I happened into a conversation regarding gun control. I had little to contribute because I really didn’t know a lot about the debate. So I educated myself with some research…

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) there have been approximately 223 million guns made available to United States citizens “from the end of the nineteenth century to the near-close of the twentieth” (Lindeen, 2010). An estimated 80% of those 223 million guns were manufactured in the United States. There are estimated numbers showing 77 million handguns, 79 million long rifles, and 66 million shotguns. These numbers will continue to increase every year (Lindeen, 2010). Pro-gun lobbyists say “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and the anti-gun advocates want to take away the right to bear arms.

The most powerful interest group involved in the pro-gun debate is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA is the largest gun advocate in the United States. They use their political lobby efforts to help limit the laws that the government passes gun control. There have been Eight U.S. presidents that hold NRA memberships. They have opposed every firearm regulation presented “from the 1934 National Firearm Act, which banned machine guns, to the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” (Medlock, 2005). There are many groups on the pro-gun side along with the NRA, but there are few that are as politically active. Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. Over the last 30 years, GOA claims to have built a nationwide network of attorneys to “help fight court battles in almost every state in the nation to protect gun owner rights. “GOA staff and attorneys have also worked with members of Congress, state legislators and local citizens to protect gun ranges and local gun clubs from closure by overzealous government anti-gun bureaucrats.” (GOA, 2015) The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) is another very active group dedicated to protecting firearms rights. Their role is to “educate grass root activists, the public, legislators and the media.” (CCRKBA, 2015) Their programs are designed to help all Americans understand the importance of the Second Amendment and its role in keeping Americans free.

There are as many anti-gun groups to counter whatever the pro-gun groups try to accomplish. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1974. They claim to seek to “secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.” (CSGV, 2015) Their organizational structure is made up of 47 national organizations. Their members include religious organizations, child welfare advocates, public health professionals, and social justice organizations. CSGV claim to be taking an aggressive approach with political advocacy stating “The era of no accountability is over. If you do the NRA’s bidding and put our loved ones in the line of fire, we will educate your constituents about your record.” (CSGV, 2015) Their strategy involves the use of social media campaigns and ‘hard-hitting’ TV, radio and print ads.

The Violence Policy Center (VPC), another non-profit organization that works to “stop this annual toll of death and injury through research, advocacy, education, and collaboration.” (VPC, 2015) The VPC contends that the gun industry has exploited the fact that firearms are the only consumer products that are not regulated by a federal agency for health and safety. The VPC believes that “the answer to reducing gun violence lies in applying the decades-long lessons of consumer product safety regulation and injury prevention to the gun industry and its products. (VPC, 2015)

Vice President Joe Biden has been holding meetings with a wide variety of interested parties on gun issues, including the National Rifle Association. The apparent intent is to expand the conversation and appeal to the public to support more gun laws. The White House is expected to propose significant strategies on guns and violence in the near term. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. is the House Judiciary Committee Chairman and he stated to the National Journal that “gun control is not something that I would support.” Republicans are expected to wait until Joe Biden’s recommendations come out before they respond. Other Democrats on Capitol Hill are attacking the gun issue from various angles that are not necessarily related to Biden’s plan. Rep. House Democratic task force on gun issues is led by Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and that group is expected to release a set of proposals as well. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., has introduced four separate proposals; “one to ban high-capacity ammunition that allows several bullets to be fired in seconds, one that would require face-to-face purchasing of bullets, and two that would bolster background checks for gun buyers, particularly at gun shows.” (National Journal, 2015)
Of course public opinion polls are prevalent as well. They show that “the public is receptive to restrictions on gun ownership, particularly in terms of preventing criminal records from obtaining them. (That idea was endorsed by 95 percent of respondents to a CNN poll in December.) There is less agreement on other ideas. The same poll found only 62 percent of respondents favored banning assault weapons or high-capacity ammo, and only half of the men in the poll supported those options.” (National Journal, 2015)
So it seems the debate will continue as lobbyists, special interest groups, and politicians all clamber to set their agendas at the forefront of the conversation. Many ideas and laws will be proposed and many ideas and laws will be denied. Somewhere along the way perhaps, there will be common sense legislation applied to effectively satisfy the majority…perhaps not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
References:
Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “The Common Sense Gun Lobby” Retrieved April 10, 2015 http://www.ccrkba.org/

Gun Owners of America -2015 Retrieved November 22, 2015
http://gunowners.org/

Lindeen, Lance (2010) “Keep Off the Grass!: An Alternative Approach to the Gun Control Debate,” Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 85: Iss.4, Article 15. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol85/iss4/15

The National Journal, Gun Control Democrats Throwing Out Lots of Options on Gun Control
By Fawn Johnson Retrieved November 22, 2015
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/democrats-throwing-out-lots-of-options-on-gun-control-20130110

Second Amendment. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved November 22, 2015
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

The Skills Approach is the belief that people aren’t born to be leaders, which means that people become leaders by learning and changing their behavior in ways that the person will benefit their group and make sure the group achieves their goal (Northouse, 2013). This approach also presents that in order for someone to be a leader, the person needs to have a positive impact on their followers so that he or she can help each follower with their responsibilities and ensure that each of them get their job done. This approach contradicts the traits approach, which states that people are born as leaders, people can’t and don’t learn to behave in ways that leaders do, and those who are leaders naturally have what it takes to be a leader (Northouse, 2013). From my previous experience working in various restaurants and being involved in many organizations, I have been surrounded by people who strongly believe in the Skills Approach, and I know others that solely abide by the Trait Approach. A particular example of when I’ve been involved in an organization where the leaders didn’t believe that people could learn and become leaders was a student-ran club called The Nittany Consulting Group. When I wanted to be a leader, they didn’t allow me to be one because of their ridiculous mentality that I didn’t have what it takes, when they never gave me the chance to learn or give my input. Ironically, my involvement in the organization only benefitted The Nittany Consulting Group and various members in this organization praised me for my contributions to the organization. Therefore, if the executive board changed their mentality and went with the Skills Approach, I could’ve made even more of a beneficial impact while I was a member of the group. Therefore, an author by the name of Peter Northouse would probably consider this scenario to be a very limited “social performance”, which is being able to persuade others, discuss changes to be made, and eventually make changes (Northouse, 2013, p. 50). Hence, this is an example of a group of people that strongly believe in the Trait Approach, which they clearly expressed to me and they experienced a downfall in their organization due to their unwillingness in giving me an opportunity to be more of a leader of the group.

Northouse would also likely view this as the executive board being unable to address “Behavioral Flexibility” due to the following reasons: One of the executive board members of this group was successful in running another organization and the rest of the executive board members would agree with everything she would say to do. The executive board members gave her too much power and she wouldn’t bother listening to others since she would never consider anyone else’s perspective. In relation to this example, “Behavior Flexibility is “the capacity to change and adapt one’s behavior in the light of an understanding of others’ perspectives in the organization” (Northouse, 2013, p. 50). Therefore, this particular member of the executive board was definitely unable to express “Behavior Flexibility” and this had a tremendously harmful impact on the amount this group could have received in donations and fundraising.

An additional opinion that Northouse would have of this scenario would be that this is an example of a bias in “social perceptiveness” since he’s stated that “social perceptiveness” is the “insight and awareness into how others in the organization function” (Northouse, 2013, p. 50). He would consider my experience to be a bias in “social perceptiveness” since this particular executive board member never thought about how my contributions and my committee’s contributions on fundraising efforts would benefit the organization. She denied every idea that I had and that my committee members had in order for us to spend our own time trying to raise money for our organization so we could have raised a lot more money than we did. Not only did she deny every idea that we had, she didn’t provide any ideas of her own. That being said, she didn’t give us any ideas of how she wanted us to plan events to receive donations. Therefore, this is an example that clearly represents how this particular executive board member, who is considered as a “great leader of the organization” has a lack of “social perceptiveness”.

 

 

Reference

1. Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.