Zane Moore

A blog focused on discussing Policy in the United States, specifically Policy regarding Guns, Military, Banned Substances, and the Prison System. POLS 2410

[zanemoore]

In addition to Piven’s Theory, there is also Tarrow’s Theory. Sidney Tarrow, is an emeritus professor of political science who is most well known for her theory discussing social movements. According to Tarrow’s Theory, there are five political opportunities that can enable social movements. These opportunities being increased access to political processes, shifting alignments, divided elites, influential allies, repression and facilitation. Out of these, several have began to take shape in the last few years, but the one most applicable to our nation has been that of shifting alignments and then the formation of a strong divide between said alignments. When looking at the political landscape of our nation it is very apparent there is a clear split between alignments and this has created change in many ways, but have yet to see it truly effect gun policy and control in recent years. Most recently, we have seen national frustration with police grow to an all time high and we have seen social action taken to correct an issue we have seen in our national bureaucracy. Is it likely that gun control will be one of the next topics to be addressed? Moving forward, are social movements strong enough alone to continue changing our nation on such drastic scales? Should social movements have the ability to change such integral parts of our nation?

[zanemoore]

Frances Fox Piven is an American professor of political science and sociology that is best known for his theory of social movements. According to his theory of social movements, they are to set to occur when there are numerous members of society that perceive the system as losing legitimacy, people who normally believe they cannot change the system suddenly view an opportunity for change, and people who previously viewed themselves as helpless believe they have the ability to produce a desired change. The most interesting aspect of this theory is that of members of society perceiving the system as losing legitimacy. Legitimacy is commonly not thought of as a term to describe the United States’ political system, however when one is to consider this element of Piven’s Theory it becomes clear. Legitimacy in this scenario means the help and effort put forth by government agencies. The legitimacy of the system has consistently been in question in regards to gun policy and gun control for the past decade. Do you think the questioning of the system is fair? Should U.S. citizens be upset with the government’s handling of firearms? Should there be more push for social movements in regards to gun control in the U.S.?

[zanemoore]

Social capital is defined by Pierre Bordieau as being, “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” So, to simplify this, social capital is the network of relationship that are built by individuals. When people meet and gather they build social capital. This increasing amount of social capital can be useful to all parties involved whether it be the individual, the group, the community, society, or all of these. Social capital is the driving force for the formation of civic associations, community groups, organized religion, and other such organizations. The rallying of these organizations can invoke true change if they have acquired adequate amounts of social capital and have a strong network. Such groups are capable of swaying community and even societal views in favor or not for highly debated topics, one example of this is gun control. In recent history, our political system at all levels, local, state, and federal, have increasingly become a highly heated battle ground for groups to lobby in favor of or against highly controversial topics. These battles have become possible by social capital and the grouping of like-minded individuals.

[zanemoore]

When society discusses what the benefits of nonprofits are they turn to what it is that nonprofits truly do. Nonprofits often intend to fill a gap that is left when a government or market failure is present. These gaps are usually a good or service that is physical and can be seen, but in other instances nonprofits must provide a social good to fill the gap. Social goods are thought of as being trust, social cohesion, tolerance, fellowship, solidarity, and reciprocity. These social goods cannot be seen, but can be felt and experienced in order to improve the quality of life. So, then how do we provide social goods regarding gun control in the U.S.? Obviously there is the opportunity for nonprofits to be formed that provide services such as firearm training and education, but is it functional for a nonprofit to be organized with the mission to provide trust and social cohesion in relation to guns and gun ownership?

[zanemoore]

March For Our Lives is a social movement initiated by the younger generations of Gen Z and Millennials whose mission is, “To harness the power of young people across the country to fight for sensible gun violence prevention policies that save lives,”(MFOL, 2020). The group was formed following the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. The movement draws inspiration from the Freedom Riders movement of the 1960s and they tour the nation to spread their message for change in the nation’s gun regulations. Continuing with the theme from our last post, based on Charles Tilly’s life cycle of social movements, March For Our Lives thus far has been a healthy social movement increasing its following continually since its creation. However, we must wonder if they can effectively continue this trend and keep growing. They have chosen the correct path of selecting young, motivated individuals as their target group. They have also successfully had almost 50,000 new, young voters get registered to vote and vote in past midterm elections. Despite all these, we must ask is the movement capable of continuing its trend? The news sources in the nation tend to chase the hottest story, and as of recent school shootings and acts of violence related to guns have no been making the stage of mainstream media. Social movements do best when people are motivated to help and if they are not being consistently presented with the problem to help with it becomes increasingly difficult. Do you think March For Our Lives will be successful further? Would you support their cause? Is the target demographic of young, newly registered voters an effective one? If you would like more information on the movement feel free to visit their website at: https://marchforourlives.com/

[zanemoore]

Piven introduced a theory related to social movements stating that social movements occur when numerous members of society perceive the system as losing legitimacy, people who normally believe they cannot change the system, suddenly view an opportunity for change, and people who previously viewed themselves as helpless believe they have the ability to produce a desired change. This is an interesting take on social movements because it relies heavily on individualism to drive an individual to go against feelings they initially were feeling and put forth effort to make a difference. Also, though, it relies heavily on groups to form and continue to drive change forward. We often see groups of individuals call out for increased gun control, but you do not often see groups on the steps of the capitol protesting for less gun laws. So, then why is it that, if we follow Piven’s Theory, do people view gun control as an opportunity for change and giving them the ability to produce change? Why is our nation so divided over gun control? Is the public truly that intimidated by weapons? Can we not trust our own neighbors to own firearms? Are we truly worried about our neighbors or is it the “dangerous” individuals who should not have guns?

[zanemoore]

Part 1 of 2

In the United States we have many tax exempt entities, and they often are clustered into broad categories that are listed under our, “National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities”. These tax exempt entities range from arts, culture, and humanities to mutual/membership benefit categories. Within these categories there are several that gun related policies could fall under, but one that is conceptually interesting to consider is that of, “Human Services”. This category houses programs such as; Domestic Violence Programs, food pantries, homeless shelters, senior centers, ethnic and immigrant service centers, emergency assistance programs, child and family service programs, disability service centers, legal assistance, and job training programs. Now, after reading this list of programs and services it may appear that there is no place for a gun related policy and/or program/service however there is. The purpose of this category of entities is to provide a range of services at the community level that help the needy and specific populations, and with that in mind there are several ways in which gun related programs and services could serve under this definition. Can you think of any yourself? What could the community gain from gun related programs and services? 

[zanemoore]

Virtue ethics serve as “moral guidelines” to prevent individuals from misbehaving and breaking rules that society finds morally vital to the success of humanity. Often, these rules tend to be too specific to effectively form laws around and enforce. An example of this would be the concept of bribes. These unwritten rules of society are developed with the interest of society as a whole put first and prioritize the overall well-being of society rather than the success and/or well-being of groups or individuals. Virtue ethics are often things introduced to us very early in life, and are continually reinforced throughout our lives by the disapproval from peers when these rules are broken. In regards to gun control and gun policy, virtue ethics can play vital parts in preserving safety among gun owners. Individuals who are around guns from young ages are taught of ethical rules regarding storing, using, and possessing firearms in various situations. It is because there are no specific laws directing these actions it is these virtue ethics that encourage maintaining a standard of safety and responsibility among gun owners. Do you think that virtue ethics are enough to ensure safety or should there be specific laws regarding storing, using, and possessing guns? Is it worth our government’s time to develop laws for such minute activities? 

[zanemoore]

Continuing from my last post, Donald Trump has served one term as the President of the United States and many have viewed him as one of the most controversial Presidents to have held office. Beginning from his announcement of presidential candidacy to the last few months of this current term he has consistently been included in headlines and his unorthodox, nonpolitical behaviors have created a large array of reactions globally. In relation to gun control, however, this has been a policy area President Trump has not truly put in the forefront one way or the other. Upon searching his website there is no official statement/declaration on his intentions for the policy area moving forward. All that can be found is a statement under “Achievements” that reads, “President Trump signed the Fix NICS Act into law in 2018, strengthening the background check system to ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of criminals.” Has the President done enough regarding gun policy? If re-elected should he devote more effort to gun policy? Is our nation’s gun policy in a better place because of President Trump?

[zanemoore]

As voting continues to come to a close and we near the election of a president for our nation it is important to truly explore the details of each candidates’ policies on various topics. Joe Biden is the Democratic presidential candidate for 2020 has claimed that “gun violence is a public health epidemic”. As President Biden claims that he will take the following steps to decrease the amount of gun violence in the United States. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Also, regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act, buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities, reduce the stockpiling of weapons, require background checks for all gun sales, and close several loopholes to prevent guns from getting into the hands of “dangerous” individuals. Do you think these steps are beneficial? Would there be any modifications to Biden’s plan that you would make? You can find the detailed list of Joe Biden’s gun policies on his website at:

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/#

[zanemoore]

The goal of policy is to achieve a desired outcome. An outcome in the realm of policy is the substantive results of the implementation of policy. Outcomes can be intended or unintended, positive, or negative. These outcomes are often referred to hand in hand with outputs, which are measurable things an agency or organization produces. These two items are very important in the assessment of policy and carry large amounts of weight when deciding whether to continue pouring resources into a policy and it’s related organizations or not. An example scenario of this in relation to gun policy could consist of a policy being implemented that increased the amount of training hours and introduced several annual mental assessments required to purchase a firearm. These two things are measurable in our scenario and therefore are our outputs in the example, and as a result of the policy we see safer communities. The increase in safer communities would be our outcome for our scenario, and though it is likely not the only outcome because of the nature of the policy it is fair to believe that this outcome was the most desirable.

[zanemoore]

Policy implementation is the point in the policy process that truly makes or breaks a policy. At the point where the policy is enacted is often regarded as the final step in the process, but it truly comes down to implementation and whether or not the tools used to implement the policy can produces effective outputs and/or outcomes. In terms of gun control, we often see the push for increasing the necessary steps of acquiring a firearm and in turn increasing the difficulty to prevent individuals who are believed to be dangerous to society from having easy access to firearms. This desired outcome is a good idea to achieve, which many believe would progress society towards a more harmonious existence within the United States of America. Often, the tool that is proposed to achieve this outcome is the execution of increased laws and regulations. These examples are the result of directive power/authority tools in policy implementation. The use of this category of policy tool pronounces that the implemented policy carries the force of law, meaning that they compel particular behaviors and compliance. Is increased laws and regulations really the right way to create a safer nation? Is decreasing the accessibility to guns a true solution? How do we provide a sense of safety in our American streets?

[zanemoore]

“Correlation does not equal causation”. Casual Theory is a theory about what causes a problem and how particular responses would alleviate said problem. Casual Theories are not mutually exclusive, right, or wrong solutions to problems that are present in public policy. Rather, these are ideas formulated around causation of a problem and the strategic reformation of said problem in order to define it under one “casual” idea. Many times in public policy, a goal will be determined and several methods will be created in order to achieve said goal. From this point in the process, casual theory is utilized to try and portray the way in which these methods could possibly play out. For example, many have suggested increasing the amount of gun control and gun laws in the United States. While others propose less restrictive laws and increased gun education is the solution. One could use casual theory to think each method out and see how it would “run it’s course” among the American public. However, no matter which method is chosen or preferred both intend on decreasing the amount of mass shootings by increasing gun safety in one form or another.

[zanemoore]

In the state of Wyoming, concealed carry is legal for residents of the state. However, some restrictions have been put in place such as; concealed carry is not permitted on school property or in businesses that are primarily oriented in the sale and/or consumption of alcohol. Wyoming is also a “Castle Doctrine” state that has a “state your ground” law present. The combination of these two legislative decisions means that there is no duty to retreat, and the law applies at a person’s home or habitation or any place where the person is lawfully present. Statistics show that there have been not a single mass killing (4 or more individuals killed), in the state since 1982. Is this a result of the nonrestrictive state gun laws? Do states fair better with a laissez faire approach to gun laws?

[zanemoore]

The Center for A New American Security is a centrist think tank founded by Kurt Campbell and Michele Flournoy in 2007. The organization focuses on American domestic security issues such as terrorism, irregular warfare, the future of the U.S. military, and Asia’s emergence as a global power, (CNAS, 2020). Additionally, the group is said to provide policies and reports that are presented to policymakers, experts, and the public that include innovative, fact-based research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national security debate. Being a 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit organization the group relies on the $4.2 million annually they receive to build their reputation, conduct research, and lobby in D.C. Though the group claims a centrist, non-partisan stance several members, including both founders, have had past employment history with Democratic politicians and have served on several Democratic dominant projects, (CNAS, 2020). 

[zanemoore]

Co-production is an intricate process in which a public service agent and the public collaborate, bringing together each group’s assets, resources, and efforts to better specialize the public service to said group of public individuals (Governance International, 2020). It is with this process of co-production in mind that a question is proposed, “Should policy making be top-down, or bottom-up?” For many this is an area of unexplored area of thought that challenges citizens to reconsider the American policy process. Often topic to topic many will flip flop sides of the question, however in such policy areas as gun policy more polarize to one side or the other and hold that stance very steady. Many say the citizens and gun owners should have more influence on policy related to gun control, but others will argue that the officials in office were elected to protect the public and are capable of doing the best possible job. So, then with such polarization should highly debated policy areas be delegated out to the public with the use of co-production between the public and elected officials?

[zanemoore]

Mediating Structures serve as middle ground between policy and the public. Often, these “structures” are nonprofits and voluntary organizations that utilize their platforms and outreach to better inform the individuals of the public of policy decisions. These organizations have the ability to keep the public, specifically those who are members of said organizations, well informed about ongoing updates, changes to, and additions to areas of policy that are related to these specific organizations. One of the largest mediating structures in the world of Gun Policy is that of the National Rifle Association or NRA. The NRA is a nonprofit organization that was created in the late 19 century to serve as a promotion for rifle marksmanship that was supported by science (NRA, 2020). However, the organization has evolved to provide information and support on many aspects of gun ownership and operation. One such platform used to disseminate such information is that of magazines. The NRA’s “America’s 1st Freedom” is a publication dedicated to news surrounding gun policy and all aspects that are associated with the policy.