Gun Policy in the United States and Canada

The Impact of Mass Murders and Assassinations on Gun Control

Anthony K. Fleming

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781623567682
• eBook ISBN: 9781441112934
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007 was one of the worst mass murders in the U.S., but it did not lead to any new federal gun control policy. In contrast, following a similar event in Montreal in 1989, Canada created new comprehensive gun policy. Such different outcomes are the focus of this survey, which sets out to explore the gun policymaking process in the U.S. and Canada in the aftermath of major events. It explores the many factors that lead to the drastically different reactions of the federal governments in each state if the aftermath of a mass shooting or assassination. To do so, it examines such elements as institutional arrangements, interest groups pressures (NRA, e.g.), and the party in power, studying the impact of such key events as the assassinations of J.F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Georgina Leimonis and shootings that occurred at Columbine, Stockton, and Vernon. A unique comparative study, Gun Policy in the United States and Canada will be an essential resource to anyone researching gun policy issues and comparative policymaking.

Chapter 1

An Introduction to Political Culture
and Gun Control Policy in the
United States and Canada

Introduction

In 2007 at Virginia Tech, a lone gun man executed arguably the worst mass murder in modern US history. Yet, even after such a tragedy, new restrictive federal gun control policy was not created. In 1989, a similar event took place in Canada; a lone gun man perpetrated what is known as the Montreal Massacre. Unlike in the United States, Canada took action in less than two years. New comprehensive gun control policy was created and eventually led to the creation of the Gun Registry.

These two very similar events had drastically different outcomes. In the United States very little happened at the federal level, in Canada there were broad and sweeping changes made to gun control legislation at the federal level. It is my contention that the structure of a states government, along with interest group pressures and political parties, play a significant role in dampening or accelerating the effects of a focusing event. Presidential systems, like in the United States, react slowly to events such as the Virginia Tech slayings. They react slowly, in part, because of the diffuse nature of power in presidential systems. Parliamentary systems, especially effectively unicameral ones, are more centralized in power and this enables them to react quickly to focusing events.

Interest group pressures also have significant impact. Dominant status quo interest groups are capable of preventing the passage of new legislation in a presidential system. Yet, in a parliamentary system, interest groups may not be able to react quickly enough to provide the Parliament with alternative ideas to prevent change, or they may be unable to influence government significantly because of lack of access or party discipline.

If a pro-change interest group is the most powerful interest group in a presidential system, change may come, but it will be slow, and will take multiple events to cause change. In a parliamentary system, if a pro-change interest group is the most powerful, change can occur very rapidly. In order to test the theory I study firearms-related focusing events in the United States and Canada.

The US Presidential Institutional Structure vs Canadian Parliamentary Institutional Structure

It is necessary to discuss the basic differences between presidential and parliamentary systems before going into a more in-depth discussion. Presidential systems are generally diffuse. The executive and the legislature are different and coequal entities. This allows for a natural cooling-off period for the creation of legislation after a focusing event.

Parliamentary systems have concentrated power. The executive and the legislature are, in fact, the same branch of government. This allows for policy to be passed rapidly during periods of high emotion; especially when there is a single party majority. This means that the public and interest groups have very little time to try and dissuade the policy makers from a particular course of action (Lijphart 1999, pp. 10–21).

In presidential systems, the executive is always elected by the public. Parliamentary systems differ because the executive is chosen by the legislature. This leads to a centralization of power in a single branch of government, the executive (Lijphart 1999, pp. 10–21). In Canada, power is centralized in the House of Commons, with the Senate taking a less substantial role in policy making. For the party in power to be able to wield power in a way to ensure its policies are implemented, parties need a working majority of the seats in the lower house, and the party must have strict party cohesion. This is very different from the United States where legislators freelance and are themselves their own “enterprise” (Salisbury and Shepsle 1981).

Of particular importance, parties must be able to have the majority of the seats without forming a coalition. Lijphart argues that when a party does not hold the majority of the seats and must enter into a coalition, this weakens the hold of a government’s policy-making abilities. He goes on to suggest that in states where you have multiple powerful parties that are capable of preventing one party from receiving 50% of the legislative vote, you will find that the ability of parties to control policy making at their discretion is significantly reduced. However, when there is a disciplined majority party system in a Parliament, Lijphart finds that the efficiency and the power of the dominant party to act and disregard the minority allows for there to be an “elective dictatorship” (Lijphart 1999, pp. 12–13). The “elective dictatorship” reference suggests that policy making can be quick and efficient in parliamentary states.

In presidential systems the minority groups (primarily interest groups) can still play a role in the creation of policy. There are many access points for the formulation of policy. Minority groups are able to block or limit the scope of many pieces of legislation. In parliamentary systems, there are few access points and only one body that can create legislation, the majority party or coalition in the House of Commons. This means that minority groups have a nearly insurmountable mountain to climb when trying to influence policy making. Lijphart even suggests that minority groups are completely excluded from policy making and their sole role is to be that of the opposition (Lijphart 1999, p. 11). If all minority groups are marginalized (minority parties and opposing interest groups), then the ability of policy to go from the agenda-setting stage to the formulation stage should be relatively unimpeded by these groups when compared to presidential states.

The Key Variables of the Study: A Discussion of the Structure of Government, Parties, and Interest Groups

As mentioned earlier in the chapter, the structure of government is particularly important in determining the outcome of a focusing event. The presidential structure of the United States is diffuse and this allows for there to be multiple locations where interest groups can access the policy process and either promote or dissuade the creation of policy. In Canada, on the other hand, the parliamentary system there allows for an efficient creation of policy because of power being concentrated in one branch of government, in Canada’s case, the House of Commons. These structural differences between the two countries, in my theoretical opinion, are a prime factor in determining the outcome of focusing events and whether the influence from them will lead to agenda attention and ultimately policy creation.

The second major variable in this book is the impact of parties. In the United States there are two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans, as a general rule, favor lenient gun control legislation and the Democrats favor more restrictive gun control legislation. The influence that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has on both of these parties, in particular, the Republican Party is discussed in future chapters.

In Canada, there are multiple parties. Left-of-center parties heavily support more restrictive gun control. Right-of-center parties usually support lenient legislation. However, the interest group dynamics are different in Canada than in the United States. Arguably the most influential interest group in Canada is the Coalition for Gun Control which is a passionately pro-gun control group.

Thus, when we consider parties in both countries, it is important to understand that right-of-center groups support lenient gun controls and left-of-center groups support restrictive gun controls. Because of the political leanings of parties, it is important to understand their impact on policy creation when they are in control of government after a major focusing event.

Finally, we must consider the importance of interest groups and their role in creating or dissuading policy. In the United States, the most powerful and most important interest group is the NRA. Its influence has been felt throughout the entirety of my study. In Canada, the most influential interest group is the Coalition for Gun Control. Its impact on policy making in Canada began after the 1989 Montreal Massacre, but its influence has grown considerably since.

In the United States the most influential interest groups is the NRA. The NRA is an old organization; it was originally created in 1871. Initially, the NRA was primarily a gun club that helped its members easily obtain surplus military weapons and to train individuals to shoot firearms more accurately. Originally, it was not an organization that was overly concerned with politics, For example, the restrictive federal gun control legislation that was created in 1934 was not significantly attacked by the NRA. However, in the 1960s when the federal government began turning its interests to the topic of gun control after multiple infamous assassinations, the NRA became far more political.

The political role of the NRA has been felt by many Congressional members in Washington. The results of the 1994 election, in which the Republicans took overwhelming control of the House of Representatives, has often been attributed by Democrats, in particular, President Clinton, to the NRA. The influence of the NRA on the 1994 election is explored more thoroughly in Chapter 3.

The NRA’s membership has also grown significantly since the 1960s. In the mid-1970s, there were nearly a million NRA members; this number has steadily increased. In 2001, NRA membership had increased to well over 4 million. The NRA also has a significant budget. By 2001, the NRA had a budget of $168 million dollars, and was working with very little debt. It hired 300 employees with 65 specifically devoted to lobbying efforts (Spitzer, pp. 75–6). With its strong membership base, large budget, and its single-minded purpose in defeating gun control legislation the NRA has become the most influential gun policy interest group in the United States.

The NRA’s primary opponent is the Brady Campaign, formerly Handgun Control Inc. It was initially created in 1974, by a Republican businessman Pete Shields whose son was murdered by a firearm. Handgun Control Inc. was significantly hindered by lack of resources until the 1980s. After the wounding of Presidential Press Secretary James Brady, his wife, Sarah, joined the executive board of Handgun Control Inc., and eventually took over leadership of the organization. The organization was then renamed the Brady Campaign.

The Brady Campaign has attempted, ironically, to duplicate the tactics of the NRA in order to gain influence. They have worked to build a grassroots base of membership, demonize the opposition, influence its members to contribute money, and for its members to call politicians. However, when compared to the NRA’s membership and funding it falls short. For example, the membership of the Brady Campaign in 1998 was 400,000 and its annual budget was only $7 million dollars (Spitzer, pp. 94–5). The discrepancy in membership and funding demonstrates some key reasons why the NRA has been able to continue its stranglehold on gun control policy.

In Canada, unlike the United States, gun control groups have been far more influential in impacting gun control policy. Arguably the most powerful interest group that lobbies gun control in Canada is the Coalition for Gun Control which is headed by Wendy Cukier. The Coalition for Gun Control was created in a direct response to the Montreal Massacre. Its goals are: possession permits for all gun owners, a cost effective way to register all guns, a total ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, regulation of ammunition, and stricter handgun control laws (www.guncontrol.ca). Though statistics on its membership and funding have been difficult to find, it is evident through actions of Canadian politicians and from reactions from the media and antigun control groups that this interest group is the primary mover and shaker on restrictive gun control legislation in Canada.

The primary lenient gun control group in Canada is the National Firearms Association (NFA). The NFA was created in 1978 by David Tomlinson. The NFA has similar goals to its counterpart in the United States, but hasn’t been as successful in preventing gun control legislation as the NRA. The NFA states that it quests for fair and practical firearm and property legislation within Canada. The NFA goes on to say that it is “Canada’s firearms voice in Ottawa” (www.nfa.com). Like the Coalition for Gun Control, statistics on its membership and funding have been difficult to access.

Stages of the Policy Process: A Quick Overview

In this section, the stages of the policy process are described. Throughout the book I mention the impact of focusing events on the policy process; in particular, the impact focusing events have on agenda setting and formulation. Thus, it is important to understand where agenda setting and formulation fall within the policy process.

Thomas Dye defines the six stages of the policy process. The first stage of the policy process is the problem identification stage. At this stage there is the identification of policy problems and there will be demands by some groups for policy action. The second stage is known as agenda setting. At this stage there is a focusing of attention of the mass media and public officials on specific public problems to decide how to handle a policy issue. The third stage is policy formulation. At this stage there is a development of policy proposals by interest groups, Congressional committees, and think tanks. The fourth stage is policy legitimation. At this stage there is a selection and enactment of policies through political actions by Congress, the president, and the court. The fifth stage is policy implementation. At this stage, the policies are implemented by organized bureaucracies, public expenditures, and by the activities of executive agencies. The final stage of the policy process is policy evaluation. At this stage the policies of government are evaluated by bureaucracies, the media, the public, and government itself (Dye, p. 14).

The main stages of the policy process that I am concerned with in this book are: agenda setting, formulation, policy legitimation, and to a lesser extent implementation. The one difference between my descriptions and Dye is that I combine policy formulation and policy legitimation and make it into one stage. The reason I do this is because formulation as defined by Dye is the creation of policy by the combined forces of interest groups and Congressional members; policy legitimation is the step of taking these policies and then enacting them. Thus, I see that there is a very fine line between the two, and when I discuss policy formulation in this book it will mean a combination of both of these stages.

Gun Culture Differences between the United States and Canada: Should Gun Culture be Used as an Explanatory Variable?

There are significant cultural differences between the United States and Canada. These differences are important for us to understand in order to have a more concrete grasp of why gun control focusing events have such a significant variation in response from one country to the next.

Lipset (1990) argues that the United States and its beliefs derive from the American Revolution. The American people revolted against their oppressors in Great Britain in order to form a new independent nation. This uprising has had its lingering effects on American culture. One such effect is that Americans have a natural dislike for authority. Americans tend to see the state and authority in a negative way. This stems from the ideas and ideals that were implanted in the American psyche after the American Revolution.

Another effect that has risen in the United States is the belief in civil liberties and individualism. Americans believe that they should have the right to act independently and not be interfered with by the state. Americans are also more driven to succeed individually and are less concerned about communal success.

This tradition of distrusting government and valuing liberty has its roots in the founding of the United States. The US government is designed in a way to prevent the government from being all powerful and overly intrusive into American lives. The Bill of Rights was also established to ensure liberty and undeniable rights to individuals.

The political culture that was created after the American Revolution led to the United States adopting an inefficient presidential system. It also has led to the powerful interest group structure that we see in the United States. Every American believes in civil liberties, but not all Americans believe in the same civil liberties. This has led to the creation of groups who seek to promote a certain liberty, and others who seek to deny it. We can see that this clearly applies to gun control. The NRA at its most basic form is a group seeking to protect the civil liberty of gun ownership whereas the Brady Campaign seeks to deny this liberty.

Canada is different than the United States. Canadians are the people who...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• 1.   An Introduction to Political Culture and Gun Control Policy in the United States and Canada
• 2.   Agenda Setting, Institutions, and Interest Groups in the United States and Canada
• 3.   The United States: Violence Leads Nowhere
• 4.   Canada: Violent Events Drive Change
• 5.   Conclusions: A Discussion of Why Canada Reacts to Gun Violence Events and the United States Does Not
• 6.   Gun Control Policy in the United States and Canada: 2008 to Present
• Bibliography
• Index