Implementation Analysis of U.S. Federal Gun Policy Report

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the implementation of U.S. federal gun policy, addressing the increasing number of firearm-related deaths in the United States. It examines the indicators of effective policy implementation, such as the decrease in mass shootings and suicide rates, and explores the variations in policy implementation across different organizations. The report delves into the reasons behind these variations, including differing viewpoints on gun control and the complexities of enforcing regulations. It also offers recommendations for improving policy implementation, emphasizing the need for universal background checks, restrictions on certain types of firearms, and psychological evaluations for gun purchasers. The report highlights the impact of gun violence and the importance of proper policy implementation to save lives, referencing statistics and research findings to support its arguments. It also discusses the role of businesses in addressing gun control and the importance of a unified approach to effectively address gun violence.

Running head: IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
Introduction
In recent years, the United States has been seen to record a high number of firearm-
related deaths. According to the reports provided by "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)," there were 39,773 deaths in 2017, a drastic increase from the reports in previous years,
which is a matter of concern (Castillo-Carniglia et al., 2018). These statistics show that there is a
need for the proper implementation of gun policies in the U.S. to reduce firearm-related crime
and violence. Gun control is a divisive issue in the United States, where a group of citizens wants
stricter gun policies. In contrast, the other group fears for their safety, as they would then be
unable to protect themselves (Webster & Wintemute, 2015). The following report presents the
indicators for the effective implementation of the policy, assesses the variation in the
implementation of the policy in different organizations, provides reasons for the possible
variations in the implementation, and lastly, gives recommendations for improvement in the
policy implementation.
Indicators of implementation effectiveness of policy
In the U.S., almost every person owns a gun, and it is seen as a fundamental right because
the constitution states that they have the right to own guns. Mass shootings in the United States
has become extremely common in the U.S. The mass shootings at Las Vegas, the Pulse nightclub
in Orlando, the movie theater in Aurora and at the Virginia Tech are only some of the few
examples of the uncontrolled and sociopathic mindset of the shooter who mindlessly indulges in
killing people (Kalesan, Weinberg & Galea, 2016). To stop this, there needs to be a proper
implementation of the U.S. federal Gun control policy. The recent statistics show that the
number of mass shootings had increased in the year 2019 than in the previous years. There were

2IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
417 mass shootings reported in the U.S., as reported by the non-profit organization "Gun
Violence Archive (GVA)" that tracks every mass shooting in the country.
A recent study showed that the states that had less strict gun laws and more gun
ownership had recorded higher rates of mass shootings and gun violence. When the statistics on
the reports of death caused by gun violence in the years 2017 to 2019 are analyzed, then it can be
seen that the rates have decreased in recent years. There were 39773 deaths reported in the year
2017, and that reduced to 1242 deaths in the year 2019 (Fleegler, 2019). This indicates the
effective implementation of gun policy. Another indicator of the effective implementation of the
gun policy is the decrease in the suicide rates in the country. A study showed that the suicide
rates had declined in the year 2017 in states where there was a provision of universal background
checks and waiting period laws (Lopez, 2018). The practical implementation of the policy is also
highlighted by the decrease in gun injury rates. There were lesser homicide rates, and that was
associated with the reliable implementation of the background checks and restrictions imposed
on the purchasing laws in the country (Castillo-Carniglia et al., 2018). Universal background
checks of the people had reported that there was nearly a drop in the homicide rates by 15 %.
To understand the effectiveness of the implementation, a study was prepared, and the
results computed to determine the effects. Scientific research can provide the most reliable proof
of the research analysis. After reviewing the effectiveness of the policies on the organization, the
effects on the outcomes were reviewed. Evidence showed that the background checks might have
a hand in decreasing the suicide rates and that the concealed-carry laws can increase violent
crime (Butchart & Mikton, 2014). The four outcomes included defensive gun use, hunting and
recreation, officer-involved shootings, and mass shootings. The effect of the policy after its
implementation saw that there was a considerable decrease in the intentional self-injuries and

3IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
deaths; however, the effect on defensive gun use did not provide any conclusive evidence.
Indicators of effective gun control policy are simply not restricted to the decrease in the rate of
mass shootings and suicide rates; nonetheless, they are the most important ones. Other indicators
were when people with a history of a violent misdemeanor were prevented from carrying any
guns that decreased the rates in crime. In another instance, if a person bought a gun to sell it to
other people, that was seen as a reason for the increase in crime rates. Disallowing such people
from purchasing guns reduced crime rates as well. America is a country that has the most relaxed
gun control rules when compared to other countries, and that is another reason that people have
easy access to it, and that threatens the lives of other people. Research done in 2016 showed that
when new regulations were applied to owning and purchasing guns, that was followed by a
decrease in gun violence in the country (Resnick et al. 2017). This is a reliable indicator, which
gives hope that restricting access to weapons like guns can be a boon for saving the lives of
millions and millions of people.
Variation in the implementation of different organizations
There are variations in the implementation of the U.S. Federal Gun Policy in the country
across various organizations, fields, and frontlines. In the wake of an increase in gun violence
and mass shootings, various organisations in the country needed to take a stand on the policy.
Many American businesses were seen to take a stand on gun control. For instance, America's
largest sporting goods suppliers, Dick's, had announced that it would increase the minimum age
to 21 for whoever buys guns and ammunition. They also announced that they would no longer
sell military-style weapons anymore (Hemenway, 2017). This stand of the company did end up
in controversy as some said that businesses should not involve themselves in political and
cultural debates. However, research showed that more than 50% of the people were more likely

4IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
to purchase from a brand that spoke on such controversial issues rather than those companies
who did not (Siegel et al., 2017).
Individual other companies have been reported not to implement the policies effectively
enough. To stop such gun violence, corporate America was called on to stop all kinds of business
dealings with the gun sellers in the way many companies have done, such as PayPal, Apple Pay,
Square, and Stripe (Cukier & Eagen, 2018). The approach towards the implementation of gun
policies in different organizations differs along various grounds. Some organizations have
accepted the implementation of background checks of the people who want to purchase guns,
and a ban on semiautomatic weapons too was suggested. However, not all organizations agree
with the same process and procedure to go about the task. Many problems arise when talking
about the implementation of the policies in these organizations. The heads of the organization
were not in synchronicity with the implementation of the gun policy, which makes it challenging
to bring proper changes in the organization. Some heads were in favor of dealing with the gun
sellers and also supported that there should be a ban on the automated weapons and restrictions
imposed on the purchase of the guns by the citizens (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015). Specific
concerns were raised by the heads where they felt that there was no need for the citizens to buy
weapons. Others felt that if they did not carry weapons, then it would become difficult for them
to protect themselves from the attackers. There cause for concern was mainly in terms of self-
defense. However, it is essential to note here that carrying guns for self-defense is not a solution
for saving lives, as that would not affect the criminals from committing crimes and shooting
others. For example, the mass shootings in various schools was a pure display of psychopathic
and sociopathic behavior that resulted in so many students losing their lives (McGinty, Webster
& Barry, 2014). So many parents lost the light of their lives because the gun control policy was

5IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
not sufficient enough, and that led to the wrong person having the possession of guns. Such
activities call for the organizations to review the policies and try to implement them correctly for
the same reasons. The heads of the organizations have the details of their employees or
followers, and that makes their data easily accessible to them. This can help them in maintaining
background checks. A psychological evaluation for every person is a must for people who apply
for the purchasing of guns as this would help in keeping track of their data and make it easy for
the organization to decide as to whether the person is perfectly capable of carrying a gun in such
a case.
The outcome of the implementation of the policy is based on the individuals and the
processes at the frontline. The heads have different goals and ideas regarding the implementation
of the policy in the organization. The outcomes showed that proper background checks and
increasing the minimum age for possession of guns decreased the rates in suicide and mass
shootings (Marino et al., 2016). The terrible mass shootings in schools where many innocent
students lost their lives meaninglessly provide an example that gun possession is such a
dangerous thing. Therefore, the proper implementation of the policy is such an essential thing in
the events of recent years. The leaders should take care of their people in the organization and
educate them on the impact of owning a gun without a license. Where many of them believe that
owning a gun helps in the protection they fail to realize that that can have such negative
consequences (Fowler et al., 2015).
Referring to the appendix, the implementation of the policy according to the field map
can be done on two levels, one on an organizational level and the other on a universal level. The
background checks can be done on both the levels while the minimum age should be increased
on a universal level. This would help prevent gun violence in the country. Further to effectively

6IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
implement the gun policy at the organizational level, the psychological evaluation of the person
purchasing a gun is needed, and keeping track of their data is essential as well.
Reasons for the variation in implementation
There can be various reasons for the variation in the implementation of the gun control
policy. As mentioned above, gun control policy is an incredibly divisive topic in America.
Because of such divisive thought process of the citizens of the country, there is a high possibility
that organizations will implement the policies in a different manner (DeGrazia, 2014). The
disagreements are due to the confusion on the part of the people about what the policies would
try to achieve. The opponents of the gun policy believed that adding regulations in the firearm
purchase would not stop the criminals from acquiring weapons or, in any way, reduce crime. The
regulations would trespass against law-abiding gun owners (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015).
Furthermore, the opponents of gun control policy believed that better enforcement of the
current gun laws would improve the mental health services and would be more effective in
preventing mass shootings. When talking about those in favor of the implementation of the gun
control policy said that it would be easier to enact the policy without infringing upon the rights
of the people and the citizens who possess guns (Díez et al., 2017). They believed that the
violence due to the possession of guns would decrease only by the implementation of universal
background checks, mandating longer waiting periods between the purchase of the gun and the
acquisition of the gun. There should be the implementation of restrictions on specific types of
high capacity of guns and limiting the amount of ammunition that a person is legally allowed to
purchase (Kalesan et al., 2016). The organization believed that these points could pose
challenges in the implementation of the policy, and therefore there is variation in the
implementation of the policies in different organizations. Individual heads agreed that there

7IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
should be a minimum age imposed on the purchase of guns that should be sold to people above
the age of twenty-one. The state or local officials can implement higher age restrictions.
However, they are not allowed to lower the federal minimum (Jena, Sun & Prasad, 2014). The
heads of the organization also agreed that the people who would like to purchase guns should be
provided with a document called license that would only be provided to the person after he has
gone through a thorough background check.
Many heads believed that it is violating the personal rights and freedom of the people
when a person goes through such background checks and psychological evaluation. Such
violations of rights are against the constitution and must be avoided. Therefore, there must be
other ways of implementing gun policies to prevent gun crimes. Examples can be taken from
following the gun control policies of other counties across the globe. Canada, for instance, has
stricter gun policies than the United States of America that can provide an excellent example for
the country (Lemieux, 2014). Three classes of weapons include non-restricted, restricted, and
prohibited weapons. A person who wishes to purchase a restricted weapon like handguns and
semiautomatic weapons is needed to obtain a federal registration certificate that is guided by the
rules, according to the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police." In Australia too, there are restrictions
on purchasing guns, and it requires special permission from the National Agreement on Firearms
to gain access and purchase weapons. America, inspired by other countries, should take the U.S.
Federal Gun Control Policy and make it extremely difficult for people to purchase guns
(Masters, 2016). Therefore, being coordinated with the implementation policies would help
reduce gun crimes in the country on a maximum level.

8IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
Recommendations for improvement (technical and adaptive challenges)
The implementation of the gun control policy can be improved along various lines.
Firstly, the heads of the organization need to have a collective mindset in terms of the
implementation. If the heads and the leaders of the organization differ along the lines of the
implementation, then the policy would suffer much. The people would take advantage of the
situation, and the policy would fail to achieve the result. Many of the heads disagreed on gun
ownership. Some said that increasing the minimum was a necessary change that had to be made,
while others thought that such changes would not make any difference in the rates of violence.
Specific other challenges include technical and adaptive challenges. To improve the technical
challenges would include the proper implementation of background checks and a psychological
evaluation of the people wishing to purchase guns. The people should be given proper
instructions as to the regulations in the gun control policy. There should be an establishment of a
culture of gun safety. Those people who are at risk of harming themselves should be identified,
and then the firearm access should be denied to them. The gun industry should be held
accountable, and then there should be adequate monitoring of the marketing and the sale of guns
and ammunition (Kaufman et al., 2018). The organization should be responsible for dealing with
gun dealers and owners. There should be mandatory training and licensing of gun owners. There
should be a safe and secure gun storage facility provided to the gun owners and encouraged to
use only when the need arises to defend themselves from potential threats. The organization
should consider these challenges in the implementation of the policy. Another recommendation
for gaining control over the adaptive challenges in implementing the gun control policy is to
make the people aware of their responsibility towards society. They should be made aware that
gun violence is a critical and significant public health problem that is preventable. Making

9IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
people realize that possessing guns is not the solution for defending themselves against crime
would be another adaptive challenge, as most of the people in America believe that it is their
right to have guns as written in their constitution. They should encourage people to find
comprehensive solutions that support community planning and implementation of safety plans
that include both the prevention and the implementation of the policy. There should be proper
facilities provided to help people who have suffered from gun violence by giving them access o
high quality and culturally competent that is well-coordinated, social and provides emotional,
mental health support to address the trauma (Vizzard, 2014). There should be a prevention
infrastructure that would ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of efforts. A proper
psychological evaluation of the people purchasing guns is the need of the hour and should be
implemented with proper seriousness. There should be a gun violence research carried out in the
science-based organization, and that would be done correctly by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC). There should be an establishment of a comprehensive health system
where violence prevention is a health system responsibility and imperative.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that the gun control policy is an important policy that needs
to be implemented by all organizations. Since there has been a decrease in gun violence, and it
can be said that is has happened due to the effective implementation of the gun policy. However,
there are still certain areas of problem, which can be improved to implement the policy more
effectively. The heads should take more care and understand the importance of implementing the
policy. The problem of gun violence, mass shooting, and other self-harm injuries are all related
to the possession of guns by the people. Therefore, the need for the hour is that the heads of the
organization make decisions in synchronicity to implement the gun control policy in the

10IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
organisational effectiveness. This would keep the people safe, and the future would also remain
in safe hands.

11IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
References
Butchart, A., & Mikton, C. (2014). Global status report on violence prevention, 2014.
Castillo-Carniglia, A., Kagawa, R. M., Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., Cerdá, M., & Wintemute,
G. J. (2018). Comprehensive background check policy and firearm background checks in
three U.S. states. Injury prevention, 24(6), 431-436.
Cukier, W., & Eagen, S. A. (2018). Gun violence. Current opinion in psychology, 19, 109-112.
DeGrazia, D. (2014). The case for moderate gun control. Kennedy institute of ethics
journal, 24(1), 1-25.
Díez, C., Kurland, R. P., Rothman, E. F., Bair-Merritt, M., Fleegler, E., Xuan, Z., & Siegel, M.
(2017). State intimate partner violence–related firearm laws and intimate partner
homicide rates in the United States, 1991 to 2015. Annals of internal medicine, 167(8),
536-543.
Fleegler, E. (2019). Mass Shootings and the Numbing of America. JAMA internal
medicine, 179(5), 610-611.
Fowler, K. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Haileyesus, T., & Annest, J. L. (2015). Firearm injuries in the
United States. Preventive medicine, 79, 5-14.
Hemenway, D. (2017). Reducing firearm violence. Crime and justice, 46(1), 201-230.
Jena, A. B., Sun, E. C., & Prasad, V. (2014). Does the declining lethality of gunshot injuries
mask a rising epidemic of gun violence in the United States?. Journal of general internal
medicine, 29(7), 1065-1069.

12IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
Kalesan, B., Villarreal, M. D., Keyes, K. M., & Galea, S. (2016). Gun ownership and social gun
culture. Injury prevention, 22(3), 216-220.
Kalesan, B., Weinberg, J., & Galea, S. (2016). Gun violence in Americans' social network during
their lifetime. Preventive medicine, 93, 53-56.
Kaufman, E. J., Morrison, C. N., Branas, C. C., & Wiebe, D. J. (2018). State firearm laws and
interstate firearm deaths from homicide and suicide in the United States: a cross-sectional
analysis of data by county. JAMA internal medicine, 178(5), 692-700.
Lemieux, F. (2014). Effect of Gun Culture and Firearm Laws on Gun Violence and Mass
Shootings in the United States: A Multi-Level Quantitative Analysis. International
Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9(1).
Lopez, G. (2018). America's unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and
charts. Vox. Retrieved from https://www. vox.
com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts.
Marino, E., Wolsko, C., Keys, S. G., & Pennavaria, L. (2016). A culture gap in the United States:
implications for policy on limiting access to firearms for suicidal persons. Journal of
public health policy, 37(1), 110-121.
Masters, J. (2016). US gun policy: Global comparisons. New York: Council on Foreign
Relations. http://www. cfr.
org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735.
McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., & Barry, C. L. (2014). Gun policy and serious mental illness:
priorities for future research and policy. Psychiatric Services, 65(1), 50-58.

13IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of
American firearms. American journal of public health, 105(2), 240-249.
Resnick, S., Smith, R. N., Beard, J. H., Holena, D., Reilly, P. M., Schwab, C. W., & Seamon, M.
J. (2017). Firearm deaths in America: can we learn from 462,000 lives lost?. Annals of
Surgery, 266(3), 432.
Siegel, M., Pahn, M., Xuan, Z., Ross, C. S., Galea, S., Kalesan, B., & Goss, K. A. (2017).
Firearm-related laws in all 50 U.S. states, 1991–2016. American Journal of Public Health
(ajph).
Vizzard, W. J. (2014). The current and future state of gun policy in the United States. J. Crim. L.
& Criminology, 104, 879.
Webster, D. W., & Wintemute, G. J. (2015). Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from
high-risk individuals. Annual review of public health, 36, 21-37.

14IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF U.S. FEDERAL GUN POLICY
Appendix
Policy Field Map
Implementation
of gun policy
Background
checks
In an
organisational
level
In a universal
level
Minimum age
requirement
In a universl
level