Gun Control and Ownership in the U.S.

Gun Control in United States

Gun control

Gun control is a particularly controversial topic in the contemporary society, as especially in the U.S. people have been accustomed to living in a culture focused on guns. Factors like the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights influenced people to identify with an environment that is widely supportive with regard to the masses having access to guns. The U.S.' history made it possible for the country's citizens to acknowledge the importance of having guns -- by being able to protect themselves, people can make sure the authorities do not abuse them and that they can take up arms against oppressors whenever this is needed.

Gun ownership as a tool promoting individualism

Considering conditions in the U.S., it would be safe to say that people consider guns to be a part of their culture, a part of being an American. In order to be able to gain a complex understanding of the gun debate, one first needs to consider the history of the U.S. And the way that Americans have been living in a community associating guns with the idea of being self-reliant. Through installing laws promoting gun ownership, the U.S. basically encouraged Americans to think about their community as one providing them with all the resources they need in order to be safe. "One illustration of the American ideals of classlessness (and of individualism and self-reliance), is reflected in the selection of the archetypal armed American hero." (Kopel)

The traditional image of a hero in other countries involves individuals belonging to a particular group. In contrast to other communities in charge of helping the masses, the American version of the hero is a rather simple individual who takes on attitudes related to freedom and to anything based on being free. To a certain degree, this is the classical cowboy in a typical Western environment where the only solution to stay safe would be to own a gun (Kopel)

Gun control in a country that is used to seeing guns as part of people's ability to fight for their freedom is an especially controversial concept. By accepting guns as being part of the American culture, individuals basically acknowledge the fact that society tends to promote unequal values. As a consequence, an individual who is underprivileged either because of his physical attributes or because of the condition he is in can use a weapon in order to protect himself from potential threats. In order to prevent powerful persons from taking advantage of less powerful individuals, the U.S. has attempted to create an environment functioning in accordance with the idea of equity. Even with the fact that some people are privileged, they have the right to protect themselves from abuse by using any means available to them - guns being a specific form of protection. "Whatever the reason, the degree to which guns have permeated American consciousness can be seen in how American speech is loaded with gun metaphors: big shot; going off half-cocked; cocksure; misfire; shoot for the moon; primed; a gunner; jump the gun; triggered; flash-in-the-pan; keep your powder dry; top gun; straight shooter; loaded for bear; target date; set your sights on it; square shooter; take another shot at it; a long shot; draw a bead on it; high caliber; stick to your guns; he's a pistol; son of a gun; shoot from the hip; faster than a speeding bullet; riding shotgun; bring out the big guns; fire away; bite the bullet; a shotgun approach; lock, stock, and barrel; on target; and on." (Kopel)

The Revolutionary War and the Second Amendment

Even with the fact that threats present during the revolutionary war are no longer seen in the U.S. today, Americans cannot help but to consider these respective threats and the ideology behind the Second Amendment. This text was introduced in the Bill of Rights in order to guarantee that people are no longer vulnerable to abuse.

Civil libertarians seem to be more interested in the Second Amendment than in other provisions that are part of the Bill of Rights. Federal courts also consider this topic to be particularly controversial and are seemingly uncomfortable with discussing it. Lower courts tend to adopt interpretations that are not very clear and that have little to no support from historical precedents. This is largely owed to the fact that the provision can be interpreted in a series of ways and the case under discussion always makes the difference between how federal judges understand the Second Amendment. (Lund, 103)

By being against gun ownership for the masses, many Americans have the feeling that they act against the country's Founding Fathers. Guns are a part of the nation's history and they were one of the reasons why people were able to go against English authority and eventually win the Revolutionary War. Although the country's law enforcement situation changed significantly ever since the late eighteenth century, many are still unable to leave their traditions behind and thus lobby with regard to how the authorities should continue to support the right to own guns.

Gun control laws are obviously affected by the Second Amendment, as people have the tendency to interpret it in accordance with their interests. The Second Amendment contains complicated clauses and phrasing, the text makes it difficult for readers to reach a conclusion regarding its exact purpose. Concept like a 'militia', the 'people', and the type of arms the text is referring to can be especially confusing. This makes it possible for both gun-ownership supporters and individuals in favor of gun control to interpret the text with the purpose of influencing federal courts to see their perspective as the correct one (Heller).

Interpreting the Second Amendment

The most recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment is the United States v. Miller one, but it provides little information about the topic under discussion. When considering the Second Amendment, pro-gun communities believe that it directly emphasizes the need for people to own guns while anti-gun communities consider that the act is really meant to highlight the need for a militia unit in the country.

Individuals supporting gun control relate to the effects that guns have had on the U.S. during recent years. "It has been estimated that economically the cost of gun violence is on the border of $100 billion per year." (Chemerinsky, 479) Furthermore, the majority of murders, numerous robberies, and a series of other illegalities are committed using firearms. In response to this, gun supporters claim that these statistics have no relevance in the context of the Second Amendment (Chemerinsky, 479). In a way, the act stands as the perfect example of how a law in the Constitution can be interpreted in several ways depending on people's thinking. This makes it possible to perceive NRA success as "a textbook example of a special interest group capturing the legislative process, and the remedy is to file lawsuits asking courts to impose gun controls that would otherwise be passed by a truly representative legislature" (Lytton, 154).

Criminological and legal elements

The idea of gun control has been known to take two main approaches, one of them involving the criminological aspect of the subject and one relating to the legal element. Criminologists have addressed the probability that gun control would reduce the number of crimes associated with guns and the probability that this would also take away people's ability to protect themselves. Legal experts discusses with regard to a legal barrier that prevents the authorities from denying the masses access to guns.

Both the criminological and the legal approaches tend to take the matter extremely seriously by considering all the implications that gun ownership entails. "In this regard, the gun in America is properly understood from the position of realism, in that the most important feature of the gun is its actual physical characteristics: because a gun can shoot a lead projectile at an attacker from a distance, a smaller person can effectively defend herself against an attacker." (Kopel) The fact that the gun can be carried with little to no effort and that it provides the user with the ability to defend him or herself from an attacker means that it can make the difference between a successful attack and one that fails. Similarly, guns make it possible for criminals to project a force they would otherwise be unable to project.

Limiting firearms -- a way to reduce crime-related crimes

Gun laws are perceived differently by diverse groups in the U.S., as while some think about them as a means to make sure the masses have a way to protect themselves, others cannot ignore the numerous crimes associated with guns. When considering conditions in Philadelphia, for example, Donald W. Dowd's description of the gun environment there is at least controversial. In a conversation with Senator Hugh Scott, Dowd was encouraged to believe that gun laws are permissive for the benefit of the people. From the senator's perspective, the Second Amendment enables hunters to perform their activities without being persecuted as a result of this (Dowd).

In contrast to hunters and to basically anyone wanting to use the Second Amendment as a means to demonstrate the level of freedom he or she has in the U.S., many other individuals in Philadelphia believe that gun ownership is one of the principal reasons why people in the state live in a state of constant fear. "Many other Philadelphians have their sleep shattered by gun shots, and others live in fear of armed robbery, drive-by shootings, gang warfare and random fire." (Dowd) These respective individuals find it difficult to perceive guns as a symbol of freedom.

Although gun control comes to be discussed in a context involving perspective, the reality is that all people in the U.S., regardless of whether they are hunters or if they are gangsters, observe the degree to which guns negatively affect the community. "These different perceptions have clashed in both state and national legislatures during numerous battles about laws that would impose gun controls." (Dowd) The fact that gun supporters themselves can have different reasons for wanting to own guns brings even more confusion to the matter. Some individuals live in risk-free areas and simply want to own guns because of American cultural values while others live in dangerous conditions and consider that owning a gun can sometimes be the only way to stay alive.

The National Rifle Association's accountability

The gun debate in the contemporary U.S. has come to have a specific political nature. The country currently has approximately 20,000 laws and regulations aimed at controlling firearms. In spite of this, tens of thousands of people die on a yearly basis as a result of guns. As the number of firearms is constantly increasing, the authorities have attempted to respond by installing harsher regulations and by trying to identify potential flaws in the system (Kwon et al., 41).

Gun control activists consider the National Rifle Association as one of the principal reasons why the legislative process is corrupted in its mission to achieve goals associated with diverse laws meant to limit the number of guns. This influenced them to go to courts in hope they will provide them with justice in the matter and further make gun laws harsher. "In response to these lawsuits, the gun industry, with help from the NRA, has turned to state legislatures and Congress for protection." (Lytton, 152) A number of bills emerged from this conflict, as legislatures and Congress devised a system that would continue to promote gun ownership among the American masses.

Although the NRA has been known to have an influence on the legislative process, lots of individuals are skeptical with regard to the exact level of involvement the association has had. The need for guns can also be perceived as a general need -- one that comes from people in the U.S. In general rather than from the NRA in particular. In a way, many individuals who criticize the NRA for its involvement in the gun industry in the U.S. do so because they are not necessarily interested in going through a complex legislative process addressing gun laws in general. Critics thus concentrate on going against gun dealers instead of the government. This proves that they are determined to do anything in their power in order to keep guns off the streets, even if this means that they allow the authorities to keep their laws while going against the actual companies that manufacture and sell firearms. Gun control activists often argue that "the NRA mobilizes grass roots opposition to gun control using extremist rhetoric, engages in intensive lobbying at all levels of government, and uses campaign contributions to reelect its allies and punish its enemies." (Lytton, 154)

The way that the gun control community deals with the legal environment in the country is intriguing because it proves that these people trust courts more than they trust the authorities. From their point-of-view, attempting to control gun ownership through a series of lawsuits can be much more effective than actually attempting to have legislators and Congress implement harsher gun laws (Lytton, 155).

The current circumstances of the gun control debate

Even with the fact that concepts such as the Second Amendment are interpretable, both sides involved in the debate have strong arguments to back up their position. "Advocates of control use a diverse array of methods-not just econometrics, in fact, but contingent valuation studies, public health risk-factor analyses, and the like-to quantify the physical and economic harm that guns inflict on our society." (Kahan, 3) Individuals opposing gun control are similarly prepared to support their convictions, one of their principal arguments being that gun control can actually cause more physical and economic negative effects as victims find it difficult to defend themselves when they come across a potential predator (Kahan, 3).

What most researchers fail to understand when considering the gun debate is the fact that culture is the main reason why it exists in the first place. This also means that individuals who feel closer to traditions and with the country's background are more probable to oppose gun control. "Control opponents tend to be rural, Southern or Western, Protestant, male, and white." (Kahan, 4) These people think of guns as being a symbol of positive values in the U.S., with the most important being the right to self-sufficiency. "Control proponents, in contrast, are disproportionately urban, Eastern, Catholic or Jewish, female, and African-American." (Kahan, 4) Control supporters also concentrate on the cultural aspect of guns in the U.S., but they tend to catalogue it as one of the reasons why the country experiences so many problems. They promote values like nonaggression and social solidarity when trying to demonstrate that their position is the correct one.

The debate is surprising when considering that both camps tend to emphasize the same values in some cases. Both groups tend to relate to values like equality and solidarity. It is thus difficult to relate to these values, as they seem to support both positions and only bring more confusion to the matter (Kahan, 3).