Battling Perspectives on Gun Control
In the wake of the Christchurch mosque attack in New Zealand the country has rapidly moved. Less than a month since the attack actually occurred New Zealand the Prime Minister has actively moved to ban an array of semi-automatic guns and firearms[1]. In the U.S., however, action this decisive has yet to occur. In fact, few countries find the issue of gun control as polarizing and politicizing as the United States. While some cheer for New Zealand’s rapid response and pray the U.S. is able to learn from it, others frown upon the infringement on individual rights. These dissenting opinions raise questions about national safety, individual property rights, and the government’s role. It becomes clear that gun control legislation must be evaluated under two separate frameworks – one based in utilitarianism the other in autonomy – to determine the proper course of action for the American government.
Often times, the argument in favor of firearms being available to the public is couched in the Second Amendment. The amendment 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[2].” The amendment proclaims that the people of the United States have a right to bear arms based on the need for a “well regulated militia”. In recent years, however, the supreme court has largely nullified the need for gun ownership to relate to a militia. Both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago demonstrate the court's recent pronouncement that gun ownership need not relate directly to a “well regulated militia”. Nevertheless, I hold this to be an unsettling interpretation of the amendment which directly mentions a militia as the reasoning behind granting citizens access to forearms. If a citizens purchase of a forearm does not pertain to a “well regulated militia” it should not fall under the protection granted by the second amendment.
In addition, it seems firearms contribute more to violence than to safety. In 2013 protection was the most common reason for citizens to own a firearm with roughly 48% of gun owners identifying protection as the primary reason for owning a gun[3]. However, this contrasts with data that finds guns were used in self defense in less than 1 percent of crimes between 2007-2011[4]. This finding suggests that while people may purchase firearms with the intent of protecting themselves or their family, the firearm is very rarely used in this manner. On the other, there were 478,400 violent crimes committed with a firearm, both fatal and nonfatal, in 2011 alone[5]. This data in tandem with statistics on firearm usage on self defense indicates that firearms are ineffective for self defense but quite effective for perpetrating crimes. It is at this point that the debate ceases to concern facts and moves to a discussion of values.
Under a utilitarian framework it appears obvious that guns should altogether be banned, or at least there should be much more stringent regulations than those that currently exist. This is because a utilitarian perspective focuses directly on a comparison of good done to society as a whole. This on balance approach would argue that the few who use guns for safety successfully fail to outweigh those use firearms to perpetrate crimes and as a result, the firearms should be removed to provide net benefit to society.
It is important to note that in this evaluation of utilitarianism I am solely comparing the lives at stake. While there are reasons people own guns outside of protection (hunting, collection etc.) from which they derive pleasure, these reasons fail to measure adequately to the loss of a human life or the crime which is carried out with the assistance of firearms.
A utilitarian framework is not the only one under which firearms must be evaluated. It is imperative to also consider the rights of individuals living within the United States. It is both unlawful and immoral to infringe so directly on the rights of United States Citizens despite the suggestion of a utilitarian framework. This is because of the fifth amendment. This amendment guarantees citizens a right to private property. This amendment and the mention of private property are rare in discussions concerning gun laws but it also seems to be the strongest argument. Citizens have a right to own guns just as they have a right to own anything else.
Firearms are not inherently evil. In many ways guns are similar to alcohol – not appropriate for all, restricted for those with access, impossible to ban without sacrificing property rights. This is not to say that firearms don’t generate issues, the Christchurch mosque attack standing as an obvious indicator of this, but solutions may need to be more creative than complete removal of firearms if core American values are to be kept in tact.
[1] Engle, Jeremy. "Should the U.S. Ban Military-Style Semi-automatic Weapons?" The New York Times. March 22, 2019. Accessed March 25, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/learning/us-bans-semiautomatic-weapons.html
[2] Strasser, Mr. Ryan. "Second Amendment." Legal Information Institute. June 05, 2017. Accessed March 25, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment.
[3] "Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. December 12, 2014. Accessed March 25, 2019. https://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/.
[4] Planty, Michael, and Jennifer L. Truman. "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011." U.S. Department of Justice. May 2013.
[5] Ibid.