CATHERINE OWENS ONLY

Stakeholder Analysis

Lauren Riley

Strayer University

August 7, 2017

Introduction

The following paper examines the gun control debate as it pertains to the case of United States of America. The issue surrounding gun control has been the subject of contention pitting the proponents and opponents for a number of decades now. It seems the issue in this debate is whether to impose limitations on how guns can be acquired or not to impose these limitations. On both sides, proponents and opponents have raised strong concerns on their views regarding the matter.

The proponents side are all for the idea that there should be limitations on how guns can be acquired or even a ban altogether on specific weapons. The main proposition of this cohort is that the fewer the number of guns are in the hands of U.S civilians, the better the safety and security for all. This arises out of the growing number of mass shooting incidents in the U.S (Fallick, 2017).

It is very easy for anybody with the willpower and financial resources, to purchase a gun in the U.S. One can acquire a gun through several existing channels. These channels may be legal and recognized by law enforcement as legalized businesses and transactions but sadly, may also include illegal, unregulated markets as well. The legal channels include gun shows in which purchasers through normal retail activities can acquire guns. In the United States, guns sold are on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. Most gun holders in the U.S acquire their guns in this form. However, illegal channels, which are conducted through online platforms, are typically where most criminals favor cases. This is one of the main ways that guns end up in the hands of those with criminal motives. In turn, this is what the proponents base their arguments on (Editorial Board, 2017).

Proponents believe that guns should not be easily acquired, as this has led to devastating effects such as the death of many innocent Americans. An example would be the Newton Connecticut incidence in which a rogue gun holder, Adam Lanza, ended up shooting and killing several young school-going children (Editorial Board, 2017). This is just one example where scores of innocent people have lost their lives in underserved circumstances. It is the high possibility of such instances continuing to occur as to why the proponents want prohibitions on gun ownership. They believe that this will ensure the country safety. In fact, the likelihood of such adverse, gun-related incidences occurring in the U.S is twenty-five times higher than that in other high-income country such as Britain (Matthews, 2013). The proponents believe that the environment is not as safe as everyone would like it to be. They believe that the menace of mass shootings could be avoided if there were stringent measures on gun ownership procedures.

However, on the other hand, the opponents of gun ownership are convinced that by allowing individuals to own guns privately, a safer and secure environment would thrive. They believe this to be so as with a private gun because one can protect himself against unanticipated adversities such as criminal or terrorist attacks. Besides, they hold it as their strongest argument that the U.S constitution, through the second Amendment, permits individuals, for the interest of safety and security in a free state such as the U.S, any individual is allowed to bear a firearm (Scwhartz, 2008). Strong opponents on this policy issue such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) believe that imposition of restrictions on gun use and ownership would amount to an outright infringement on this provision enshrined in the Constitution and as passed by the Congress.

In addition, as the President of NRA, Wayne LaPierre puts it; “the guns themselves should not be the issue in this case.” However, the focus should be on the holders of guns, and specifically, it is the mentally ill who possess guns that people should be worried about (Editorial Board, 2017). Framed differently, the proponents believe that it is the people who do the killing and not the guns. They believe that as long as one is sober and in their right mind, he or she can bear a firearm and will not be inclined to take the life of anyone. It is these assumptions brought forth by the opponents of gun control that lead to the key assumptions in this debate.

The Underlying Assumptions and their Plausibility Ratings;

Assumption 1: It is those people suffering from various mental illnesses that cause gun violence (5.4).

Assumption 2: To ensure safety and security, a psychiatric examination should be done on suspect prospective gun holders to prevent the possibility of a crime occurring in the future due to mental illness (7.6).

Assumption 3: There is no way that imposing measures on gun ownership would reduce crime, as the guns would be the wrong target (3.3).

Assumption 4: The mass shooting scenarios are acts of deranged individuals only (4.2).

The following is a Plot of the plausibility ratings:

From the above plot, Assumptions 1 & 2 are the most significant. Assumption 1 postulates that gun violence is a result of the mentally ill who possess guns. This is true in most mass shooting cases; the suspects have tested positive for one (or more) forms of mental illness or another. For example, Adam Lanza, in the Newton case, tested positive for Schizophrenia (Editorial Board, 2017).

Equally, the second assumption, which advocates for psychiatric diagnosis to be done on prospective weapon buyers, bears a lot of significance. This is because if these tests are properly done, and backed by legislation, then the likelihood of guns finding their way into wrong hands decreases tremendously. This way, gun-related violence could be curbed.

The main stakeholders in this debate are:

1. Wayne LaPierre, President National Rifle Association (NRA)

2. Brady Campaign

3. Gun Manufacturers

4. Erick Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Gun Activist

5. Congress

Below is a cumulative frequency distribution that plots the number of new ideas generated against each stakeholder outlined above:

1. Wayne LaPierre, President NRA

Led by its President, NRA believes that gun control is not going to be a solution to end gun violence. Instead, the focus should be on the mentally deranged individuals who find themselves in possession of guns. Thus, in light of this, psychiatric tests should be run on those buying guns to mark out the potentially lethal and mentally deranged individuals. They back their arguments with the statistical proof that most gun-related violence is caused by the mentally deranged (Editorial Board, 2017).

2. Brady Campaign

This agency represents the voice of those U.S citizens that seek to put an end to gun violence. They believe that introducing restrictions on gun ownership could reduce gun violence in half by the year 2025. They believe that no matter the mental state of an individual, each gun owner is susceptible to cause harm to the society via weapon possession. As such, they advocate that reforms be introduced to the gun-buying system. For example, running mandatory and stringent background checks on every prospective gun buyer (Editorial Board, 2017).

3. Gun Manufacturers and Gun shows

Collectively, these groups of stakeholders are vehement against bans on firearms or any form of gun control for that matter. They believe that if pursued, bans on weapons could negatively affect the economy. Gun trade contributes an average of $33.6 billion to the GDP and up to $5.1 billion in government revenue in the form of taxes. Besides, the trade provides jobs to more than 220,000 Americans. It therefore forbids that any distortion to the gun trade, as it is will only hurt the economy (Scwhartz, 2008).

4. U.S Congress

The congress is committed to ensuring an appropriate balance between a well-regulated militia that ensures general safety and security to a free country like the U.S while at the same time giving people the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, if it deems it necessary, the congress may introduce a ban on weapons for the interest of general safety and security (Matthews, 2013).

5. Erick Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Gun Activist

As a representative of gun activists in the U.S, Erick Pratt believes that any restriction on the form of gun control would be infringing rights granted to American citizens as per the second amendment, which gives people the right to keep and bear arms (Editorial Board, 2017).

From the cumulative plot, the new ideas contributed by each stakeholder group are: NRA =3, Brady Campaign=2, Gun Manufacturers=2, Congress=2, Gun Activists=1. This distribution causes the graph to flatten out after the fourth stakeholder (Congress).

The logical conclusion from the arguments aforementioned in this discussion is that there should be a form of regulation on gun trade in the U.S. Whilst not necessarily targeting the guns themselves, the legislation should aim to ensure that the guns do not end up in the hands of the wrong people, such as criminals and the mentally deranged. As such, psychiatric tests and mandatory stringent background checks should be conducted on prospective gun buyers. This way, gun-violence and mass shootings may be reduced while at the same time ensuring no infringement is served on the second amendment.

References

Editorial Board. (2017). Shunning Gun Control, Helping Terrorists. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/opinion/shunning-gun-control-helping-terrorists.html .

Fallick, D. (2017). We need gun control. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-need-gun-control/2017/07/24/26ce7646-6e33-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.5fc8a45f0712 .

Matthews, A. (2013). Gun Violence Prevention. Congressional Digest, 92(3), 1.

Schwartz, E. (2008). In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control. U.S. News & World Report, 144(8), 41-43.