The Gun Control Debate

Dear Readers,

One of my resolutions this year is to be writing more, so hopefully I will be posting two blog entries a month instead of just the one.  For January, I want to write both a pop culture blog, probably looking at the new Star Wars film, and a politically focused entry on gun control in America.  In light of the President’s executive order on the subject of gun control, I decided that this would be a good time to address the subject.

The question of gun control in the United States is a very complicated one, with a lot of different factors influencing both advocates and opponents.  I will try to address as many of these factors as I can to explain why I believe that harsher gun restrictions are not the ideal solution for the problem of gun violence in the US.

There are two potential solutions for gun violence, which have statistical evidence to back them up, and they are opposite extremes.  Gun violence decreases due to the absence or prevalence of firearms; either more guns or no guns will cause a drop in gun crimes.  The reasons for this are obvious.  A criminal is less likely to use a gun to hold up a gas station either if he cannot obtain a gun, or if he is afraid that the station owner will shoot him if he tries.  It is important to acknowledge that both solutions work.  In Australia, for example, where there was a massive move for public disarmament, mass shootings are almost non existent, and gun crimes have (obviously) plummeted.  However, if you look at statistics for Switzerland, where there is mandatory military service and gun ownership in the population, crime is also practically non existent.  Both extremes provide a solution to the problem, thus, the question becomes, which strategy should be employed to successfully decrease gun violence in the US.  I believe that greater rates of gun ownership are the more practical solution for America.  The reasons are diverse, ranging from historical to geographical, practical to philosophical.

Historically, gun ownership has always been a major part of the American tradition.  We are a country born out of Revolution, from the violent overthrow of an oppressing power.  In order to assure that future governments could not oppress the people, the Second Amendment of the Constitution was added, guaranteeing the people the right to keep and bear arms for their protection, particularly against a tyrannical government infringing upon their rights.  American gun ownership was designed to serve as a further check against the power of the federal government; providing a potential consequence for the government’s usurpation of the power of the people.

The American tradition of gun ownership is not limited to questions of the Revolution and the Second Amendment, however.  America is also a country carved out of wilderness, a country of vast expanses and harsh terrain.  Americans built our nation with firearms.  Settlers living several days journey from the nearest town or settlement provided food for their families by hunting.  Mountain men exploring the vast continent protected themselves from grizzlie bears and mountain lions with guns, blazing trails through the wilderness that would later be followed by pioneers who would build farms and ranches, towns, and cities.  It is here that reasons of history unite with reasons of geography.  The US is still relatively untamed.  There are vast mountains and wide forests that still hold the dangers that threatened the early settlers.  I live in the country, in Northern California.  I have had a bear come up on my front porch looking for food, I have seen a mountain lion in the back acreage of our land, and there was a rattlesnake living under our back deck.  If a woman wants to feel safe when she goes for a jog around my house, she will likely be packing.  The same can be said for the threat of gators and cotton mouths in the south, and grizzlie bears and wolves in the north.  A country that holds nothing more dangerous than the badger can feel justified in banning guns, but in a country that is still as young and wild as the US, banning firearms introduces new dangers, particularly to those who live in rural areas.

From a practical perspective, there are other difficulties in pursuing a solution that outlaws guns.  Currently, there are over 300 million guns in the US. The vast, vast majority of those are owned by law abiding citizens who keep them for protection or hunting.  Their right to keep those guns is guaranteed by the constitution, and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.  Such an amendment is not going to pass given the current climate in the US (more on this in a bit).  Any attempt by the government to confiscate those guns will be met with resistance from those gun owners.  Disarmament needs to be a voluntary choice by the people of the nation (as it was in Australia), and given the historical and geographical reasons already discussed, the odds of the majority of Americans choosing to disarm are miniscule. 

Finally, from a philosophical perspective, it would be untenable for the US to disarm its citizens.  The American government was founded upon the concept of inalienable rights, rights that are so basic that they are self evident.  Those rights are granted, not by the government, or any man made organization, but by “the Creator.”  These rights cannot be taken away by the government because they have not been endowed by the government.  While the right to bear arms is not an inalienable right, it is a right designed for the protection of its more fundamental counterparts.  The government supersedes its authority and becomes tyrannical when (as is the case with president Obama’s executive order) it infringes upon the people’s rights without their consent.

Such a political move also fails to recognize the role of the government and the president therein.  According to John Locke, the role of government is to provide a better state of living for the people than that which they would have achieved in nature; it is the role of the government to provide protection from external threats, and to create and enforce the laws of the nation to protect the citizens from each other.  The the US, the roles of the government are further limited and divided.  The role of the congress is the make laws, the role of the executive (the president) is to enforce laws, and the role of the courts is to interpret the laws.  President Obama violates is role as president in two ways with this executive action.  First, the role of government in general is to protect the citizens from external threats.  The president’s weak response to both the attacks in Paris and San Bernadino has demonstrated to Americans his inability to act as an effective protective agent in the interests of this country.  Instead of responding with vigor and energy to these attacks, the president played politics, choosing to defend his previous positions and asserting that his (obviously failed) strategy was working.  In doing so, he violated his role as protector of the United States.  The result?  Over the last few months, upon demonstration of president Obama’s massive ineptitude with regard to foreign policy and national security, gun purchases have skyrocketed, as citizens, convinced of the governments ineffectiveness, take the defense of their lives, liberty, and property into their own hands.  Secondly, the role of the president is to enforce laws.  There are already restrictions on gun ownership in many of the states and cities in this country, laws that are not being effectively enforced.  In the instance of the San Bernadino shootings, the weapons used had been altered as automatics, illegal to own in the state of California.  The rifles had been purchased, furthermore, by the neighbor of the terrorists, a straw purchase that is also against California law.  Further regulation would not have prevented either of those incidence, but better cases of enforcement would.  Instead of focusing on creating new legislation and laws, which is the job of congress, the president should be looking at his own inability to enforce the laws already on the books, and looking for potential solutions within his own authority.

The question of how to prevent gun crime in America is a complicated one, informed by centuries of history, culture, and politics.  At this point in time, I believe that further attempts to restrict gun ownership in the US are ill founded.  The lack of security recent attacks have demonstrated, the the government’s inability to enforce the laws already in place to protect the citizens calls into question the efficacy of further regulation.  In light of the government’s failure, the ability of the citizens to take their defense into their own hands should not be condemned.  Instead of restricting gun ownership, we should instead takes steps to inform gun owners.  I mentioned Switzerland’s mandatory military service and gun ownership earlier; the reason that such methods are effective in keeping the peace and reducing gun violence is because the citizens are informed about the nature of guns.  Mandatory gun safety classes for all public school students could go a long way toward building respect for guns as what they are, a potentially dangerous tool.  By learning what a gun can and cannot do, one also learns its proper uses; the good it can do, and the danger it presents.  

Well, back to reality!