Gun Control and Gun

Gun ownership is constitutionally protected in the United States, embedded in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, "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," (Bill of Rights, 1789). The interpretation of this constitutional right has become the topic of heated debate in the United States. As the Library of Congress points out, the meaning of the Second Amendment is "not self-evident," as are many items in the Constitution that were written, deliberately or not, in a vague manner that left matters up to future interpretations of the law by the judiciary. While other countries in the world find the American gun control issue perplexing, Americans continue to grapple with how to form and defend their own personal militias.

The Supreme Court has ruled on several Second Amendment cases, always upholding the validity of the Second Amendment and never questioning its efficacy as part of the Constitution. After all, the United States was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty and that does mean that individuals do have the right to take up arms against their government or against anyone else they perceive to be a threat. Americans also have the right to commit suicide, which accounts for sixty percent of all gun-related deaths (Masters, 2016). One of the most recent Supreme Court rulings related to the Second Amendment was in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court struck down a local Washington, D.C. handgun restriction law. Thus, while states and municipalities can pass laws that restrict, regulate, or control gun sales or possession, they cannot pass laws that completely and outright ban the sale or possession of firearms.

For radical groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), gun ownership and sales has become much more than about protecting the Second Amendment from being infringed upon. The Second Amendment is safe. Liberals who advocate for gun control rarely, if ever, request that the Second Amendment be revoked or even amended, only that it be interpreted differently and in accordance with evidence, facts, science, and reason.

The NRA and Rabid Unreasonableness

The NRA (2016) has become an organization that reflexively opposes any type of gun control or gun regulation. Commentators like Davidson (2015) use logical fallacies to support the position of the NRA, noting for example, that the NRA opposes background checks for gun ownership because doing so would be too difficult. Being too difficult is not a reason for not mandating background checks. Davidson (2015) also claims that assault weapons are "not more powerful" than other guns, without explaining exactly why (p. 1). Generally, the position of hard-lined gun advocates is less about logic, reason, and constitutionality as it is about anger, emotional responses, and contrarian liberal bashing. As Melzer (2015) puts it, gun rights organizations like the NRA and their "deeply committed supporters also purchase firearms for a more symbolic reason: to send a warming to the federal government that individuals have the rights and are willing to fight," (p. 793). People with guns can intimidate both people without guns and other people with guns, making gun ownership integral to a culture of fear and violence. As Lott (2010) also points out, many people who own guns claim that they have scared off intruders simply by brandishing the weapon, indicating a relatively high prevalence of nonviolent the use of guns in self-defense scenarios. Self-defense is indeed on the of the most common arguments in favor of relaxed or non-existent gun regulations. The argument is that people need guns to defend themselves from other people who have guns, which leads to another argument: which is that there are too many guns already on the market for gun control to be of any use. "Too many Americans already own weapons," (Spitzer, 2015, p. 7). Yet just like the fallacies inherent in the argument that background checks would be too difficult to implement, there is also a fallacy in claiming that it would be too difficult to control guns because too many guns exist. There are workable options for both cases; it was difficult to build the Erie Canal and the Brooklyn Bridge, but those were completed. As Masters (2016) also points out, countries that used to have high rates of gun ownership but who decided to place tighter controls on guns have successfully implemented government buy-back programs. Davidson (2015) claims those programs do not work, but evidently they do, because the rates of gun violence in other wealthy, industrialized countries does not come close to the rates of gun violence in the United States. In fact, the rates of gun violence in the United States ranks near the top.

The Extent of the Problem

The United States has a gun proliferation problem that is embarrassing as well as it is dangerous. For example, the United States ranks "number one in firearms per capita" and also has "the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world's most developed nations," (Masters, 2016). School shootings like Columbine have also drawn attention to the extent of the problem: guns are not being used to defend poor little old ladies from home invaders. These weapons are falling into the wrong hands. Whether those hands are using the guns to commit suicide or homicide does not matter. What does matter is that too many people have guns that are using them violently, neither to protect their families nor to form a militia in case Donald Trump gets out of control.

As Barry (2015) points out, Americans are slow on the pickup. Americans have failed to draw a connection between mass shootings and gun homicides, instead framing the gun rights issue as a matter of principle that transcends ethics or human rights. Central to the issue is also the language and discourse. The term "gun control" is one that is reflexively hated by gun advocacy groups, even those that might be amenable to some forms of gun regulations (Barry, Mcginty, Vernick & Webster, 2015). To come to a reasonable solution regarding gun regulations that still preserve the inherent right of all Americans, gun control advocates need to rebrand themselves as gun rights advocates. Framing the gun issue as a rights-based issue would remove the value-laden language of gun "control," which raises the hairs on the necks of government-fearing folk.

Suggestions for Policy

One approach would be to review the landmark 19th century Supreme Court case United States v. Cruikshank, in which the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government," (United States v. Cruikshank). Another approach would be to continue allowing states to individually decide and determine their own gun laws, as is the case now. The problem with this approach is that it may be making the problem worse. As Knight (2013) found in extensive research tracing the gun regulations in multiple states that states with weak gun laws tend to become trafficking points for states with tight gun control laws. This creates almost a black or grey market effect. In fact, "criminal possession of guns is higher in states exposed to weak laws in nearby states," (Knight, 2013). Another problem with a lack of federal legislation is that it leads to unclear laws, and Americans are already stupid enough -- they need to think in absolute terms. "The attention to detail in gun regulation is both incredibly specific while at the same time creating regulation that isn't fully comprehensive," (Cage, 2013, p. 1).