What problem is central to the arena of gun control policy? How does the issue "emerge" in the public eye? Depending on whom you ask, it may be gun-related suicides and accidents in the home, or the use of guns to commit violent crimes, or particular types of guns that lend themselves to death or injury, or certain criminal types who should not have access to guns, or a variety of other answers.

Much focus is given to guns and crime, and with good reason. Guns are the weapon of choice in the majority of murders. But not all gun-related homicides neatly fit the mold of violent crime. Take, for example, the events of 6 December 1997. On that day, the town of Paducah, Kentucky, buried four high school students killed in a shooting spree by a fellow student. In New York City a distraught, middle-age man shot to death his wife and children, before turning the gun on himself. In Staten Island, a young boy killed his friend when the gun he was showing off accidentally fired.

The one thing that is common among most of the potential answers to the questions at the top of this page is death or injury caused by guns. However, few, if any, people define the policy problem so narrowly--most problem definitions also include a cause of the underlying problem, and therein lies the divergence. Essentially, participants in the policy forum have incorporated the secondary process of "problem assessment" (see the next section) into the initial step of "problem identification." This is the crux of the analytical tractability problem of gun control policy making--discussions of the problem are complicated by the intrusion of perceived causes of the problem (which perceptions vary widely) and preconceived notions of the solutions to those causes.

By bringing into the decision-making arena widely varying views of the underlying problem to be addressed, the participants establish intractability at the most basic and troublesome level. Almost unbelievably, the process is made more intractable by strong disagreements over corellary issues such as sources of data, the proper interpretation of data, methods of assessment and evaluation, and definitions of key variables of interest. Debate in the arena often slips from disagreement over the key problem to attacks on one another's methods, data and core beliefs. This section provides an overview of the many bones of contention that promulgate intractability, and thereby presents a basic introduction to the issues of gun control.


WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH GUNS?

The following is a very brief sample of how gun issues are portrayed in public. There are many more example available on the Internet and elsewhere because guns are such a hotly debated topic.

The Violence Policy Center. The VPC "works to increase public understanding of firarms violence as an expanding public health crisis of which crime is merely the most recognized aspect." The VPC's viewpoint may be among the broadest, focusing on the wide range of gun-related deaths (such as suicide, non-felony homicides, and unintentional injuries) as the result of an under-regulated consumer product. Thus VPC's focus includes not only guns and criminals, but also product liability, domestic violence, and other issues.

Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence takes the public health and safety perspective that many grassroots organizations have adopted. Similarly, Californians for Responsible Gun Laws view firearm violence in the same vein as smoking on airlines and drunk driving.

The granddaddy of the gun control lobby is Handgun Control, Inc., the largest and most prominent in the nation. The organization was originally started by two crime victims in 1974, and is currently headed by Sarah Brady, the wife of former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot during the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. HCI was a major force behind the passage of the Brady Law. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence is HCI's research and public education arm. HCI does not advocate a ban on handguns, but instead pushes for national handgun licensing and transfer registration policies. In this way, it stands in contrast to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which used to be known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and still espouses a complete ban. (For more about these organizations, click here or here.)

The principal opponent of HCI is the National Rifle Association of America. The NRA also has a high-profile spokesman in Charlton Heston. The NRA boasts a membership in the millions, who, in the NRA's own words, "share...an appreciation of the shooting sports, belief in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and, most of all, a commitment to safety, responsibility and freedom." The NRA is old and enormous, established over 125 years ago and now operating with over 300 employees and an $80 million annual operating budget. NRA's basic thrust is rooted in the Second Amendment, but its public statements focus on debunking gun control groups' research and conducting research of its own disproving the efficacy of existing and proposed laws. (For an extensive work on the NRA, see Anderson's Inside the NRA.)

Several other organizations involved in the gun control policy debate are worth mentioning because they are not your run-of-the-mill advocacy organizations. The Heartland Institute is a conservative public policy research organization dedicated to "free-market" solutions to policy problems. Heartland's basic argument against gun control laws is that they are economically inefficient, though its publications also assert also reasons for abolishing such legislation. (Polsby and Brennen) Physicians for Social Responsibility, like Heartland, has a broader agenda--in PSR's case, to eliminate nuclear weapons and to end global environmental pollution, in addition to ceasing gun violence.


COMPLICATING FACTORS

Intractability also derives from extraneous disagreements, misperceptions and points of argument. Two participants may seem to be arguing diametrically opposed points, but both may yet be correct because the parameters of their statements are different. Further, ingrained un-truths about guns often have a stronger hold on people's beliefs and opinions about guns that real facts and evidence. Finally, when arguing the facts fails, participants delay debate or end it entirely by turning on one another.

Definitions of guns

What do we mean by "guns"? Facts about important issues vary depending on what type of gun is of concern. Furthermore, not all guns are of equal concern. Much more emphasis has been placed on "assault" weapons and Saturday night specials than on long guns. And just what is an assault weapon or a Saturday night special. Definitions vary. So, even when you think two persons are talking about the same class of firearm, they may actually be thinking of different guns.

Public misconceptions about guns

Take a look in the next section on policy assessment at the facts about gun ownership. Each point is a refutation of long-held "common wisdom" about guns. It was long believed that half of U.S. households owned a gun, but that has not been so for many years. Most guns are not handguns, which are the predominant gun used in crimes, but rather recreational-type guns like rifles and shotguns. Gun owners aren't poorly educated "red-necks"--more than half have a high school education, and 29 percent some post-secondary education. Nor is the contradictory wisdom correct, that black inner-city youths have all the guns: In fact, blacks and city-dwellers are much less likely to own guns than whites and rural residents, respectively.

Attacking credibility

A frequent occurrence in arenas that are analytically intractable is that the participants turn from debate on the merits of issues to attack the methodologies of policy opponents' research, and then to attack the opponents themselves. Analytical intractability is not a necessity for such attacks to occur, but it makes them more likely. An example is instructive.

The National Rifle Association began a public relations campaign featuring a mascot, Eddie Eagle. Ostensibly, Eddie Eagle was meant to be a firearms version of Woodsy Owl or McGruff the Crime Dog. One advertisement features the caption, "Eddie Eagle says: If you see a gun: STOP! DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." However, Eddie has not been welcomed warmly by all. The Violence Policy Center, for example, likens him to Joe Camel, suggesting he is trying to hook kids on guns. (Gallagher) The VPC and the NRA have long done battle outside the policy analysis field; see, for example, VPC's study concluding the NRA is dominated by racists--NRA Family Values.

For another example, see the reference below to the Lott & Mustard paper.


SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUES

As if the preceding issues were not problem enough for crafting effective gun control policy, the arena is dragged down further by the fact that it touches upon constitutionally-protected rights. While many public policies are challenged on constitutional grounds, the challenge often resides in some vaguely defined right to privacy, or free speech. In other words, the issue is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but an opposition participant's interpretation is that some part of the Constitution is applicable. Guns, however, are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, namely in the Second Amendment. Even if all of the other areas of contention were resolved, this issue alone could probably gum up the works.

Amendment II - Right to keep and bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

• The ACLU's authoritative site


• The NRA's site on Second Amendment issues


• Notes on the interpretation of the Second Amendment


• Violence Policy Center--Second Amendment does not protect individual rights


• Second Amendment Foundation--Amendment protects right to privately own and possess firearms


• Legal scholarship on the Second Amendment--a variety of scholarly and popular articles


• Powe, "Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation," William & Mary Law Review


• Other organizations concerned with gun rights

• John R. Lott and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," Working Paper No. 41, John M. Olin Program in Law & Economics, Law & Economics Working Papers, Second Series, The Law School, University of Chicago

• Josh Sugarman, "Reverse FIRE," Mother Jones-- "The Brady Bill won't break the sick hold guns have on America. It's time for tougher measures."


• Carl T. Bogus, "The Strong Case for Gun Control," The American Prospect, No. 10, Summer 1992, pp. 19-28.


• James D. Wright, "Ten Essential Observations on Guns in America," Society, March/April 1995, pp. 63-68.

• Introduction to the topic


• The emergence of the problem


• The assessment of the problem


• Decision-making and policy formulation


• Policy Implementation


• Policy Evaluation


• References