State that actually placing a law would not stop

This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 4 pages.

state that actually placing a law would not stop crimes from happening because criminals needn’t to obtain the gun legally, and on the contrary, that these policies would make it harder for good civilians to obtain guns to protect themselves. The policy is not lenient with the idea of gun ownership as it amplified the rules to background checks
even more than what is federally. So definitely the policy supports one side, which is pro-gun control Policy 3 Policy name (Precise bill/policy/legislation name): President Obama Gun proposal in 2013 Policy link (Include a direct link to the policy. Do not use Wikipedia, news articles, etc. Go directly to the source for information): - criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx Implementation level (Circle one of the following that fits your policy): Organizational/Institutional Local State Federal Brief summary of the policy in your own words (minimum 100 words): The Obama administration was calling for more control over gun trade, ownership, and selling. President Obama proposed a policy to inhance background checks on citizens who purchase guns, also background information on seller, traders, and institutions. The policy calls for ensuring the compliance of laws federally and interstate wise. Obama offered incentives to states that provide their records to the federal wing. Also, he proposed limiting military weapons. The policy also contained calls for availability of state and local officers on sites to help prevent crime. The policy als calls for issuing the mental health records for gun buyers, while also appointing teacher for mental health training. This policy turned into Obama’s executive action concerning gun control in 2015 On a scale of 1 to 5, where do you feel this policy lands on the spectrum of being on the Pro or Con side of your topic? Highlight the appropriate number. Pro side (in favor of) Con side (against) 1 2 3 4 5 Briefly explain why you think your policy falls on that number in the spectrum. Why is this policy pro, con, or neutral? Do parts of the policy take components from both sides of the topic? For example, does it represent a solution that individuals on different sides of the topic might agree upon? Or, does the policy mainly support one perspective?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture