Question: How does tension between the N.R.A and gun protesters affect the process of gun control laws in America?

In March of 2014, the National Rifle Association held its convention in Indianapolis  with the slogan “Stand and Fight.” Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the National Rifle Association spoke out during the convention with a firm belief in gun ownership for American citizens. He says, “There are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers … I ask you: do you trust the government to protect you? We are on our own … The things we care about most are changing … It’s why more and more Americans are buying firearms and ammunition.” David Britt, a gun owner at one of the N.R.A.’s conventions in 2012, agrees with LaPierre’s arguments about the issue of gun control in America. “It’s about independence and freedom,” Britt says, believing in the fact that guns are a necessity in this country in order to fight back against an oppressive government. Many gun owners who support the ideas of Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Britt mainly agree on one fundamental fact about gun control: an increase of gun control laws is a direct violation to the second amendment and will ultimately lead into tyranny and oppression. (Younge, “Gun Ownership Is a Dangerous Part of the American Identity.”)

The arguments brought up by LaPierre and Britt seem to be controversial in America due to recent events. With the recent mass shootings that have occurred throughout America the past few decades, many Americans demand Congress to take action to do something about these tragedies in order to prevent similar events from happening. A survey conducted by Quinnipiac University in 2014 asked Americans about their beliefs on gun control. Over 97 percent of Americans support the necessity of “universal background checks” and over 50 percent of American gun owners supported stricter gun laws. However, Congress has failed to enact such impactful legislations that restrict gun ownership and distribution in America. As more Americans speak out about the dangers of gun ownership and mass shootings in the country it begs the question: why isn’t Congress doing anything? (Pfau, “Bright lines or blurred lines? Universal background checks and the NRA slippery slope argument.”)

One of the main factors of Congress being unable to pass laws restricting gun controls is because of influences from both the N.R.A. and gun rights activists. Although many Americans have taken to the streets to speak out and protest, and even writing to Congress demanding for change, the N.R.A. still has a heavy influence. Despite the majority of the American population supporting gun control, the N.R.A.’s influence has allowed them to successfully push certain legislations to their favor. Since the 1990’s, the N.R.A. has been targeting the heart of what most gun legislations are based on, which would be studies of the effects of gun control on gun-related violence and crimes. In 2012, they were able to use their influence in Florida in order to push through legislation that would punish doctors if they asked patients if they owned guns. Even in former President Obama’s health care legislation, there is a little-known provision that prevents government and health care insurers from asking people about gun ownership. (“How the NRA Wields its Influence”)

Therefore, the impact of the NRA goes beyond just speaking out against gun laws that violate the second amendment. The organization has not only directly pushed for legislation in their favor but has actually changed it to ensure that gun rights advocates do not have their way. Such legislations disable the further research to generate substantial evidence of gun control having an effect on gun violence, which suggests gun policies to be reformed or the way people obtain firearms should be reformed in new ways. The delayed research of gun violence in America helps the NRA due to the effects it has on passing stricter gun laws. The lack of evidence produced due to little or no research does not allow those who push for more gun reforms to build a strong enough case that could ultimately allow the passing of more gun control legislations.

As a result, the effect that the tensions held between the two groups has on American society can be seen as a negative one. The disagreements between the two sides has led Congress unable to enact real change to prevent future mass shootings. The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Center of Disease Control had done extensive research on the effect of U.S. gun legislations on violent crimes and murders. They concluded that “based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work [and] the panel couldn’t identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.” The evidence concludes that although many attempts to prevent mass shootings by the government, none of the legislations passed have done much to impact gun violence in America. This is because the N.R.A. opposes stricter gun laws while gun rights advocates support these laws, yet they both agree on the same thing; to prevent tragedies caused by mass shootings to occur. It can be difficult for Congress to put in place legislation that will work because of such circumstances. Both sides want less mass shootings but want it achieved in different ways. (Williamsen, “GETTING RID OF GUNS: Americans are nearly unanimous about the need to reduce mass shootings, but not about needing more gun control. That’s because evidence shows fewer guns mean more deaths.”)

On one side of the argument, the CEO of the N.R.A., Mr. LaPierre believes in the idea of self-reliance within society, to not trust the government, and that “each person should be responsible for saving themselves.”  Such ideologies bring upon a culture that praises self-reliance and defense without the government, that one should “defend yourself, because by the time the police get there you’ll be dead.” (Younge, “Gun Ownership Is a Dangerous Part of the American Identity.”) LaPierre’s beliefs and ideologies spread to the very organization that he runs, the N.R.A., and as a result, his stance is backed by a multi-million dollar organization with millions of supporters. Therefore, the large amount of support gives him the capacity to locally and nationally fund politicians that support his viewpoints at an unparalleled level. According to the Federal Election Commission, the N.R.A.’s Political Victory Fund has raised over $2.5 million dollars in March of 2018, the highest monthly amount raised since 2003. This was shortly after the events of the Parkland shooting in Florida, as the organization continues to make efforts to oppose the demands proposed by angered gun control activists. This is not the only case, however, as the organization also spoke out during the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. The N.R.A. faced criticism from both sides after the Sandy Hook shooting when Mr. LaPierre had blamed the lack of armed guards at the school for the cause of the tragedy. (“US Gun Control: What is the NRA and Why is it so Powerful?”)

Despite the majority of the American population opposing the beliefs of the N.R.A., the organization is still able to have power and influence within the government due to its large population and its agreement on their stance of gun control. In November of 1993, the Brady Bill was passed by the Senate, in which citizens must have a mandatory five business day waiting period for buying handguns. This allows law officials to conduct background checks of the buyer before they have possession of the handgun. However, the main opposition to this bill was the NRA. “Nine out of ten Americans support the Brady Bill; five out of six gun owners support it; every major national law enforcement group supports it; doctors and nurses support it; teachers support it; students support it–everyone supports this bill…. The only significant opposition to the Brady Bill comes from the leadership of the National Rifle Association.” (Kahane, “Gun Lobbies and Gun Control: Senate Voting Patterns on the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.”)

It is clearly seen that the majority of Americans disagree with the NRA, so why does the organization still have an influence on the government? It is true that the NRA itself holds no political power when it comes to passing legislation. However, those in power such as the senators, can control which policies are passed or not:

“Previous research [Kahane, 1996] has shown that senators tend to vote against policies that may have adverse economic consequences on their constituency. In the present case, this may come in the form of increased unemployment. That is, if these two bills restrict the sale of firearms and related ammunition, then this could potentially reduce employment in these industries. As such, senators representing states where this manufacturing takes place may oppose the two bills to minimize worker displacement in these industries.” (Kahane, “Gun Lobbies and Gun Control: Senate Voting Patterns on the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.”)

Regardless of the policy’s moral and ethical standing, it is in the best interest of the senators to pass the policies which the community favors and oppose policies that the community is against in order to maintain political power and be re-elected. The NRA plays a big role in this due to its large number of members and its large budget:

“the NRA and HCI were the two most active lobby groups in these two votes. Both have contributed to the reelection campaign funds of many senators. This being the case, it is expected that a senator would be inclined to support the political position of these contributors. Specifically, senators who received a large proportion of their campaign funds from the NRA would be more likely to oppose the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban.” (Kahane, “Gun Lobbies and Gun Control: Senate Voting Patterns on the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.”)

This is another example in which the NRA has continued to influence government to satisfy their needs. The funding of campaigns for senator elections allows the NRA to directly put those in power that will support their views and pass the legislation that they want.

However, due to the abundance of mass shootings in America in recent years, the majority of the American population pressure Congress to take action on this issue. The 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller had given “gun rights activists what they had campaigned for since the 1970s: a ruling that the Second Amendment encompassed an individual right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense.” (Long, “Why So Silent? The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment Debate After DC v. Heller”) The case was held for the purpose of re-evaluating the Second Amendment for terms that were more suitable in today’s society, rather than the 1800’s:

the Heller legacy included heightened controversy over Second Amendment originalism, interpretations of Heller by lower courts that drew heavily on the limits to gun ownership recognised by the majority, [and] an increasingly bitter political divide over the meaning of the Second Amendment, (Long, “Why So Silent? The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment Debate After DC v. Heller”)

Tensions between conservative groups supporting gun ownership and the majority of the American population supporting strict gun control had resulted in this Supreme Court case, as both sides had different interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Overall, the tensions between the two groups ultimately have a negative effect on American society. The arguments brought up by both sides are logical. Gun rights and gun control activists both agree mass shootings must be stopped, but they believe it should be done in different methods. Gun control activists want laws that restrict citizens from purchasing and owning more guns. However, gun rights activists believe such laws take away certain freedoms stated in the Bill of Rights. The methods desired by the two groups are on opposite sides of the spectrum, so it can be difficult for Congress to pass laws that can satisfy everyone. This, unfortunately, ultimately results in ineffective legislation that questions the safety of our country.

Works Cited

“US Gun Control: What Is the NRA and Why Is It so Powerful?” BBC News, BBC, 8 Jan.           2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394.

Bidgood, Jess, and Sabrina Tavernise. “Do Gun Owners Want Gun Control? Yes, Some Say,         Post-Parkland.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Apr. 2018,            www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/gun-owners-laws-parkland.html.

KAHANE, LEO H. “Gun Lobbies and Gun Control: Senate Voting Patterns on the Brady Bill       and the Assault Weapons Ban.” Atlantic Economic Journal, Dec. 1999, p. 384. Academic   OneFile, https://link-galegroup-com.ccny    proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A58186136/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xi            =29b31391. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.

Long, Emma. “Why So Silent? The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment Debate Af…”

S.A.P.I.EN.S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, Institut            Veolia Environnement, 31 July 2017, journals.openedition.org/ejas/11874.

“How the NRA wields its influence.” CNN Wire, 9 Jan. 2013. Global Issues in Context,    https://link-galegroup-com.ccny    proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A314361920/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=OVIC&xi            =20076398. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.

Pfau, Michael William. “Bright lines or blurred lines? Universal background checks and the NRA slippery slope argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 53, no. 3-4, 2017, p.    253+. Academic OneFile, https://link-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A543611051/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=           0a6c4cb. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.

Williamsen, Kurt. “GETTING RID OF GUNS: Americans are nearly unanimous about the           need to reduce mass shootings, but not about needing more gun control. That’s because      evidence shows fewer guns mean more deaths.” The New American, 23 Apr. 2018, p.    19+. Academic OneFile, https://link-galegroup-com.ccny         proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A538119082/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&            d=03c977cd. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.

Younge, Gary. “Gun Ownership Is a Dangerous Part of the American Identity.” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,    https://link-galegroup-com.ccny            proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/KAKNBU766087799/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=            VIC&xid=ef66b018. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018. Originally published as “Why Americans    won’t give up their guns,” Guardian, 6 Oct. 2017.