So, I finally did it; I let one of my opinions about firearms slip.
A few months ago, back when the talks of reformed gun legislation began to be brought up, I swore that I wouldn’t post anything on Facebook; today, I went against that:
As you can see, posted along with the link to an article published in this week’s paper, I made a smart little comment about how I have reservations with the increasing numbers of people deciding to obtain licensing to “Conceal and Carry.”
Unsurprisingly, this sparked a reply from someone, asking whether I truly found more fear in the notion of people legally carrying registered weapons as opposed to the unknown numbers of criminals concealing weapons.
Well, I guess since I finally said something on the bloody mess, I might as well share all of my thoughts…
…but before diving into my little diatribe, let me share something with you that I haven’t shared before this writing–a response I had posted in December for a class on policy-making:
Twice this week the nation’s headlines have spoken of mass-shootings–one a shooting in a mall in Portland, Oregon, the other, a shooting at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut. In response to both incidents, outcry has come over the topic of “gun-control”—views have been varied and spoken by proponents and opponents alike.
This week’s discussion is to focus on the impacts of interest groups, opinion, and media on policy; this week’s events—as mentioned above—may serve as an example of how little or great of an influence that media, opinion and groups have on policy, following unfortunate and tragic events; only time will reveal the extent and direction policy will move, and how influential all these pressures have been or will be.
Before continuing, I would like to state that I am sympathetic toward the individuals and families that have been touched by these events; the loss of a loved one at the hand of another is beyond painful, unjust and a slew of other adjectives or “feeling-words” that pale in definition. I would also like to apologize for turning these events into opportunity for discussion, as it may seem unfeeling; the discussion, however, has already begun, and will continue—for a short time, at least—in the very segments of public and political domain that this assignment wishes to explore. Finally, I feel as I should state that I am biased—I feel that there is a great need for stringent policy on weapons of any kind. Opponents to my views may repeat that “guns don’t kill people” argument—I agree; however, without firearms or any other weaponized device, how many children would Adam Lanza have slain at Sandy Hook Elementary?
Eliot Spitzer—lawyer, pundit—recently criticized the President on his statements following the event at Sandy Hook Elementary.[i] In his December 14th address, President Obama stated that the nation needs to “come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”[ii] In response, Spitzer questioned why the President hadn’t yet taken “the opportunity to force a renewal of the assault weapons ban.”1Spitzer also supplied comments made by the President—then Illinois Senator and US Senate candidate:
Unless you’re seeing a lot of deer out there wearing bulletproof vests, then there’s no purpose for many of the guns. I think it is a scandal that this president did not force a renewal of this assault weapons ban. If it had problems with it, then we should have closed those loopholes that might have made it not as effective as it should have been.[iii]
Though it may seem that the President wishes for stronger control over weapons, action hasn’t been taken—perhaps out of fear of organizations such as the National Rifle Association and gun-owning constituents. Recent articles published by Reuters[iv] and the Associated Press[v] suggest that this fear and influence of the NRA—the nation’s largest lobbyist group for gun ownership—may fade in the face of the events in Connecticut, whereas gun advocates cannot present the same arguments in this instance as they had in response to the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater earlier this year, and the mall in Portland, Oregon earlier this week. While advocates had previously lamented that had more patrons been armed in these events the shooter could have been stopped, it is difficult to say the same of this recent situation—and an article published by the Huffingto n Post seems to agree.
In the Huffington article, however, it is noted that the overall view of gun-control—at least, up until what will become recent history—has not been favorable. According to data gathered by Huffington from Pew Research and other sources, opinion favorable for gun-control has been on a decline since 2000—a year following the massacre at Columbine High School, Columbine, Colorado. Not noted in the article, though evident to some viewing the provided graph, is the negative slope between 2001 and 2002—possibly attributed to the events of 9/11.[vi]
It is undeniable that the media have a current sway in opinion, and are delivering information to the public, creating a rise in discussion over the topic of gun-control; whether this will have lasting effects in this particular instance remains to be seen. It is possible that in light of these events as a whole—with Sandy Hook serving as the pillar or keystone in debate—that former policies will be revised and new policy instated, where the voices of lobbyists against gun-control can potentially lose volume to the voice for those in support; a thought which is supported by material provided in this course.
”[O]rganizations…have little impact when public opinion is taken into account, especially on issues the public cares about,” state Burstein and Linton in the conclusion of their research into impacts on public policy.[vii] This statement alone supports the notion that groups do have power to influence policy; additionally, the statement shows that groups’ influence can lose effectiveness when public opinion weighs heavier.
