Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Americans from Gun Violence Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes provisions related to firearms, including with respect to gun violence research and the reporting of lost or stolen firearms. Among its provisions, the bill establishes a fee for firearms-related background checks under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct or support gun violence research, requires a gun owner to report a lost or stolen firearm to local law enforcement authorities within 48 hours of discovery, and establishes penalties for violations of the bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7]
Target Audience
Population: People in the United States
Estimated Size: 81000000
- The bill focuses on gun violence, which is a significant issue in the United States affecting public safety.
- It specifically involves regulations that would impact gun owners, such as reporting stolen firearms and paying fees for background checks.
- Establishing penalties for violations means gun owners need to comply or face consequences.
- The research and policies could potentially affect all US citizens indirectly by influencing public safety policies.
- Gun violence is a national concern, affecting people across different states and demographics.
- The requirement for lost or stolen firearm reporting could deter illegal gun possession and misuse.
Reasoning
- The population affected is vast, given that 32% of US adults report owning firearms, and the rest may experience indirect effects on safety.
- We have to account for the varied perspectives, some may see it as a safety measure, while others as an infringement on rights.
- The policy budget is significant, thus expecting some measurable impact on well-being and safety.
- The policy affects different demographics variably; urban areas may see more direct impacts due to higher gun violence cases.
- Cost-effectiveness and scale of implementation could differ across regions, affecting the intensity of the policy's impact.
- People directly affected (gun owners) and indirectly affected (general public due to safety changes) need representation.
- Supporting research by the CDC might have long-term benefits that improve public safety perceptions.
Simulated Interviews
Police Officer (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supports measures to track lost firearms as it aids in crime prevention.
- Concerns about the additional paperwork burden due to background check fees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (California)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels safer knowing that there is more research being done on gun violence.
- Concerned that the budget could have been used for educational programs instead.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about the fees increasing for checking gun backgrounds as it affects his business of trading firearms.
- Sees value in penalizing irresponsible gun handling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Software Engineer (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Welcomes research on gun violence.
- Believes it will have no direct effect on daily life until results start affecting public policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Healthcare Worker (Florida)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Relieved by potential increase in safety from policy measures.
- Worried about affordability and access with increased fees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired (Ohio)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Appreciates steps for safer communities.
- Dislikes bureaucracy and potential interference with hunting rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Virginia)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strong supporter of the policy as it aids in reducing potential gun violence on campus.
- Hopeful that research will lead to more effective gun control policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Fisher (Alaska)
Age: 63 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about new background check costs impacting the ability to own firearms.
- Supportive of strong measures ensuring responsible gun ownership.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Police Dispatcher (New Jersey)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels positive about the proactive measures as it could ease her job and enhance community safety.
- Concerned about budget allocations when other areas could use funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Engineer (Colorado)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supportive but cautious about how the fees for background checks will be managed.
- Sees potential benefits in structured regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $76000000 (Low: $51000000, High: $101500000)
Year 3: $77000000 (Low: $52000000, High: $103000000)
Year 5: $79000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $106000000)
Year 10: $83000000 (Low: $58000000, High: $111000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill entails both new costs and potential savings, necessitating a balanced view of its financial implications.
- Implementation will require coordination between federal, state, and local agencies, which could present logistical challenges.
- The public response to firearm regulations could influence compliance rates and the effectiveness of the policy.