Policy Research:
Proposed Policy for Gun Violence
Public Policy Formulations and Implication (PA 580)

Maurice A Upshaw
April 11, 2013
Table of content: Introduction | Page 1 | What is the Problem? | Page 2 | Mass Shooting | Page 3 | John Allen Muhammad & John Lee Malvo | Page 4 | Michael McDermott | Page 4 | Charles Andrew Williams | Page 4 | Doug Williams | Page 4 | Jeffrey Weise | Page 4 | Charles Carl Roberts IV | Page 4 | Sulejman Talovic | Page 4 | Seung-hui Cho | Page 5 | Robert Hawkins | Page 5 | Steven Kazmierczak | Page 5 | Jiverly Voong | Page 5 | Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan | Page 5 | Omar Thornton | Page 5 | Jared Lee Loughner | Page 5 | Scott Dekraai | Page 6 | One L. Goh | Page 6 | James Holmes | Page 6 | Wade Michael Page | Page 6 | Andrew Engeldinger | Page 6 | Radcliffe Haughton | Page 6 | Adam Lanza | Page 6 | Proposed policy | Page 7 | Consequences | Page 9 | Summary | Page 10 | References | Page 12 |

Introduction
During the sixth week of this course, a policy research paper is due. Once a topic is chosen, this paper should contain a comprehensive assessment of the problem, the proposed policy, and the potential consequences of implementation of that policy. In the last decade, there has been an overwhelming reality check for the United States. A study by Ezra Klein (2012), of the Washington Post, outlines how reviewing sixty-one (61) mass shooting in the US between 1982 and 2012 forty-eight (48) of those shooting the killers obtained guns legally, eleven (11) killers obtained them illegally, and one (1) killer’s method of obtaining firearms is still unknown.
Right now, the question being posed by our national government is that of the political and legal approach to public administration. Does the government have the right to pass laws and legislation to tell American citizens what kind of guns they can own, and to tell gun sellers that they must keep records and perform more extensive background checks before selling guns? Or, is this matter more of a civil right that the constitution will shut down regardless? Who do these laws and legislations protect, and why would citizens fight laws and legislative being presented to saves more lives?
What is the Problem?
So what is the problem? It could simply be that people are taking words from our past and shaping them to fit their personal needs. Our identity as a society is based off of these words: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”-Amendment II, U.S. Constitution. Today, we are not likely to need to organize local militias for our defense now we have something called the Pentagon (Bergen, 2012).
American citizens take to heart the right to bear Arms as an identity, which allow for every of age person to own a firearm. Is this what the founding fathers intended for our future? In an interview I had with Practical Shooting Instructor West Elliott, ha wanted to make sure I was aware of the following: “What we as Americans seem to keep forgetting is the Constitution was developed around the Revolutionary War. The purpose of the Second Amendment was developed so all able body could take up Arms against any one or nations who wish to threaten the United States” (Wes Elliott, 2013). Having the right to bear Arms is a fundamental right for protection, but as we are witnessing in this last decade, that protection is now being used to take innocent lives. If asked to focus on a key issue, it would be gun violence. What is gun violence? There is no one substantial definition to gun violence, but based on the archive found from Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence Statistics, gun violence is defined as including intentional injuries and deaths, psychological and emotional harm, and the damage to property and economic well-being from the deliberate misuse of firearms. Gun