Agency Changes to Gun Control-Right to Carry Policy
When it comes to resolving the gun control-right to carry policy, how will reforms to the departmental policy benefit the agency and the parties involved?
If the department adheres to and adopts the recommendations, it will assist new workers in the short term by providing knowledge and education about how the unit approaches the issue. In the long run, these reforms, with the assistance of all parties concerned, may persuade other sectors or agencies of the justice system to alter and adopt alternative policies to resolve the gun control-right to carry policy.
It is apparent that many U.S. citizens have become victims of police brutality or gun violence and some die within our society. Victims may incur minor injuries and recover in some circumstances, however, in others, they die. For instance, according to Amnesty International (2021), in the U.S., approximately more than 1,003 people are murdered with guns from police brutality each year and about 134,000 individuals were gunshot and injured in 2017. Among developed nations, the U.S. is responsible for about 80 percent of all gun-related deaths worldwide with nearly 39,000 individuals dying as a result of gunshot wounds, an equivalent of approximately 109 persons every day (Amnesty International, 2021). In 2017, the number of children killed in gun-related fatalities in the U.S. increased from 1,637 to 1814 (Amnesty International, 2021). The reality is that there are more police gun-related deaths in our modern culture than in previous years, and something must be done to solve it (Edwards et al., 2019). In this regard, it is valid to argue that there is a need for accountability of individual gun owners, registered gun owners/dealers, and changes to background checks concerning who is forbidden who does and does not require serious reformation are necessary. This is because many innocent citizens are being harmed or killed as a result of a lack of awareness, financing, training, and exposure to the issue. Consequently, it is possible to rewrite the laws, ordinances, and policies to address the rising issue by focusing departmental efforts, resources, and people on it, with hopes of rescuing more civilian lives from being victims of gun violence.
An example of criminal justice departmental policy on the use of lethal force, which has been changed with the numerous policy players in mind, is the one belonging to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). For instance, in 2016, the LAPD Board of Commissioners collaborated with the local prosecutor, executives, and the police officers’ association to develop and propose suggestions for changing the use of lethal force by its officers. The amended policy’s principal goal on the police, when confronted by members of the community, should stress de-escalation and the use of the least amount of force possible. According to Garcia (2020), one of the LAPD’s proposals for the use of lethal force policy highlights that fatal force should be used only after all other alternatives have been expended or look unattainable. Due to figures from 2015, the policy was being reviewed for revision. According to Garcia (2020), an internal LAPD study was issued that indicated LAPD officers used force roughly 2,000 times the years 2015 to 2018 with less-lethal use of force increasing by 16%. Because more than one-third of all victims of police shootings were often mentally unstable, the Council of the Police Commissioners endorsed and adopted the revised LAPD’s Use of Lethal Force Policy.
In conclusion, based on my study and the data I have obtained, it is evident that revising and modifying a departmental criminal policy may serve not only the agency but also the society and its citizens. The amendment of the LAPD’s Use of Force Policy provides education, orientation, and knowledge for its personnel. When confronting persons in the public, the action can be used to achieve a more favorable ending rather than allowing a conflict to grow to the point where a citizen is severely wounded or loses their lives. Furthermore, the officer(s) engaged can escape being sacked or charged with a crime. In terms of gun regulation inside our agency, I consider this as an opportunity to revise our guidelines to improve all entities and persons concerned.
My recommendations with regards to reforms in our gun legislation, the emphasis must be not just on known criminals, but also on private firearm owners and registered gun shop operators. Because of the high number of gun-related deaths and terror attacks that have occurred in the U.S. recently, there must be an agency with appropriate policies responsible for those who own guns or sell them. The issue is that gun store operators in most jurisdictions are not required to do background checks on their clients, which regrettably allows unlicensed persons to obtain guns. With retrospect, with me that holding these entities liable would not eradicate gun violence but will, ideally, constitute a significant step toward preventing gun violence before it occurs. I feel that legitimate gun owners and gun shops should incur the same or equivalent penalties as criminals to convey the message that this sort of violence has become uncontrollable and will not be accepted on any basis or at the expense of innocent people. Departments shall report summary information to the general populace on the number of cases, the kind of force used, and what actions, if any, are taken to resolve the use of force issues when they emerge. These statistics should be segmented by race, gender, and disability status. This action, however, may be in contradiction with the court’s case policies and guidelines. For example, the Courts (Criminal Courts) are to hear cases filed by the police in the Courts and to render justice based on the facts presented to them and not to the public. As a result, by disclosing statistics or any other information before the courts based on police use of force or gun violence to the public, the evidence in the courts may be endangered. Regardless, improving the public’s capacity to participate in policing oversight through both investigatory commissions with punitive penalties and equitable involvement in police federation contract talks will undoubtedly lower rates of mortality. Furthermore, the conflict may be reduced or resolved by fully financing community-based resources and restricting the use of uniformed enforcement officers as first respondents to psychological illnesses and other sorts of crises, which would significantly lower the number of people murdered by armed officers or other forms of gun violence. Furthermore, the agency is free to consult on any issue regarding the topic and its subsequent findings to further the research on Gun Control-Right to Carry Policy.
References
Amnesty International. (n.d.). Gun violence – key facts.
Edwards, F., Lee, H., & Esposito, M. (2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16793-16798.
Garcia, S. (2020). LAPD approves new use of deadly force policy amid community backlash.