Pennsylvania State University
I Plead the 2nd: Wrongful Deaths or Wrongful Regulations?Post Deliberation ReportOverview: A Nation at Gunpoint?Presented by Nancy Bao and Sam RabinWith the recent mass shootings including the tragedies that occurred in San Bernardino, CA and Kalamazoo, MI, gun violence has once again arisen as a point of contention in this nation. With the endless emphasis on the need to end violence, staunch anti-gun supporters have pressed to ban firearms. However this solution confounds with citizen’s rights. This country was founded on retaining personal liberties, which was legitimized in the Bill of Rights. In this document, citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. Since the establishment of this nation, guns have been a big part of the American culture. With this understanding, pro-gun supporters have strongly opposed the ban-all guns propositions.These opposing views have left our nation in a gridlock on ways to decrease gun deaths. The goal of the deliberation that took place on Saturday, February 27, 2016, was to generate a discussion of viable solutions to wrongful gun deaths in the United States. The main message promoted the belief that guns solely are not the issue. Guns can and have been safely handled in sport, hunting, and other safe recreational uses. The deliberation was not intended to attack people’s personal beliefs but to be an open conversation about some of the loopholes in gun purchases and safety education as well as possible solutions which included implementation of federal guidelines for private firearm and straw purchases and ammunition purchases. At the conclusion of the overview of the deliberation, the participants identified themselves as gun-supporters, affiliates of the National Rifle Association, and individuals concerned with the gun violence of this nation. When individuals were asked to introduce themselves, there was initial concern that the conversation would be swayed to oppose guns and misrepresent associations such as the NRA. Ultimately, the general group recognized that wrongful gun deaths are a problem and that the deaths go beyond the media coverage of mass shooting events. In more than 33,000 gun deaths that occurred from 2013 government statistical results, mass shootings only made up less than two percent of that total.[1]As moderation of the deliberation continued, individuals acknowledged one another’s doubts about certain policy propositions and did not disregard ideas that conflicted with personal beliefs. Individuals also provided important insight that equalized the discussion platform. For instance, specific NRA regulations and Pennsylvania state firearm policies were shared by certain participants to give background knowledge on permit issuances and assist the discussion to consider all perspectives when discussing how loopholes could be fixed and how federal government regulations could be implemented. In the discussion of the third approach, where the deliberation honed in on the possible ways gun violence could be suppressed through ammunition regulation, a member of the community, who was not originally part of the deliberation, stepped in to share his beliefs on regulating bullets. As the participants were sharing their beliefs on setting a federal standard for ammunition taxation across the fifty states the man stepped in and asserted that this policy would not be viable. He introduced the fact that he utilizes bulk ammunition purchases for sport and game hunts. In addition to that, he mentioned ammunition prices are constantly going up, and bulk purchases are made for economical reasons, to save money in the long run. While noting that one of the largest lead manufacturing companies in the United States also just went out of business, many specific types of rounds were continuously becoming harder to find; thus, creating an even higher demand for ammunition. His input opened another window in the taxation method. The insight emphasized that while, bulk purchases have been made in order to commit mass murders as noted with the Aurora, CO and San Bernardino shootings, that does not give the right to assume that all bulk purchases are made for manslaughter. The oscillating opinions on ammunition taxation reiterated the controversy of this solution and the issuance of universal background checks on ammunition was offered as another solution. However, this new option received little attention before the discussion was shifted to question morality of humankind. He introduced the subject of kindness after a participant brought up the fact that they didn’t want guns to be the first call in self-defense. The individual contributed his understanding as kindness being a “direct byproduct of violence.” he talked about how people as a whole are generally more polite and nice to one another when there is a standing threat or retaliation. This deviation from the gun laws discussion generated large disagreement and the talk was shifted to the summary of all the solutions presented in the three approaches. References:Kirk, Chris, and Alex Yablon. “How Many People Have Been Shot in Your Neighborhood This Year?” Slate. Slate Group, 31 Dec. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. < 1: Preventing Bullet Holes by Filling LoopholesPresented by Kelley Gaffney and Cal MendeCurrently, criminals are able to avoid background checks through straw and private purchasing. Straw purchasing occurs when someone who could not normally pass a background check enlists the help of another person with a clean background who purchases the gun for them.[1] While this method is currently illegal, the fine associated with it has not served as an effective deterrent. When one privately purchases a gun from an unlicensed vendor, no background check has to be performed.[2] With these methods they are able to circumvent the safety net that has been put in place by the federal government. Do we need to close these loopholes? How could this be done? Our deliberation group sought to answer these questions.We posed the question, “How do we prevent guns from entering the hands of dangerous people?” The proposed solution was met with varying degrees of consensus. When asked about whether universal background checks should be issued, the entire group was in agreement. However, there was a disagreement about how it should be implemented; an NRA member believed it could not be implemented on a federal level, and that we must rely on the states to initiate the change. Thus, the details of implementing this solution are still vague. A local teacher proposed a “national database be kept on all guns and their owners,” in an attempt to ensure accountability of gun owners. While this may have been a tedious process with copious amounts unused data, most within the group agreed with him. One did oppose this strongly, arguing that having this much information on individual can be dangerous. The fear of government intervention and control over our lives is a very real one, but one in which we must balance.A Penn State student brought up interesting concerns with solving the problem through diligent record keeping. He believed we would not be able to regulate all of this information, and even if we could, the inconvenience of the paperwork would discourage too many. He went on to say that people with malicious intent would always be able to find a gun, legally or illegally. This law would not be directed toward the people most likely to misuse a gun, but rather the law-abiding citizens. Another discussion was on the lack of economic justice allowed by regulating the selling of firearms. One participant believed it was unfair to require only licensed dealers to perform certain tasks, while other vendors can reap the rewards of the transaction with far less work and accountability. He made it clear that the government should not “coddle” certain vendors with subsidies, however there should exist a fair playing field in regards to economic opportunity. Another member of the group thought that requiring background checks in private sales would hurt the market of gun shows, however data was cited in states where the gun show loophole had already been changed and proved that the trade shows could still function as normal. ???In the end, the group was in agreement that this is a pressing problem. While they could see a solution was necessary, a single process could not be agreed upon. A plethora of ideas emerged, but eventually each side, stable in their opinions, had agreed to disagree. With this disagreement it only allowed for the common ground on the fact that background checks were needed, however; the way that they should be implemented and if it should be a national thing remained under the tensions section. It was also a common ground that loopholes were a problem but the establishing of a national database to account for all gun purchases remained in the tensions section. When looking at the specific numbers gathered from the survey they represent the overall tensions and common places. When asked if we should implement a universal background check for all citizens, a statement that was in the tensions section, 83.2% strongly or somewhat favored the statement but 16.6% somewhat opposed it. Also when questioned if they felt that the United States should keep better records of who is purchasing firearms, which would go along with the creation of a national database, 76.6% strongly or somewhat favored the idea but 33.3% strongly opposed it. This is why these two statements remain in the tensions section.With no consensus on what to do it makes creating policies to suffice this issue very difficult. It seems that those who attended the debate agreed that the current background check regulations are not working to close the loopholes but seem to disagree on any of the solutions posed. This makes the only policy that would please the members of the deliberation as to keep the background checks the way that they are but possibly to make them stricter to prevent loopholes. In addition, the policies on creating universal background checks and a national database were not agreed upon by all participants. Overall, this section of the debate ended with disagreement on most points but some agreement on the importance of background checks in general.References:"Straw Purchases Policy Summary." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence RSS. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 21 May 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2016, at "Background Checks Toolkit." Commonsense Solutions: (n.d.): n. pag. Americans for Responsible Solutions. Web.Approach 2: Gun Safety 101Presented by Sara Harris and Sophia MallusThis approach focused on reducing the number of accidental shootings and death by educating the public about gun safety. The main foci of the approach included implementing a universal gun safety education program and enacting federal gun safety laws. The purpose of these foci was to reduce the number of accidental shootings that occur each year. In 2015, at least 265 children or teenagers picked up a gun and accidentally shot himself, herself or someone else. [1] All of the participants expressed their opinions that the number of accidental shooting that occur each year is too high and that it is important that this number is reduced. The first half of this approach focused on implementing a universal gun safety program that would teach all gun owners how to safely own, operate, and store a gun. Throughout the discussion of such a program, participants expressed concerns that a universal program may not be the best solution. One participant expressed his belief that individual who would never touch a gun or own a gun may feel that that this program does not apply to them. However, another participant responded by saying that just because someone does not own a gun, does not mean they will not come into contact with a gun. This idea was further developed when a person brought up the idea that kids should have to watch a gun safety video if they live in a house with a gun. This point continued to manifest as a teacher suggested that before people can receive homeowner’s insurance, insurance companies should require people to report the number of guns in their home and complete an education program about safely owning, operating, and storing a gun to prevent any unintentional harm. This idea appeared to be well received by most of the participants; however, common ground was not reached. Other tensions arose when an individual stated that it should be the parents’ responsibility to educate their children about guns. An individual, who was strongly in favor of guns, expressed his feelings that he has raised his children to be responsible around guns and kept the gun in a safe location until his children were of age to know how to act around the gun. Despite discussions, the participants found common ground that there should be some form of safety education program for children. Results from the post deliberation survey show that 50% of participants strongly agree that educating the children on the potentially harmful consequences of guns would help prevent accidental shootings. The other 50% of participants indicated that they agree with this statement. During this deliberation, participants also discussed whether creating certain laws for gun owners could also help avoid accidental gun deaths. As of now we have Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws which places the criminal liability on the adults who allow their children to have unsupervised access to firearms.[2] Having these laws in place has shown that they are effective in reducing accidental shootings.[2] ?While this is all well and good, there are still no federal CAP laws. We proposed that the federal government should mandate those Child Act Prevention laws. Adults, who were negligible about storing their firearms, should be held criminally responsible for the harm done to a child by a weapon. One participant felt that if we put laws in place to prevent the accidents that it would definitely help the statistics of accidental gun deaths. However, another participant expressed his belies that having these laws on the federal level is that it could receive backlash from those who feel that these laws are unnecessary to have. An NRA member responded that adults are the ones who are responsible for teaching their kids about their guns and how to safely handle them. In addition to CAP laws this approach raised the question if government should enact a gun storage law, mimicking laws in Massachusetts. This law would state that guns must be stored at all times, except when in use, in a secure locked container, or in a safe place with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock.[3] ?We asked participants if they felt this would help decrease those incidents where a child accidentally harm themselves because a person negligently left out a firearm. Similar to the answers given in response to a universal gun safety program, one participant questioned these laws for the individuals who would never touch/have a gun, arguing the law may not apply to them. However, once again, another participant posed the question, “what if you are in a situation with a gun?” You need to be able to at least know something in order to handle the situation safely and correctly. In the end, enacting CAP and storage laws remained a tension during the deliberation.Our whole approach has been about what can be done to eliminate accidental gun deaths. We felt in order to achieve this we would need to make gun safety training programs a requirement in all states and create federal laws to mandate gun storage and hold individuals responsible if they are negligent. Overall, the ideas proposed in this approach sparked much discussion and although tension remained on if the government should enact federal gun laws and create a gun safety program. Despite these tensions, common ground was found on the necessity to educate children about gun safety; however, the means of this education remain as a tension. References:Ingraham, Christophe. "At Least 265 People Were Accidentally Shot by Kids This Year." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 31 Dec. 2015. Web. 7 Feb. 2016. "Child Access Prevention Policy Summary." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 1 Aug. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2016. "Chapter 140, Section 131L." General Laws. The 189th General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.Approach 3: Federal Guidelines for Ammunition and Firearm PurchasesPresented by Nancy Bao and Anais MateusThe discussion shifted from looking at how the current gun education programs through the United States could be revised to how we as a nation can form a new program geared towards an older demographic in the country and implementing safety courses in secondary education. From this domestic point, the third approach looked at potential international models for gun regulation in Australia and in the United Kingdom. At the start of this approach discussion, one individual was adamant in reiterating that the United States of America was the only nation with a right allowing citizens to bear arms. The Second Amendment was an obstruction in thought in considering the parts of approaches from other nations as being feasible solutions for the United States of America. The unpopular views of the stringent policies reflected in the survey as only 16.6% strongly agreed that we could learn something from other nations while 33.3% disagreed. The deliberation started with the discussion of the 1996 national gun reform in Australia, which was instigated by the Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were murdered and 23 people were wounded.[1] In the aftermath of what became Australia’s worst mass shooting, the federal government eliminated private firearm sales, imposed a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, developed a federal buy-back program which, collected over 600,000 guns in Australia .[1],[2]The figure below, showing Gun Deaths in Australia pre-law and post-law found in the issue guide, generated many responses that believed that elements of Australia’s plan may have worked. Some believed that an extended background check was not infeasible for U.S. gun owners and buyers. It was important to note though that the negative correlation between gun deaths and time did not indicate causation, which was agreed upon by the general group.Figure showing gun death rates before and after the gun regulation in Australia.[8]An individual raised the issue of the differences in gun culture between the United States and Australia, noting such limitations in gun ownership could not be feasible for the United States because of our large gun ownership. The individual continued to inquire about the population demographic that own guns in Australia, which was unclear amongst the group. One member the group noted that he believed that most gun owners in Australian were those who hunted for sport, although this statement was not justified with reputable sources. This portion of the discussion opened up the idea that Australian policies may be excessively radical for American legislation.The discussion then turned away from Australia and onto the United Kingdom. Based on evidence, the United Kingdom, along with Australia has the strictest gun laws of any country in the world. These laws stemmed back to World War I, through various stages with Parliament’s Firearms Act of 1997. The final stage of the act was after the Dunblane massacre in 1996 in which sixteen schoolchildren were shot and killed.[3] The act universally banned all handguns to the public along with a set strict requirements to obtain a firearms certificate— including longer waiting periods for background checks, and a gun safety course before purchasing the gun.[3] An individual brought up a similarity between the United Kingdom laws, and the United States: In order to obtain a hunting license, specifically Pennsylvania, and individual must go through a gun safety course prior to obtaining a license. They then added that this mandate varies from state to state. The rising question of this approach was: “Should we follow suit? Also, should it be a federal standard?” Consequently, the group was split on this issue with each side having 49.9%. The deliberation then shifted their focus to the last segment of this approach: “Should the government impose regulations on ammunitions?” The example that was brought up in the discussion included the state policies of Washington and Oregon. Both state courts, respectively, have proposed taxation on bullets. Specifically, the Seattle Firearms Act of 2015 established a tax on gun and ammunition sale in the city of Seattle, Washington.[4] Tim Burgess, the Council President, firmly stated that, “the tax of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition is expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars annually that will be set aside for gun-violence-prevention and research programs.”[5] In rebuttal, an individual brought up the possibility that ammunition taxation would increase the number of black markets, and illegal firearms trade, only worsening the gun problem in our country. Post-deliberation, there were mixed views on whether or not the United States should implement an ammunition tax for gun owners as 33.3%were in favor, 33.3% opposed of the tax proposal, while 16.6% were not sure.A gentleman not in the initial group had joined the deliberation at this moment to share his frustrations of creating limitations on bulk ammunition purchases for law-abiding citizens. He brought up one of the tradeoff points mentioned in the issue guide, which was inhibiting law-abiding citizens from bulk ammunitions would obstruct their ability to purchase ammunition for discounts. He notes this as an issue because ammunition is already an expensive buy and bulk purchases allow for people to make smart investments since bullets do not go bad. While he introduced the other side of the argument, participants also recounted the lack of regulation that allowed James Holmes and the San Bernardino couple to purchase over 6000 rounds of ammunition. [6],[7] At the conclusion of the deliberation, over 66 percent of the participants strongly supported the implementation of a universal background check for all citizens. However, when we discussed extending the background check to ammunition purchases, participants remained mixed on the subject. The idea of having a federal takeover of the ammunition industry struck discordance with certain participants. The discussion became focused on the taxation of ammunition and the impractical nature of limiting the individual sellers in each of the states. One individual brought up the point that instituting background checks and waiting periods would not obstruct a legal buyer from obtaining a gun. The exchange would be patience for security of the nation. However, this point was not continued. While a participant highlighted the need for consistency in the nation, the group was mixed on implementation of ammunition tax as a means of neutralizing the inconsistencies. These tensions and common grounds were further discussed in the summary. References:1.?Oremus, Will. "How Many Shootings Will It Take for America to Control Its Guns?" Slate. The Slate Group, 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. <, Katie. "Are Australia's Gun Laws the Solution for the US? - BBC News." BBC News. BBC, 9 Dec. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. <. Hawkins, Awr. "How Gun Control Made England The 'Most Violent Country In Europe' - Breitbart." Breitbart News. Breitbart, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.<. Beekman, Daniel. "Tax on Gun, Ammo Sales Passes but There Could Be a Battle Ahead." The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times, 10 Aug. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.<. Johnson, Natalie. "Seattle Approves New Tax on Guns, Ammunition." The Daily Signal. Daily Signal, 11 Aug. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.<. ?Healy, Jack. "Suspect Bought Large Stockpile of Rounds Online." The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 July 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. <. Keneally, Meghan. "San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say." ABC News. ABC News Network, 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 18 Feb. 2016. < Reference:8. , and Andy Kiersz. Gun Deaths in Australia. Digital image. Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 03 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Feb. 2016. <;. SummaryPresented by Elise Bingaman and Reilly EbbsThe gun debate in our country has been a very important topic to many people from all walks of life. With mass shootings and accidental gun deaths in the news media constantly, it is no wonder people have developed their own varied opinions on what to do. The gun culture here is unique to the United States. There are a multitude of reasons one may own a gun, from personal protection to sport, and there are some who never want to own a gun at all. This variation of values and beliefs creates an interesting platform for discussion of gun regulation in the United States. We held a deliberation in the community where we presented 3 approaches to minimizing gun violence in our country. We had a wide range of opinions on the issue, and there was a lot of disagreement. However, there was not only disagreement. There were moments when everyone in the group was able to come to a consensus on certain issues. This leads me to believe that in this country there are things we can do to help our gun violence problem.Within our specific deliberation group, we had a man who was a member of the NRA, and has owned a gun for sport-related purposes for many years. We also had some members who were completely against gun ownership. Although this created some tension, all members of the group agreed that safety education on guns is important for school-aged children. There was disagreement on how this should be implemented, but no one argued against the concept of educating children about gun safety. All members also agreed that background checks should be performed on all individuals who hope to own a gun. Many wanted this to be federally regulated, but one member wanted to keep this right at the state level. Finally, all members agreed that there is inconsistency in purchasing guns. This ties back in with the idea of background checks for all. There was disagreement on many of the other topics discussed, such as implementation of background checks, the federal government’s role, whether we should create a national database for gun owners, and if there should be a waiting period for gun purchases. There was also disagreement about ammunition, and whether it should be taxed or limited in its purchase. At this point in the discussion, one man who was not part of the discussion stood up and shared his personal experiences with ammunition purchases. He gave the group background on why someone may buy a large amount of bullets at one time, which offered a different perspective on an issue the rest of the group didn’t have much experience with. ?These different perspectives allowed for a very diverse and substantive conversation. ?Based on the three approaches there were varied perspectives and opinions. ?Listed below are more statistical analyses of the agreements and disagreements reached at the deliberation. The approach concerning preventing loopholes within gun regulations and purchasing through means such as straw purchasing opinions varied greatly:Getting rid of loopholes in the gun purchasing system could benefit society as a whole66% of the participants agreed/strongly agreed ?33% of participants disagreedOne individual said, “While I disagree with stronger regulations, I think consistency and education are key”. ?The most disagreement was on regulations and what the role of the federal government should be in this issue. ?However, we found the most agreement on education. ?Educating children on the potentially harmful consequences of guns would help prevent accidental shootings. 100% of participants agreed/strongly agreedChildren are a sensitive topic and their protection is something most of America takes very seriously. ?Our one NRA participant strongly agreed with educating children, which shows no matter how conservative and pro-gun someone is, the safety of children is a priority. ??Another point of majority agreement was the implementation of background checks. ?These Individuals were in agreement that background checks served a major purpose in gun safety without severely hinging on the second amendment right. ?Implement a universal background check for all citizens. 5/6 participants agreed/strongly agreed1/6 participants somewhat disagreed One of the major disagreements concerned the approach about taxing ammunition. ?In the Colorado movie theatre shooting this man purchased a mass amount of bullets before killing over a dozen people. ?After presenting this scenario to the group we heard varying opinions. ?One man said when he hunts he buys thousands of bullets so this would impact the hunting culture. ?Another man mentioned people might be purchasing bullets in bulk to save trips to the store. ?Overall, there was major contention with this question:The United States should implement an ammunition tax for gun owners. 2/6 participants strongly agreed 2/6 participants strongly disagreed2/6 participants were unsure ????Taxing ammunition would be a way to crack down on mass purchases that could pose a threat to the public, but it also places tight regulations on people just looking to shoot as a sport. ?This approach poses conflict for those defending the second amendment because it is a loophole in the constitution. ?This deliberation brought in several varying opinions. ?Several individuals took very anti-gun stances, some in the middle, and one very pro-gun. ?Two individuals said because of the NRA participant's opinions they see “gun owner’s side better” and “I better understand the NRA-a clearer picture of the thinking of a responsible gun owner”. ?This discussion allowed for people to learn more about gun culture in the U.S., and see different perspectives, which was overall the goal of this conversation. ?Because the most common agreement was focused on education specifically with children a solution would be to implement educational courses in schools on gun safety. ?Furthermore creating more awareness for parents to realize their children are learning about gun safety and the conversations should continue at home. ?Education should also be mandated for those purchasing guns. ?Proper storage, usage and maintenance are all necessary for educating gun owners. ?Because this is a sensitive topic with many diverse views education is the first step and only sound solution at this point that doesn’t infringe on rights and doesn’t require too much federal government involvement. ???Statement:Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagreeNot surePrivate purchasing makes it easier for the wrong people to purchase guns. 88.3%16.6%Straw Purchasing should be stopped to prevent more wrongful gun deaths. 66.7%33.3%Getting rid of loopholes in the gun purchasing system could benefit society as a whole. 66.7%33.3%Educating children on the potentially harmful consequences of guns would help prevent accidental shootings 50.0%50.0%We can learn things from the way other countries have handled mass shootings 16.6%33.3%16.6%33.3%The United States government should regulate the purchase and usage of guns more than they do now. 33.3%16.6%33.3%16.6%16.6%StatementStrongly FavorSomewhat FavorSomewhat Oppose Strongly OpposeNot Sure Implement a universal background check for all citizens 66.6%16.6%16.6%The United States should keep better records of who is selling and purchasing firearms. 50.0%16.6%33.3%Licensed gun vendors should be required to observe their customers more closely to reduce the risk of irresponsible gun owners. 33.3%16.6%16.6%33.3%Create a behavior-based gun-safety training program for children to prevent accidental shootings. 83.3%16.6%Implement gun education programs into the public school system. 50.0%33.3%16.6%The United States should implement an ammunition tax for gun owners. 16.6%16.6%33.3%33.3%Increase regulation of gun purchases with the help of the national government. 16.6%33.3%33.3%16.6%Have stricter regulations for people who wish to purchase guns. 50.0%16.6%16.6%16.6%Question:YesNoAre you thinking differently about this issue now that you have participated in the deliberation?16.6%83.3%Did you experience new perspectives in this deliberation that challenged your current beliefs?83.3%16.6% ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.