Arguments against Gun Control: Rights, Safety, and Compromise

Introduction

In an age that places particular attention on violence, personal safety, and chronic social scourges, the topic of gun control maintains its position at the forefront of policymakers' debate. As a topic, gun control is necessarily composed of societal attitudes and morals, values and legal concepts, and of governance and political decisions. It is, therefore, of interest to many more constituents than political leaders and government actors. While noting that the vast majority of statisticians in the social sciences anticipate a reduction of risks to family members and of attempted suicide in homes and public areas, this essay and its companion do not purport to lay out a case for one side or the other regarding this or any other aspect of gun control.

At this fundamental level, opposition to control philosophically argues for the unfettered ability of citizens to bear and use arms as a representation of personal freedom, political liberty, and the power to resist potential tyranny of a government leader. To those who advocate that freer access to firearms would reduce or manage crime rates, safety risks, and require fewer efforts to defend themselves, this essay attempts to give fair and accurate representation while urging an alternative analysis of opposition claims and the place for compromise in future legislation.

This essay examines the reasons aspiring as well as active shooters, hardline Second Amendment advocates, public policy groups, and the concerned citizenry resist gun control, lays out an argumentation to aid understanding of opposition claims, and suggests a platform for further scholarly inquiry and political consensus.

The Second Amendment

At the dawn of our republic, firearms allowed individuals to protect themselves from local and central governments that failed to provide basic rights. On the individual level, sharing these beliefs and the commitment to protect these rights from government abuse was important enough to be enshrined as one of the first-established rights under the United States Constitution through the Second Amendment in 1791. The right to keep and bear arms, however, has taken many forms in the United States since its inception, owing much to subsequent amendments, legislation, court cases, and countless legal opinions that have sought to discern its original intent. The Second Amendment's original meaning does not yield satisfying object-level conclusions about whether American citizens today should be permitted to own firearms, as the founders' belief system was conceptualized too differently to port determinately to our contemporary one. Thus, most contemporary arguments cannot prove the Second Amendment is indeterminate because they argue based on a misinterpretation of its original intent, as they argue for its indeterminacy. Subtle distinctions in the right to keep and bear arms led to differing interpretations of the amendment in the following century. Colonial experiences uniquely highlighted the importance of guns for protecting individual rights against a tyrannical government. Indeed, the right to revolutionary arms is often viewed as a bedrock principle of liberal ideology. However, in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, many of the individualistic aspects of the American right to keep and bear arms had begun to subside. The states and founders in the early years of the republic expressed ambiguity about the right to keep and bear arms in constitutions and state militia laws. It is clear that the founders had a right to keep and bear arms, but this right did not explicitly extend beyond service in state militias. Even among those who argued for the individual right to keep and bear arms, the stated purposes at the weight of the amendment reveal collective concerns about national defense and civil defense, rather than individuals' self-defense. Over the course of the 19th and into the 20th century, legal interpretations of the Second Amendment further disclosed that implicit, rational purposes guide the explicit rights enumerated in the amendment. These arguments show the Second Amendment as importantly about self-defense, but only in the context in which a government supplies such an environment.

Public Safety and Self-Defense Arguments

An initial—and often effective—hypothesis of an opposition to gun control is that responsible citizen ownership of firearms can be a deterring issue to potential criminals of opportunity. Factually, estimates of protection-type use of firearms vary widely from one to two million instances a year, to over forty million in other estimates. There are also survey results where armed residents relate accounts of neutralizing threats to themselves personally and among their family members and friends, and occasions where they have produced police backups—but also, some incidents in which firearms inadvertently escalate situations. The argument is that respondents to a telephone survey as a sample of armed protective uses underestimate self-defense uses of their implements, sometimes due to police complications.

Nothing can demonstrate the effective prevention of a crime that was never committed save positive and asymptomatic results for broad categories of situations, some of which have elements that are not foremost about personal safety. But, under certain laws, critics would account for the lack of negative publicity—including any death or injury caused by a defender—if prevention is successful. For example, “vigilantism” by private citizens caring about public safety in their neighborhoods could show that unlicensed private citizens function ably, but such a change in perspective would not make them therefore right. Alternatively, a mass killer hypothesized by critics might have permanently escaped from apprehension even as innocent lives were still placed in jeopardy, but was it vigilantism to neutralize a bystander prior to that juncture? Overall, inquiring about societally positive equities would suggest that we need to better understand scenarios that demonstrate where private arms would totally eliminate a danger without any use of force or without an entered emotion. In general, opponents say there would be more successful instances of incapacitation of a perpetrator if he was already physically dominant when he launched his aggression or injurious attack.

Constitutional and Legal Considerations

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of arguments used against gun control is the constitutional and legal dimensions of the debate. At the heart of the gun rights debate is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The amendment's meaning is contested and interpretations vary. One perspective views the amendment as sanctioning only "a well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to bear arms. A different perspective views the amendment as guaranteeing a unique individual right to have private arms, not specifically linked strictly to militia service.

The U.S. Supreme Court has entertained few cases on the Second Amendment, and these cases are contradictory. An 1886 case, for instance, stated that the right to bear arms was not absolute, while a 1919 case stated that private citizens do not have a right to military-grade weapons. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused, however, to take up the question of whether the Second Amendment guarantees a unique individual right to bear arms. Legal scholars continue to debate the meaning of the Second Amendment. Many agree with the interpretation that the amendment guarantees a meaningful individual right to bear arms within the framework of evolving post-industrial society. Critics of the "individual right to bear arms" theory argue that the amendment was designed to prevent the power to regulate the militia from being abused to the point where the government could remove or control any or all self-defense forces. In sum, the question of whether there is or is not a constitutional right to own firearms remains open and accessible to respectful debate and interpretation.

Conclusion

Throughout the preceding sections of this essay, we have examined in depth the main arguments against severe gun control in the United States. The historical and cultural context of guns, the Second Amendment, the deterrent effect of guns, and the need for self-defense were discussed. It is important for those who are involved in the argument for severe gun control to be able to appreciate the reasoning of their opponents. Gun rights are an extremely important concern to millions of Americans, and we ignore them at our own peril. It seems as though the debate over guns and gun control has become so polarized and full of hyperbole that there is no common ground left. One side sees individual ownership of guns as a modern evil that promotes rampant violence, while the other side sees any reform as the first small step on a slippery slope to confiscation of all guns by the government. This does not bode well for any long-term, effective measures to reduce violence in the United States. Perhaps the answer lies in a deeper understanding of both sides of the argument, primarily through continued research into the extent and effectiveness of current laws and through dialogue to resolve misconceptions regarding those who feel that they are protecting a basic civil right. It may be possible to create a consensus on future laws, but that can only be done if we can appreciate the concerns of those on both sides and seek to resolve them in good faith. Safety is an important value in American society and must be balanced with a respect for the individual rights and responsibilities of its citizens.

Did you like this example?

234

10