Gun control is a complex issue that should be addressed to professionals and the government to provide citizenship with safety. It is known that the arbitrary usage of the weapon brings irrecoverable losses and undermines the confidence in safe living. Misuse of firearms is a frequent problem in many areas of the U.S., and it might require strict control (Furlong & Kraft, 2020). Two think tank positions aim to figure out the situation with gun control. It is essential to examine the most persuasive standpoint, which is theoretically and practically compatible.
The first strategy of the Heritage Foundation involves a chain of subsequent actions. It states that there is a necessity to identify specific problems to address; these issues should include safety in schools, weapon misuse, and psychological struggles (Furlong & Kraft, 2020). It is known that many crimes are committed in schools and universities of the U.S., and offenders often have mental issues. Weapon crimes might happen because of improper provision of information about gun misuse. Moreover, students and underage people may not realize the consequences of using the gun; they can perceive it as a game. Furthermore, schools and universities often lack proper safety systems that protect people from terrorist acts. This standpoint strives to determine possible solutions when specific issues are identified. Counting costs and losses is crucial, as a theoretical strategy might not correlate with the actual actions needed (Furlong & Kraft, 2020). Therefore, the approach makes it more realistic to ensure actual financial costs for safety provision. Finally, the think tank will involve solutions following the U.S. law system and the Constitution to avoid legal struggles.
The second point of view of the Center for American Progress involves actual statistics about weapon misuse in the U.S. There are more than 30,000 crimes with fatal endings that happen annually in America (Furlong & Kraft, 2020, p. 126). The Center for American Progress offers to identify potentially dangerous people and confiscate the gun in them. Indeed, it is relatively hard to complete in the existing reality. It is doubtful whether the professionals will come to the house of the potential offender and take the gun away. Instead, the investigation would start after the criminal committed the offense. The standpoint also strives to determine domestic abusers and people with complicated or criminal backgrounds, including gun owners. In general, victims of domestic abuse do not address the police or governmental structures, as they are scared of the following violence. Probably, it is necessary to identify whether the person has mental issues or psychological trauma and prove it in a specialized place. However, the think tank position does not refer to any subsequent and accurate actions to identify potential offenders and make the life of the citizenship safer.
Overall, the Heritage Foundation’s stance is more persuasive for several reasons. It offers precise measures to recognize criminal offenders and matches its actions with the criminal law of the U.S. Moreover, the estimation of costs and losses makes the strategy more reliable. Accordingly, the determination of young offenders is crucial, as the first think tank point offers. Juvenile crimes take a special place in the criminal law, and it is necessary to prevent children from doing offenses as soon as possible through the legal system and psychological consultations. Therefore, the strategy of the Heritage Foundation seems to be solid due to the abovementioned factors.
Reference
Furlong, S. R., & Kraft, M. E. (2020). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (7th ed.). CQ Press.