lOMoARc PSD|26120228
1
GUN SHOWS, GUN LAWS, AND GUN TOTIN
Savannah Nalls
GOVT 475
March 2nd, 2018
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
2
FACTS
The United States system of federalism in regard to gun control can often be confusing as it
includes gun laws entangling the national, state, and local jurisdictions together. While the U.S
Constitution declares that all people are guaranteed rights to own guns, the details regarding how this
amendment applies to citizens has been well debated over a period of two centuries (Shafritz et al.,
2017).
During the Obama Administration, many people began questioning whether an individual
possesses the right to bear arms in situations which involve the president of the United States. The
debate was ignited after a man, who displayed no sign of violence, walked in close proximity to Obama
with a gun in clear display. This incident was considered particularly dangerous especially considering the
long history of gun violence against sitting presidents (Shafritiz et al., 2016). In fact, when taking the
amount of presidents America has had since its beginning, there is much need for concern as there is a
twenty percent chance that any president could be a victim of gun crime during his time in office
(Shafritz et al., 2017).
Despite occasional efforts to restrict the purchasing of certain guns at the national level, the
federal government has been fairly silent and limited on its role in gun regulation. However, there has
been some evidence of the federal government’s formation of stricter gun laws, including the Gun
Control Act of 1968 after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Moreover, the legislation tightened
license requirements for gun dealers and restricted the sale of guns to convicted felons in addition to
banning purchasing rifles and shotguns over the mail (Shafritz et al., 2017). Ultimately, because there
has typically been a resolve in American history of the Federal government to stay out of gun
regulations, it has often been left to the states to decide what gun regulations ought to be passed.
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
3
DECISION
The debate of whether the federal government, state government, or local government ought to
be utilized for gun control regulations has been very controversial over the last decade. While typically
the federal government has been silent on gun regulation, after the recent shooting in Parkdale Florida,
Donald Trump has shocked the country with his proposal of strict gun regulations. His proposal to raise
the national age of purchasing most rifles to the age of 21 and an executive order on the banning of
bump stocks despite them not being utilized in the last shooting, surprised many political scientists who
saw the move as betraying some of his biggest supporters, rural gun owners. With his decision to take
such a firm stance on gun regulations on the federal level, President Trump may be essentially creating
an impenetrable divide between him and avid right-winged gun supporters which made up a majority of
his base. Which could very well be a political suicide in the terms of his reelection in the next election
cycle and during midterms for the congress where Republicans are hoping to remain a majority.
And these risky executive acts do not even come at a great tradeoff. Studies indicate that similar
federal action that he intends to implement have been correlated to more gun violence rather than less.
Additionally, his most recent proposal of “taking guns away before due process” of those who are
“mentally disturbed,” have elicited fear among those who support the due process of the second
amendment.
States and localities have always been a better source of legislation for gun regulations as they
can curtail to meet the unique needs of their jurisdiction. The federal government regulations are less
equipped to fit the needs of all states across America, and therefore regulations, like those proposed by
Donald Trump, are ill suited to make any sort of change in gun violence. Additionally, his notions of
mentally health requirements, while seemingly innocent enough, pose grave Constitutional issues and
provide for a large chance of governmental tyranny.
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
4
SOLUTION
I. HOW TRUMP’S GUN REGULATIONS WILL RUIN REPUBLICAN REELECTIONS/MIDTERMS
While the most important aspect of potential gun regulations is to analyze the regulation’s effect on
saving the lives of innocent people, the Donald Trump’s administration proposal on strict gun regulations
poses a great case study for those interested in how federal regulations and guns can potentially impact
politics significantly. While the effects of his proposal he gave in February of 2018 calling out for more
federal gun regulations are very new and therefore unable to examine completely, through analyzing the
culture and politics of those both within the Republican base and among Trump’s followers, this one
action will prove to be the most damaging action among his supporters that he has taken thus far.
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
5
Despite the fact that many political commenters have remarked that Donald Trump’s language
seems to rarely ever affect his approval
rating which has stayed at 36% during his
entire presidency, these political analysts
will most likely be proven to be wrong as
many Trump supporters equate gun
regulations to an essential component of
their movement against a strong central
government. In fact, when asked simply
whether gun rights or gun control is more
important to them, Americans show a
dramatic partisan split among those who voted for Trump and those who voted for Clinton. Ninety
percent of registered voters who supported Trump said protecting gun rights was more important than
controlling gun ownership, and only nine percent said they prioritized controlling gun ownership, while
only about 36% of democrats said the same (Beckett, 2016).
While some people may argue that these regulations will be great for the Republican party because
it shows bipartisanship and at least a determination to get something changed, the party will be most
likely suffer in the upcoming midterm elections for this example of bipartisanship. The first reason, is
that Donald Trump’s presidency, unrelated to gun control, has had grave effects on former millennial
Republicans. Whereas, nearly 25% of all young people who identified as Republican in 2015 now leans
towards democrats (Alter, 2017). Among Republicans who have defected from the party, 57% declared it
was because they strongly disapproved of Trump (Alter, 2017). The second reason, is that it seems that
the Trump administration has underestimated the views of the second amendment within his voting
base. In fact, Michael Hammond, the
Beckett, L. (2016). “Tighter Background Checks and Guns
Favored by Trump Backers, Survey Finds”. The Guardian.
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
6
legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America stated, “we believe [Trump has] gone from the Second
Amendment’s best friend to the gun-grabber chief” (Hernadez, 2018). Hammond went on to assert had
Trump, “not ran on support of the Second Amendment, he would not be the President of the United
States” (Hernadez, 2018). “Of all the issues that he could have chosen to go south on, he chose the issue
that was most central to his base” (Hernadez, 2018).
Only time can tell if his actions will severely undermine the Republican party, but his gun regulations
proposals will surely have an effect on his reelection and the Republican majority during the upcoming
congressional midterms.
II. EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GUN REGULATION
While the executive’s branch support for federal gun regulations in the scope of politics is an
important aspect to analyze when thinking of policy, what is more important is the effectiveness of such
regulations. In fact, the federal government, up until the Trump Administration, has been quite silent on
these issues for a good reason. Looking at data for a period of 1980 to 2009, federal assault weapon bans
were associated with a 19% increase, rather than decrease in gun murders (Gius, 2014). Studies have
displayed that states, rather than the federal government, is better equipped to manage the unique
issues of their jurisdictions (Gius, 2014). In fact, states with conceal carry legislations often have
significantly lower gun violence and it seems that no actions are necessary for these states as of yet
(Gius, 2014).
Additionally, the federal regulations proposed recently which has included forcing kids to be at least
21 before being legally able to purchase an AR15 plus limiting guns to those that are mentally unstable
will not provide any more protection from mass shooting in the first place. In fact, contrary to popular
beliefs, handguns which already have a 21-age requirement, not assault rifles, are the most used guns in
mass shootings in America (Bostwick, 2013).
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
7
It is important to ensure that all gun regulations will have the necessary effects on society; however,
many of the federal government proposals seem to do nothing significant to justify barring individuals
from certain guns. The framers of the Constitution warned that all regulations ought to be made in good
faith as, “the laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws that disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes… such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better
for the assailants” (Jefferson, 1774).
III. MENTAL HEALTH REQUIREMENTS AND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO GOVERNMENT TYRANNY
Out of all of the regulations proposed by the federal government, it seems that even most
Republicans can agree that they are not against taking guns away from those that have mental illnesses.
On face value, it seems that this is a great bipartisan agreement that most people support. In fact, most
reports suggest that up to sixty percent of perpetrators of mass shootings in the United States since
1970 displayed symptoms of acute paranoia, delusions, and depression before committing their crimes
(Metzi, 2015).
While many people believe that mental illness causes gun violence and that psychiatric diagnosis can
predict gun crime before it happens, it seems that data which addresses guns, violence, and historical
literatures of guns more broadly, display that these hypothesizes are not as clear (Metzi, 2015). In fact,
population level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are less
likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. Less than three to five percent of US crimes involve people
with mental illnesses and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national
average for persons not diagnosed with a mental illness (Metzi, 2015). What is even more surprising to
most people is that serous mental illnesses such as schizophrenia actually reduces the risk of violence
over time, as the illnesses are in many cases marked by social isolation and withdrawal (Webster, 2017).
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
8
Additionally, these mental health requirements can be dangerous for a few reasons. For one, it is a
public misconception that those with mental illnesses are more aggressive, as studies have indicated the
exact opposite. But mental health requirements can be dangerously manipulated to severely limit gun
rights among citizens. For example, mental illnesses that are common among most mass shooters, and
most of the public such as depression is one that can easily be taken advantage of in order to restrict
guns among those in America. While there is no way in knowing exactly what the next 100 years will look
like, it is not completely radical to suggest that this common illness could be added to the list of mental
health diseases that bars one from being able to purchase a gun. In fact, a larger predicter of gun
violence would be “a history of childhood abuse, binge drinking, and being male” rather than a mental
illness, so it seems that these regulations prove to be a bit unnecessary and intrusive (Webster, 2017).
The concept that government has the possibility of “crossing the line” on gun control is not a crazy
conspiracy theory. In fact, Donald Trump’s comments where he seeks to “take guns first” and follow the
process of “due process” second for those who are mentally insane just display the sentiments some
politicians have towards militancy safety that disregards the rule of law and these statements only
continue to scare those who view the second amendment the way that the founders meant it to be
interpreted, as a safeguard against a tyrannous government (Hernadez, 2018).
IV. CULTURE SHIFT IN MASS MURDER & CHRISTIANITY
It is important to take into consideration, that all factual data regarding contemporary mass
shootings be taken from 1970 on, as during the 1970s there was a dramatic culture shift of mass
shootings. While mass shootings before the 1970’s was mostly familicide where the assailant killed their
entire family, modern mass shootings occur in random, public places that are typically gun free zones
(Metzi, 2015). In fact, mass shootings, particularly in public places and the associated casualties have
increased dramatically in the United States since the 2004 (Webster, 2017).
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
9
This culture shift is not coincidentally tied to the gradual rejection of Christian norms and values
within society. In fact, it “seems the more people you kill, the more you are in the limelight” (Buchanan,
2015). The lessons espoused by fame that mass shooters receive is that if “you are sick of life and hate
the world, you can end it in a way that makes the world take notice of who you were” (Buchanan, 2015).
Furthermore, society is producing more mass shooters who crave fame as most are the children of a
broken family who was taught from schools in which the Ten Commandments has been ruthlessly
expunged, and grew up in a society whose reverence for human life is testified by the 55 million
abortions since Roe v. Wade, and by video games where killing human beings is treated as a participant
sport (Buchanan, 2015). Ultimately, in a de-Christianized America where no higher laws exist, killing for
fame is a commonplace occurrence (Buchanan, 2015).
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, when considering gun control legislation, it seems that data and facts support the
notion that state regulation of guns, rather than federal regulation, is the best method of curtailing gun
violence. Additionally, the current gun proposals of the Trump Administration will not only prove to be
insufficient to combatting mass shootings, but they set potential dangerous precedents of a tyrannous
government that tramples on the rights of others. Most importantly, however, it is important to
recognize the change of culture which began in the 1970s and its relationship to the gradual de-
Christianized country that started primarily in the 1960’s and how this information must be utilized to
decrease gun violence in the future.
In conclusion, God demands that Christians, “shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), however he also
acknowledges the importance of self-protection and saving the lives of others. God informs Christians,
“when a strong man, fully armed guards his own palace, his goods are safe” (Luke 11:21) and that
Christians ought to “rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are
lOMoARc PSD|26120228
10
stumbling to the slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11). Ultimately, a Christian worldview is one that supports the
defense of others and of one’s life with guns and as such, these rights ought to be protected.
References
Alter, (2016). “Nearly Quarter of GOP Millennials Have Defected from the Party of Trump, Study Says”.
Time Magazine. Referenced from http://time.com/4786694/donald-trump-republican-party-switch-
poll/.
Beckett, L. (2016). “Tighter Background Checks and Guns Favored by Trump Backers, Survey Finds”. The
Guardian.
Bostwick, J. (2013). “A Good Idea Shot Down: Taking Guns Away From the Mentally Ill Won’t Eliminate
Mass Shootings”. Mayo Clinic, pp. 3-88.
Buchanan, P. (2015). “The Cultural Incentives of Mass Murder”. The American Conservative. Reference
from: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/the-cultural-incentives-of-mass-murder/.
Gius, M. (2014). “An Examination of the Effects of Concealed Weapon Laws and Assault Weapons Bans
on State-Level Murder Rates”. Applied Economics Letters, pp. 265.
Hernandez, S. (2018). “A Gun Rights Group Says Trump Has Gone from Supporter to the Gun Grabber in
Chief”. Buzzfeed News. Reference from: https://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorhernandez/gun-rights-
supporters-say-trump-has-turned-into-the-gun?utm_term=.koBKvnae9#.bgEZVveMk.
Jefferson, T. (1774). “Commonplace”.
Metzi, J. & MacLeish, K. (2015). “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms”.
Framing Health Matters, pp. 1-11.
Webster, D. W. (2017). The True Effect of Mass Shootings on Americans. Annals Of Internal
Medicine, 166(10), 749-750. doi:10.7326/M17-0943
