The Gun Control Debate: Arguments For and Against

Introduction: Framing the Gun Control Debate

Aside from a very few other pressing issues in contemporary American society, gun control ranks as one of the most hotly contested debates. From semantic arguments over the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to statistical analyses of crime rates to philosophical debates about individual versus collective rights, there seems to be little room for moderate and rational discussion of whether gun control is a reasonable social response to the existence of guns.

As Amar aptly explains in "Second Thoughts":

"In one corner, gun controllers embrace a narrow, statist reading, insisting that the amendment merely confers a right on state governments to establish professional state militias like the National Guard or local SWAT teams. No ordinary citizen is covered by the amendment in this view. In the other corner, gun owners and their supporters read the amendment in a broad libertarian way, arguing that it protects a right of every individual to have guns for self-protection, for hunting, and even for sport." (2002, p. 103)

In other words, the gun control debate is being largely defined and framed by groups with diametrically opposing views about the constitutional guarantees afforded to individuals with regard to the right to own guns. Perhaps if the Second Amendment were not a central piece of the U.S. Constitution, the issue of gun control would not be as fiercely debated, as is the case in many other nations to varying degrees. However, in the United States, the ambiguity of the state's right to regulate gun ownership — as well as the ethics of such regulation — remains very much in play.

For those individuals who take the position that gun control is necessary, the argument is often that the nation's citizens must be protected from themselves, so to speak. The capacity to responsibly own firearms is called into question, and law-abiding citizens who happen to own guns are potentially made into criminals under new regulations. For those who take the broad libertarian position, "Requiring registration of guns and even licenses with practical and book tests, on the model of licensing drivers, sends some gun lovers up the wall — the first step toward confiscation, they predict in dire tones" (Amar, 2002, p. 111).

Both positions are somewhat extreme and will be explored in more depth, but interestingly both point toward the same fundamental issue. LaFollette, one prominent gun control advocate, correctly states: "our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions" (quoted in Stell, 2001, p. 29). Ultimately, this is the question that must be examined when considering the gun control debate. Whether we take the broad libertarian or statist position — or take another approach altogether — we are ultimately attempting to justify an ethical position on the degree to which an individual may be permitted to own a gun in a presumably free nation.

The Argument for Gun Control

The arguments for gun control can be roughly divided into a few different categories: positive correlations between crime rates and gun ownership, collectivist interpretations of the Second Amendment, the determination that guns represent an extreme and unjustifiable public hazard, and the claim that the right to own a gun is a derivative rather than a fundamental right. Though these may sound quite varied, they are not. These arguments stem largely from the belief that guns in individual, largely unregulated hands represent a significant threat to the safety of society as a whole. From this starting position, the only logical conclusion gun control advocates can draw is that guns must be more strictly regulated in order to make society safer from violence. Ultimately, advocates argue:

"only a few types of guns (say, hunting rifles) may be owned by certain citizens (say, mentally competent adults who are not felons) under limited conditions (say, provided the citizen has a license, the weapon is registered, and the citizen is not permitted to conceal the weapon or carry it in certain settings)." (Stark, 2001, p. 25)

Taken in this context, the aims of gun control advocates can be considered laudable, especially when we examine some of their primary arguments and supporting evidence. Kwon and Baack (2005) point out that "In 2000, almost 30,000 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, more than the number of deaths from HIV, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse [...] despite almost 20,000 laws and regulations regulating gun usage to some degree" (p. 534). Such statistics counter-intuitively seem to suggest that existing gun control laws are not working to reduce gun-related fatalities. However, Kwon and Baack's (2005) survey of composite legislation on gun control reveals that more stringent gun control laws in states can decrease fatality rates by 1 to 6 per 100,000. It is a deterrent, but only a single factor in a complex issue that also includes law enforcement policies and socioeconomic indicators (p. 545). While they acknowledge that legislation is only one factor, they nonetheless argue that gun control legislation can meaningfully reduce gun-related fatalities and should be pursued.

Further supporting this position is historical data linking crime rates — specifically homicide rates — with the availability of guns in the United States. Zimring (2004) argues that the relationship between guns and violence illustrates that gun use, particularly the availability of handguns, increases the death rate from violence by a factor of three to five in crimes of violence. While guns are not used in all crimes, or even in all violent crimes, they are used in approximately 70% of all homicides (p. 34). The conclusion drawn from this data is that if we could eliminate or severely reduce the availability of guns, or increase the social costs of ownership, we might significantly reduce these crime statistics.

Consequently, it is extremely common for those persuaded by this data to argue for increased gun control legislation and regulations. LaFollette (2001) argues that more stringent regulations — such as requiring all guns to be stored in locked cabinets with criminal penalties for noncompliance — do not interfere with many arguments against gun control and thus should not be construed negatively (p. 34). Rather, stricter regulations would simply serve as a means to enhance public safety by limiting the conditions under which guns can be possessed and used. The doctrine of strict liability would hold gun owners more responsible for crimes committed with their guns, regardless of their direct responsibility in the crime, because they willingly possessed an item that could be described as particularly hazardous, especially in light of gun-related homicide, suicide, and accident rates (pp. 37–38). In other words, gun regulations could reduce the availability of guns — and thus their use in crimes — by increasing the costs and legal risks for all gun owners.

In essence, the push for increased gun control is based on modern and historical data suggesting a relationship between gun-related fatalities, especially homicides, and the availability of guns. The gun control argument follows the logic that more guns will inevitably lead to more crime and more danger, and that reducing the availability of guns should have the opposite effect.

References

Amar, A. R. (2002, Spring). Second thoughts. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65(2), pp. 103–111.

Hunt, L. H. (2001, Winter/Spring). Epilogue: Is there an issue here? Criminal Justice Ethics, pp. 40–44.

Kwon, I., & Baack, D. W. (2005, April). The effectiveness of legislation controlling gun usage. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 64(2), pp. 533–547.

LaFollette, H. (2001, Winter/Spring). Controlling guns. Criminal Justice Ethics, pp. 34–39.

Moorhouse, J. C., & Wanner, B. (2006, Winter). Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control? Cato Journal, 26(1), pp. 103–124.

Stark, C. (2001, Winter/Spring). Fundamental rights and the right to bear arms. Criminal Justice Ethics, pp. 25–27.

Stell, L. K. (2001, Winter/Spring). Gun control and the regulation of fundamental rights. Criminal Justice Ethics, pp. 28–33.

Stell, L. K. (2004). Violence in America: Is strict gun control the solution? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32, pp. 38–46.

Wheeler, S. C. (2001, Winter/Spring). Gun violence and fundamental rights. Criminal Justice Ethics, pp. 19–24.

Zimring, F. E. (2004). Firearms, violence, and the potential impact of firearms control. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32, pp. 34–37.