‘People kill people, guns don’t kill people’, a common phrase used to defend the Second Amendment. Supporters of civilian gun ownership mistakenly argue that banning guns is analogous to placing a band aid over a broken bone and not fixing the grassroot problems that contribute to gun violence in America. The argument distracts from the crux of the debate on gun ownership: all countries have broken bones, and removing guns won’t heal them all- it’s about whether this band aid makes things marginally better or worse.
My first challenge to this line of argument is rooted in the differing psychologies behind shooting a gun once, and using alternative weapons such as a knife. Granted, if someone is desperate to take the life of themselves or someone else, they can without a gun, but the gun facilitates a rash and unreasonable decision. It removes a layer of thought. Not only is this critical when considering the 549 people who lost their lives in America in 2021 through ‘accidental’ shootings – 549 people who could never have been ‘accidentally’ stabbed to death, but it is also relevant when considering the fact that 54 per cent of gun deaths in America are due to suicide. A number of the 26,328 Americans that died from suicide by gun in 2021 may well have taken their lives in different ways in the absence of guns, but would all of them have followed through with the process if they had time to think? I doubt all 26,328 would have, and if they did a number of them may have been unsuccessful in their attempt and could have been rehabilitated after the failed attempt.
We can apply similar reasoning to the deaths by homicide. The psychology behind repeatedly stabbing another individual to death, and following through with your action whilst witnessing the pain and the destruction you are inflicting, is simply different to firing one shot and turning away, disconnected from what you have just done. Removing guns adds thought and reality, and such thought can prevent deaths.
A second common argument for gun ownership concerns protecting citizens against the State. This, again, is an unsound argument. In England and Wales in 2022, three people were killed by police. In America, this corresponding figure was 1097. Multiplying the English figure by five to account for population differences, we have 15 in comparison to 1097. You are 73 times more likely to be killed by a police officer in the US. This is entirely logical: in a state where civilians own guns, police must also carry them as they are faced with a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation, and want to insure against a scenario where the suspected criminal is carrying a gun. If you are 73 times more likely to be killed in America from police officers employed by the State, how can we continue to argue that gun ownership makes people more able to defend themselves against the State? Even though civilians in the US are allowed to own guns, police officers still hold the advantage of being more trained to use the weapons they are given, strength in numbers, and the mandated authority they have in society due to being employed by the Government. This not only takes down the argument that American gun ownership allows civilians to stand up to State officials, but it also makes gun ownership relevant to movements such as Black Lives Matter, considering police violence disproportionately affects African Americans. Whilst guns harm people from every ethnic group in America, they disproportionately impact certain minority groups.
The remaining argument in favour of gun ownership, the fact that it is written in the American Constitution, is also problematic. It is undeniable that America was born out of Revolution, and that many Americans feel that gun ownership is a component of the ‘liberty’ on which they were founded, and the ‘liberty’ that they continue to enjoy as a country. But what they forget is that ‘liberty’ as a word manifests itself in many different forms. Here I turn to a quote by Abraham Lincoln: “we all declare liberty; but in using the same word we do not mean the same thing.” Proponents of gun ownership are believers in negative liberty (i.e. the ability to do as you want) whilst those against gun ownership believe in positive liberty, and that liberty can be expanded through intervention, as this intervention will protect lives. To me, liberty is intervening to keep the 12 children who lose their lives from gun violence each day alive to live their lives in a fulfilling way, uninterrupted by bullets. Banning guns isn’t removing ‘liberty,’ it is modernising the type of liberty that exists from negative liberty to positive liberty. The Second Amendment was written in 1791 as a means of self-defence. Since then, guns have been used to conduct mass shootings in densely populated cities that were much less common 200 years ago, and to attract attention online in an era of social media. Changing gun legislation isn’t removing the liberty on which America was founded, it is revisiting the optimal version of liberty in our current 21st century that the Founding Fathers could not possibly envisage.
Statistics aside, what about the immeasurable fear amongst school teachers conducting shooting drills, tourists walking along the road, teenagers going to the park, all qualitative feelings that can’t be measured, though that affect the lives of everyday Americans. When ‘liberty’ under the status quo removes a layer of thought, means you are 73 times more likely to be killed by a police officer when you are pulled over on the side of the road, and gives your country a homicide rate four times that of the UK’s, is this really the best version of liberty?
Your article was good, but I believe there are other aspects to take into consideration when discussing the future of the Second Amendment. For example, the phrase “People kill people, guns don’t kill people” is often used to emphasize personal responsibility over blaming inanimate objects. You make your point about addressing the root causes of gun violence, but it’s important to recognize that this issue is complex and cannot be solely attributed to the existence of firearms.
Your argument suggests that the removal of guns can lead to a decrease in impulsive actions, particularly in cases of suicide. While this is a valid concern, individuals that are determined will still find an alternative way to end their lives. I believe that comprehensive mental health support and early intervention are essential to address the underlying causes of these actions, rather than focusing solely on the availability of firearms.
You compare gun deaths by police in England and the United States, but it’s important to consider the broader context of these two nations. There are multiple topics to take into consideration such as policing dynamics, social structures, and crime rates. All of these vary significantly between these two countries. For example, the amount of police violence is complex and extends beyond the presence of civilian firearms. Simply disarming citizens may not necessarily lead to reduced police violence, and it could oversimplify the factors contributing to such incidents.
The concept of “liberty” is indeed comprehensive, and both positive and negative liberties have their merits. In your article, you argue for modernizing liberty by restricting gun ownership, but it’s important to respect the historical context in which the Second Amendment was written. There needs to be a balance between personal freedoms and public safety, which is a complex challenge. Finding solutions to gun violence requires addressing multiple areas such as socioeconomic factors, mental health services, and law enforcement practices.
While there is an emotional impact of gun violence on individuals, it’s important to remember that actions aimed at reducing gun ownership must also take into consideration the rights of responsible gun owners who use their firearms for legitimate purposes such as self-defense, hunting, and sport. The key to creating effective gun control policies should involve a gentle approach that respects individual rights while also prioritizing public safety.
Overall, your article highlights important concerns about gun violence, but it’s important to consider the broader implications of policy changes and address the complex nature of this issue. Finding common ground and comprehensive solutions requires careful consideration of diverse viewpoints and a commitment to evidence-based strategies.