POL3CAP Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy Online Tutoring

Introduction:

Weapons are commonly used in violent incidents in the United States and the United Kingdom. Many of the homicidal incidents include the use of weapons especially guns in the United States, the use of gun as a weapon is really common among the teenagers (Kroll & Dussias, 2017). The policy regarding gun control is essential to stop the common use of the weapon by the public. The policy makers have done really well in introducing policies regarding the minimal use of gun. However, there can be seen some problems related to the policies of the gun control. The issue of gun control has been called a wicked problem by the academic scholars (Newman & Head, 2017). The concept of wicked problem is that it indicates complex factors that can delay individuals’ agreement, intervene with few selected strategies or answers, can generated unorganized negative explicit problems and hamper problem meaning (Newman & Head, 2017). The essay will compare three countries in terms of gun control issue, the three countries that will be compared in the body of the essay are Australia, United States and Canada.

[hbupro_banner id=”6299″]

Australia:

There has been an increasing use of fire arms and guns in Australia before the Howard Government implemented the restrictions to the weapon. Before this restriction there had been a total of thirteen massacres. Moreover, a gin policy reform was implemented by the country’s Prime Minister in 1996 after the deadly incident. John Howard introduced this policy in the first few months of his job as a Prime Minister. Due to this policy there has been no gun incidents or massacres in the last two decades. The policy included a prohibition on the import, proprietorship, selling, possession or even utilizing center-fire rifles, shotguns and rim-fire rifles. It also included nine other objectives that focused on a minimal use of the weapons. Along which the main gun law the rigid licensing mechanism that entailed a person possessing the fire arm must have a sincere reason (Chapman, 2016). The policy implementation process in Australia is not as complex as the rest of the countries. The governments (state and territorial) in the country also have different opinions on any policy however, through the establishment of the Council of Australian governments in 1992, all the governments are made to listen each other. Similarly, in Canada there is a series of non-official meetings between the ministers until a Federal Council was constructed in 2003. Not only this, the country’s governments permit almost every member of the governments to implement policy. This isn’t the case in the US where there are conflicts between the governments. The Aussies are keen on shooting and hunting but any constitution doesn’t just give them the right to possess a personal gun. Australia has a favorable location than US or Canada as it is really easy in the latter countries to smuggle gun. The former country doesn’t have borders with other countries whereas the Naval borders with Indonesia and Papa Guinea are properly secured and guarded. In addition to, the individuals possessing guns were not that much even before the 1996 massacre in comparison to other countries (Newman & Head, 2017). In Australia it is easy for the gun control policy to be implemented due to the “lack of cultural attachment” among the citizens (POL 3 CAP, 2020, slide 21).

[hbupro_banner id=”6296″]

United States:

In this country the use of guns and fire arms is more than the other two countries. This issue has all the trademarks of a wicked problem entailing an increasing extent of complexity, intense doubt and the incongruity by the individuals to come to a solution for an issue. For the use of guns, there still persist a question of whether or not to allow the public to use the weapons for self-defense. In the United States, thousands of people have died through the use of guns either be it for a suicide attempt or for a murder. The main issue is that there are many solutions that have been put forward by the policy makers but they didn’t clearly understand how to solve the actual issue. Moreover, the issue of gun violence in the country is also complex and increase because many civilians possess this weapon for self-defense and the country’s constitution allow the individuals to use the weapon for their own protection. The alteration to the country’s constitution for the second time clearly stated that the public can possess fire arms however, in 2008 the Supreme Court’s ruling made it unclear whether these arms can only be used for self defense or to be used for different military missions (Newman & Head, 2017). The country’s governments aren’t on one page to solve the problem of the gun control in order to eliminate the use of guns. On a federal level the sale of guns is restricted to a disable individual, individuals under eighteen, criminals and fired military personnel. Along with this there are also compulsory background checks of an individual buying the weapon from a federally allowed seller. There are no such bans on semiautomatic guns like that in Canada. There are also hinderances to these gun laws in the country, there is a partisan polarization among the governments (POL 3 CAP, 2020). The government is divided and if the policy about the gun control issue is even passed, the policy generally needs a ‘bipartisan compromise’. In other words, any public policy about the gun control issue needs compromise of some kind. But this doesn’t happen due to the fact that there are some members that are in favor of gun control in the country. These members are also influenced by National Rifle Association that has an impact on the gun legislations in the country (Edwards et al. 1997 as cited in Newman & Head, 2017, p. 44). Hence, it is really difficult for a long-term effective gun control policy in the country due to fragmentation in the country.

[citationic]