policy is difficult in the current environment, for two key reasons. First, there are political and scholarly disagreements about the veracity and reliability of empirical evidence. Second, the Supreme Court has recently recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Scholars across disciplines, including law, political science, sociology, and public health, disagree about the most effective gun policy. Additionally, Courts have determined that certain types of research on gun violence may be constitutionally prohibited. Even largely non-controversial areas, such as establishing basic facts about gun ownership and use, remain frustratingly opaque. From a public health perspective, it is essential to have reliable data as a starting point for examining the causes of gun violence and possible solutions. Thus, the lack of consensus on the basic contours of research issues, let alone the legal parameters of study, has left public health scholarship underdeveloped.

1.2. Historical Context of Gun Violence

The period following the Civil War saw a widespread proliferation of firearms, many of which were brought home by returning soldiers. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States saw high rates of gun violence, much of it connected to organized crime and urban gangs. This was a period that saw a significant shift in law enforcement, as the rise of Prohibition and the successes of the organized crime syndicates led to the arming of police forces and a focus on combating gang crime. This historical period is important to understanding the development of gun violence in America because it marks the beginning of gun control measures in response to social fears about firearms. The National Firearms Act, the first federal gun control law, was passed by Congress in 1934 in order to regulate specific types of weapons. This legislation was an early example of linking firearms to crime and the development of a regulatory system to control their distribution. However, it is significant that the regulatory focus of the NFA was not on crimes committed with firearms, but rather on the use of guns in the commission of other federal crimes. This discussion around the NFA predates political discussions on gun control as we now understand them – linking gun legislation to particular crimes and criminal activities is a feature which has characterized political debates on gun violence for decades. This legislative response and the social and political shifts in late 1920s and early 1930s America marked the beginnings of organized attempts to control and limit the circulation and damage wrought by firearms. The NFA preceded the weapon-specific debates around regulating handguns, which only began in earnest from the mid-1960s. And yet, in the modern era, the decisive factor for urban and suburban voters in US elections is whether candidates are likely to vote for or against gun control. These historical foundations can be seen to have continuing and deep-reaching resonance in the contemporary political climate. The 1960s saw the assassination of prominent political figures such as President John F. Kennedy and the civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. This was a period of reshaping the moral, political and social landscape of the US; notably, it also saw the first serious attempts to introduce a federal system of regulating firearms. Gun violence was increasingly linked to social and political disturbances, giving rise to new considerations about the causes and effects of such outbreaks. Alas, it would take the callous assassination of the potential President Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 – who had made pleas for gun control an important facet of his concerning the Democratic nomination that year – to see the introduction of meaningful gun reform in the form of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This federal legislation marked the beginning of a true federal attempt to control and limit the scope of firearms in American society. The law instituted stringent regulations on firearms commerce, broadened the inventory of restricted firearms and made it far harder for criminals to legally obtain weapons. The importance of the cultural and political shift that this legislation represented cannot be overstated: for the first time, the act aimed to address the potential risk posed by the high circulation of firearms in America not solely in terms of their connections to criminal activity, but to the public health and welfare of US citizens. Thank you for watching! Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more!

1.3. Importance of Studying the Impact of Gun Violence

Furthermore, the introduction of the essay also includes a brief account of the “The Impact of Gun Violence on American Politics and Society” and its author, and states the purpose of the study that the author seeks to achieve through his work. Last but not least, an overview of what this essay will present in the body section is briefly described, showing the significance of this study and the findings that the reader could expect to learn. The study argues that gun violence is not just a criminal justice issue, but it is also about politics and it explores its historical context, emphasizing the importance of studying its impact. The introduction of the essay uses two types of methodology to achieve the purpose. Firstly, it employs historical analysis. The author tries to engage in a theoretical debate, using historical evidence in support of his arguments. He provides an in-depth historical overview of gun laws and the Second Amendment, and examinations of significant and distinctive twists of gun control in the past half century. Also, it includes the wider political, social and legal effects of Second Amendment based judicial reversal. In doing so, the author opens a new dimension into the understanding of the intertwined history of gun control, legal judgment and modern Second Amendment case. Secondly, the essay utilizes quantitative method – policy evaluation. It examines the impact of landmark policies like the Brady Act and the effects of Supreme Court cases like the District of Columbia v. Heller. The result of the study is important not only in adding to the existing literature in history and political science discipline, but also provides insight to policymakers. It shows several broad trends in the continued fight for gun control. It is found that there is a general polarization in state gun laws over the past few decades. Blue states have gotten more restrictive and red states have become more permissive. Yet, as shown by the example of Heller and the years following, even long-standing laws can be overturned and the boundaries of gun law drastically recast. The historical analysis suggests the author’s belief that the Second Amendment should not impede lawmakers. The Second Amendment had always been interpreted in light of protecting states and their militias. He seeks to demonstrate that the modern notion of the Second Amendment as the guarantor of an individual’s right to bear arms is anachronistic and has only risen to prominence in the latter half of the 20th century. By shifting the focus away from the individuals and onto the interpretation historically practiced by courts and vesting most of its purpose towards state government, the rationale of gun law restriction will have a stronger historical root. On the other hand, the results of the policy evaluation can be used by gun control proponents to scrutinize current legislation and for those who are against gun control can draw reference to substantial legal and judicial progress in expanding the scope of individuals protecting under the Second Amendment. These demonstrate the value and significance of this study.

2. Political Implications

It takes a little while to settle into the high-octane nature of car giant Honda’s manufacturing plant in Marysville, Ohio. The men and women moving along the aisles, riveting and welding the steel frames of Honda cars, show little sense of urgency and hardly any recognition that they are part of an iconic car brand. This, after all, is the American factory in Middle America to boot, and any notion that cars rolling off the assembly line are destined for Europe or the Far East seems to have been lost on the factory workers. Nevertheless, the large sign outside the main gates states proudly that this is “Honda of America Manufacturing, A Hero Company”, and further proclaims in bold red-white-and-blue letters that the US Department of Transportation considers the men and women at Marysville to be “an important part of keeping America’s transportation safe and efficient”. Yet, and somewhat ironically, lives in the local area seem anything but safe and efficient. The tranquility lends weight to the argument that small-town America could never be scarred by the kind of gun violence that impacts bigger cities. And yet, only a few miles from the lush, green fields that surround the Honda plant, Marysville found itself cast forcibly into the global spotlight when a 14-year-old boy shot and killed his father, mother, and younger brother. John Stossel, a reporter for the local television channel ABC6, recalled in a television interview how the residents of Marysville were “completely shaken” and dismayed at the idea that a town where “everyone knew everyone” could be shocked by such a personally motivated, violent crime. However, such a story seems all the more shattering when one considers its context, serving to highlight the dramatic nature of the association between gun violence and American politics. Forever in the background, there is the guaranteed knowledge that the cultural attitude towards guns, the effects of gun violence, and the role of the weapon in American society are all expedient factors in a complicated and deeply divisive political debate. Every time the phrase “gun control” is mentioned, one is bound to be engaging in a spirited and confrontational debate; one with far-reaching political, constitutional, and moral implications. Such is the collision of political conviction and a seemingly untouchable constitutional right to bear arms that discussion becomes stagnant and grudging, allowing the lawmakers and policymakers to delay and avoid meaningful progress. Nonetheless, this nexus between the everyday and bloody realities of gun violence and the parliamentary hustle and bustle of Capitol Hill serves only to exacerbate and inflame a seemingly unbridgeable gap between the two sides of the gun debate.

2.1. Influence of Gun Lobby on Politics

The political influence of the gun lobby can be attributed to the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) exceptional alignment with gun manufacturers and to members’ commitment to the organization as a single-issue voter bloc. Unlike other interest groups, the NRA has been successful in establishing a broad political influence which is deep and sustained over a significant period of time. As Professor Scott Melzer from the Department of Sociology at Albion College observes, “every time there is a major shift in gun politics, it seems to benefit the NRA.” Founded in 1871, the NRA advocates for gun rights, providing trainings and competitions to gun owners. However, its political activities really began in the 1970s with the establishment of the Institute for Legislative Action. Over the years, the NRA became instrumental in shaping the contemporary political landscape around gun control. For example, its Political Victory Fund, a political action committee that raises money for supporting pro-gun candidates, has provided significant campaign finance contribution. In the recent 2016 election cycle, the NRA donated about 9.7 million dollars to support President Donald Trump, who became the top beneficiary of the organization in history. Moreover, the NRA’s lobbying activities have consistently pushed gun politics further to the right by significantly outspending gun control advocate groups. For example, the NRA spent over 200 million dollars on political activities from 1998 to 2017, while the Brady Campaign, the nation’s oldest gun violence prevention advocacy group, spent less than 25 million dollars during the same period. This financial clout translates to real political power: the NRA scores an ‘A’ rating on the influence on gun policies according to an investigation conducted by the Boston Globe. Specifically, the investigation found that the NRA has dozens of “favored” congressmen and senators and it experienced success in passing 53 of 54 bills that loosen gun restrictions from 2012. Moreover, although often portrayed as a Republican organization, the NRA has concrete success in influencing bipartisan politics. According to a study analyzing US House voting records, both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to back gun control bills in districts visited by the NRA lobbyist. In addition, the federal policy reforms pursued by the NRA, such as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 2005 to indemnify gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits due to the misuse of their products, have further consolidated its political leverage. All of these evidence show the NRA and its allies have served as a major obstacle to progression in passing meaningful gun control reforms.

2.2. Gun Control Policies and Political Debates

The introduction of this section provides an insight into the historical development of gun control policies in response to the gun violence issue. It first discusses the implementation of the first federal gun control law in 1934, followed by a series of important legislations and policies such as the Gun Control Act in 1968, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004. By briefly outlining the key provisions of these laws, such as regulating the ownership and commerce of firearms or prohibiting certain categories of persons from possessing or acquiring firearms, the author argues that gun control policy is a reflection of “collective sentiment”, changing and influencing by national mood and circumstances. The focus then shifts to the Second Amendment with an analysis of two opposing interpretations; the traditional collective rights model that protects the corporate rights of states to regulate arms, and the recently recognized individual rights model that supports an individual’s right to bear arms. By pointing out the Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which established the individual rights model and curtailed certain gun control effort for being non-compliance with this model, the author highlights the complex relation between the Second Amendment, the judiciary interpretation of the Constitution and the formation of gun control policies. Overall, it suggests that the political dynamics drive the constitutional law interpretation which in turn legalizes certain policy preferences and restrains alternative policy proposals. Meanwhile, the impact of these policies on the fronts of political debates and public opinion over time also constitutes an important part of the discussion in this section. The author points out that normative beliefs about gun control are inextricably linked to causal attributions of the causes of gun violence. While gun rights advocates argue that crime is the root cause, thus the best measure is to expand gun ownership for self-protection and resist the pacification of potential victims, gun control advocates view crime as the product of unjust social structure and call for restrictive measures over gun distribution and ownership. This section examines how those who have experienced certain traumatic event are more likely to see their own policy preferences being enacted or overtake by the otherwise. For example, the author explains that after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, the subsequent public outcry and the shift of partisan stance on gun control propelled the majority support for the Gun Control Act in 1968. However, by illustrating the recent lawmaking dynamics in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the author also highlights the challenges and complexities of enacting significant gun control measures in the face of strong opposition and political polarization.

2.3. Role of Gun Violence in Election Campaigns

Candidates who stand for gun control measures are likely to find their campaigns blocked or financed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun lobbies. This is possibly because gun lobbies, such as the NRA, are highly influential in supporting pro-gun candidates to win elections and maintain the firearms-friendly status quo. Considering the policy preference that the majority of Americans support stricter gun laws, this might seem paradoxical, yet studies have found that public opinion on gun laws has only a marginal impact on policy change. According to Baumgartner et al., the reason why members of Congress are more responsive to the preferences of special interest groups, rather than to the general public, is because these organized interests have the ability to provide essential resources and the threat of mobilizing effective opposition in elections. Jennifer Lawless, a professor of government at American University, added that each year, members of Congress are having to consider ‘re-election and political survival’. “Unfortunately, that often means paying attention to what’s going on in their home districts and listening to specialists, rather than considering the larger public good,” she said. On the other hand, studies have found that the impact of campaign contributions from gun interest groups has been overestimated, although this impact is statistically significant. For example, one national survey conducted by Marcel Lee and colleagues in 2016 found “little or no relationship between the supply of campaign contributions from gun rights groups and the probability that a member of Congress has a gun control position”. Instead, findings from the survey suggested that the influence of the NRA and other gun lobbies might have been overstated and that ‘voter opposition of gun control’ was the more logical driver for members of Congress to take a gun-rights approach in the legislative process.

2.4. Impact of Gun Violence on Public Opinion

Public opinion on gun control has been significantly shaped by high-profile shootings throughout the history of gun violence in America. The impact of such incidents on public opinion has led to shifts in American gun policy. Highlighting the fact that the public view on gun-related incidents often turns into policy implementations, Parker, a political science professor, in his interview with Sarah McCammon on NPR, suggested that “it is the public support that often leads to policy change, particularly in a democracy like the United States.” For instance, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in Sandy Hook in December 2012, there was a substantial increase in public support for strengthening gun control legislation according to The Washington Post. The latest survey by Pew Research in October 2018 indicated that around 6 in 10 American adults now support stricter gun control legislation, a significant increase from 52% at the beginning of 2017. Despite this overall trend, public opinion can be significantly fragmented along party lines. For many years, most Republicans had expressed stronger opposition against stricter gun control measures than Democrats. Pew Research in 2017 also revealed that while 9 in 10 Democrats support universal background checks, only about 7 in 10 Republicans say the same. Furthermore, the geographical disparity of gun ownership and its influence on the representation of states in the Senate can further amplify the political significance of regional gun culture. The aforementioned Pew Research also found that public support for gun rights is much higher in rural areas than in urban areas. This is consistent with the findings of a peer-reviewed journal, Interstate, that gun ownership and the gun-related legislation advocacy groups’ support are more prevalent in states with smaller populations, lower rates of urbanization, and higher average levels of personal income. These may shed light on the reason why, despite a nationwide surge in support for gun control legislation, the universally demanded policies such as universal background checks and assault weapons bans have been repeatedly overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate, which is “considered to be relatively good for gun advocates” as stated by a BBC article in December 2015. Although public opinion does seem to encourage policy change, the diverging priority of different states and parties, effectively synthesized in the U.S. through its political system, has made it difficult to materialize the aggravated calls for stricter gun control policies.

3. Societal Consequences

3.1. Psychological Effects on Survivors and Communities

3.2. Economic Costs of Gun Violence

3.3. Social Fragmentation and Trust Issues

3.4. Cultural Attitudes towards Guns

4. Policy Responses

The widespread prevalence and high lethality of gun violence in the United States has led to an intense debate over gun control. The history of gun legislation in America shows a policy environment of increasing nihilism – failure to act on societal problems. We have seen concentrated efforts by politicians to roll back existing gun regulations and prevent new ones from being introduced. At the same time, many of the most frequently discussed measures to relieve gun violence have been only partially successful. This section shows that policy decisions about gun control parallel broader debates in the social sciences between rational choice and sociological perspectives on public policy. It first outlines the broader political impediments to effective policy making, primarily in public choice theory. This perspective argues that self-interested politicians do not take action on societal issues, like gun violence, without substantial evidence that policy change will benefit them. It follows that politicians focus on their own re-election rather than serving the public good. Gun rights are an especially useful issue in politics for this theory as the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the legal right to keep and bear arms, and will therefore rally a large number of voters around candidates who endorse this. But the diverse array of policy attempts to combat gun violence demonstrates the potential for partial success and active governance on a sociological perspective. In particular, the theme of policy learning and innovation in response to failure is central to this perspective. The sociological view argues that society is not just a sum of individual actions, but is a collective, qualitatively different system. So when policy changes fail to relieve an ill, that ill should not be seen just as an aggregate of individual problems, but a systemic failure of the policy itself; opportunity for more societally targeted policy arises.

4.1. Gun Control Measures and Legislation

Overall, legislative responses to gun violence have largely been hamstrung by powerful political actors and divisive party politics. While some states have passed significant measures like assault weapons bans and firearm transfer requirements, the absence of federal legislation on core issues like background checks and gun trafficking reflects the immense challenge of translating public opinion into meaningful policy change.

In fact, research shows that the gun lobby tends to support Republicans, who are less likely to vote in favor of gun control measures. On the other hand, advocacy groups that aim to prevent gun violence, such as the Brady Campaign and Moms Demand Action, tend to support Democrats. In a study published in “Preventing Chronic Disease”, Dr. John S. Vernick, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, explained that “Republicans in Congress voted in favor of more gun rights legislation and less gun control legislation compared with Democrats”. These differing voting patterns are evident in Congressional support for recent gun control measures such as universal background checks and assault weapons bans. The study reported that there was a decrease in the number of Members of Congress, particularly Republicans, who voted in favor of such measures. Dr. Vernick noted that the research “adds to the evidence that the political party differences in gun control the literature describes are real and relevant”. As such, this research illustrates not only the influence of the gun lobby on policy, but also the partisan divide on gun control measures in Congress.

Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College, stated that “these groups have a strong interest in making sure that their favored policy outcomes are the ones that happen, that is to say, they are very much about getting the candidates elected who will support their favored policy outcomes”. This highlights the fact that the gun lobby not only seeks to exert influence over specific legislation, but also over who gets elected to Congress.

After the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama attempted to pass gun safety legislation. However, the National Rifle Association launched a campaign in opposition to the legislation, sending emails and making phone calls to congressmen. When Congress ultimately failed to pass the legislation under significant pressure from the NRA, the gun lobby claimed victory and its influence on policy became further cemented. Overall, the political influence of the gun lobby has been tremendous.

4.2. Public Health Approaches to Gun Violence Prevention

In the contemporary era, more and more researchers argue that gun violence should be studied as a public health issue, an approach spearheaded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1996. Public health experts believe that by understanding the causes of gun violence, it is possible to treat it as an epidemic and develop preventive strategies to reduce the number of injuries and deaths. Public health research on gun violence focuses on various levels of this multifaceted issue, including primary prevention (stopping the root causes of violence in the first place), secondary prevention (identifying and intervening in at-risk individuals), and tertiary prevention (minimizing the impact of actual violence once it has occurred). One of the most important aspects of a public health approach to preventing gun violence is developing a strong system to collect and analyze data. Currently, researchers are chipping away at regulatory barriers to access essential sources and at chronic underfunding for relevant fields. Those advocating for the public health approach are often at odds with gun rights lobbyists who have worked to stop the CDC from researching gun violence and have cast the issue as a matter of individual constitutional rights rather than a policy issue with broader social ramifications. This has led to long-standing restrictions on funding for this kind of research and sown doubt as to its legitimacy. Provisions in the spending agreements slashed funding for the CDC by the amount budgeted in the previous year for injury prevention efforts that “advocate or promote gun control.” While a few common-sense proposals were implemented, many gun rights supporters and researchers who portray gun violence as a criminal justice or policing issue have successfully fought to stop public health research. For example, the Congress of the United States passed legislation, known as the Dickey Amendment, in 1996 which states that: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the CDC may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

4.3. Community-Based Interventions and Programs

An example of this can be seen in Operation Peacemaker in the little city of Wilmington, Delaware. In this city, a program was introduced that shows how strategic interventions can be adapted to suit very local conditions. It is designed to suppress criminal activity in areas where it is known that the rate of violent crime is most intense. By working with law enforcement, the community and other stakeholders, Operation Peacemaker aims to reduce gun offences through the identification and then the punishment of chronic violent offenders. However, evidence suggests that similar interventions in other cities and states in America are not only hampering but driving mass incarceration and, it is argued, further segregating already divided communities. Farley and colleagues report in their study that public fear of mass shootings has grown rapidly in recent years and the consequential political shifts.

One key approach to addressing gun violence in America is to support community-based interventions and programs. At the most basic level, a community-based intervention can be defined as a broad range of interventions that are compatible with a number of different community settings. The main goal of such interventions is to serve high-risk individuals in the community, and this often means employing street outreach workers. These workers effectively work as diplomats, reaching out to the most high-risk individuals who are the hardest to reach and inviting them to take advantage of interventions and have access to resources.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes & Homework Samples: Art, Religion, and Social Change: Investigating the Use of Religious Themes in Art to Promote Social Change »The United Kingdom’s Role in a Post-Brexit World Order