There are many issues that divide the American public, but very few that divide the public as firmly as the issue of gun control. While many Americans support some form of gun control, others feel firmly that the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees all individuals the right to own and carry guns. Because of the logistical issues of gun control and the high potential for violence, the federal government of the United States has fallen somewhere in the middle of the debate, but the debate continues to rage on. With every instance of gun violence that surfaces, more people decry American gun laws, but the more gun control supporters push, the harder the gun-rights advocates push back. It is a vicious cycle of push-and-pull between two sides that refuse to listen to the arguments that the other is making-- both feel that they are in the right, and are unwilling to compromise. Gun control, while an unappealing prospect, is something that needs to be approached aggressively by policymakers to help avoid further issues of large-scale gun violence in the United States.
The courts of the United States often have to answer questions related to guns and gun ownership. The Supreme Court of the United States, for instance, has ruled on multiple different gun ownership issues; how the Court rules is often dictated by the makeup of the Court and the political and personal opinions of the Justices sitting on the court at any given time (Newman). One thing that the Court seems to agree on, however, is that the right to own and carry a gun is not an inalienable, un-curtailable right; there are and should be limits placed on gun ownership for the American people (Henigan).
This does not mean that the Court has ruled that guns are not allowed-- obviously, this is not the case. The Court has allowed, however, that certain restrictions can be put on gun ownership, because of the way that they have legally interpreted the Second Amendment over the years (“Circuit Court Bolsters Gun Rights”). The precedent set by previous Supreme Courts provides a standard for any Supreme Court currently sitting, unless the precedent represents a gross miscarriage of justice (Newman). For this reason, the precedent set regarding gun control and gun rights remains today. The first few cases that came before the Supreme Court found the Court deciding upon what kind of rights an individual has to carry a gun; the Court ruled that the individual him or herself does not necessarily have a right, but that the Second Amendment is primarily concerned with the right of the individual to organize against the government (Roleff). The individual’s right to carry a gun and use it in case of a threat to his or her personal safety is not, according to Supreme Court precedent, the purpose of the existence of the Second Amendment; like all the other Amendments in the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists to protect the individual from the government, not the individual from other individuals (“Personal Guns and the Second Amendment”).
This discussion of the personal right to carry firearms speaks deeply to the American psyche. On the one hand, Americans highly value autonomy, and the right to make their own personal decisions regarding their lives; on the other hand, gun accessibility has been linked quite conclusively to gun violence (Brendt). It does not help that the public is incredibly divided on the matter-- when there has been a long period of relative calm, the public supports more lax gun control measures; however, when there is an instance involving gun violence that is particularly shocking, the public often begins to support stricter gun control measures (Henigan).
A fantastic example of this dynamic can be seen with the recent Sandy Hook school shooting; until the shooting happened, the public was lukewarm on the issue of gun control and gun rights. However, immediately following the incident, there was a public outcry and a call for discussion on the gun accessibility issue in the United States (Levy). There is no telling whether or not this outcry will do any good when it comes to changing gun control legislation in the United States, however-- there are many powerful forces at work when it comes to gun control and gun control legislation, and legislation often moves slowly, if it moves at all through the American legislature.
One of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States is the National Rifle Association, or the NRA. The NRA is a group of individuals and lobbyists who believe that carrying a gun is their constitutional right as American citizens, and they lobby the legislature regularly for looser gun control laws (Levy). The NRA is a very wealthy, well-connected organization and their presence in American politics makes it very difficult for gun control legislation to be passed. It is, of course, the right of the individual to speak their mind and to lobby the government-- the existence of the NRA is not the problem. However, the NRA is very powerful, and has blocked some legislation in the past that could have led to lessened gun violence in the United States (Newman).
Gun-rights advocates often say that even if guns are made illegal, and gun accessibility is tightened and restricted, criminals will still be able to obtain and use guns for their own nefarious purposes. These advocates will also say that if gun control is tightened, criminals will have guns, but the average, law-abiding citizen will no longer be able to own a gun to protect him or herself (Newman). However, this argument seems to be fundamentally flawed. The government outlaws murder, even though criminals will murder anyway; the government outlaws theft, even though criminals will steal anyway; gun violence, regardless of legality or illegality, will happen. The question is not eradicating it based off a government decree, but rather to restrict the access that people have to the kinds of weapons that can kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time.
The second half of the argument is similarly flawed. Studies have shown that having a gun will often escalate a violent confrontation, not de-escalate it; when a gun is drawn in any kind of tense situation, it is likely that someone is going to be shot (Brendt). Logically, reducing the number of guns available would reduce the number of situations that escalate quickly and violently as a result of an individual pulling out a gun and threatening someone with it. Twice as many guns in a situation generally means that it is twice as likely that someone is going to be shot (Brendt).
However, regardless of the problems that gun accessibility poses to the American public, completely restricting the American people’s access to guns would be illegal and also illogical. There are many, many guns in circulation in the United States; suddenly making gun ownership illegal would pose logistical problems of an incredible magnitude (Levy). However, responsible legislation regarding the accessibility of guns and restrictions on certain types of guns could potentially help curb the rising amount of gun violence in the United States (Liptak).
Individuals who carry out massively violent acts like the Sandy Hook school shooting are disturbed individuals who would not be cured by a lack of access to guns. However, if the ability of these types of individuals were restricted, it could help stem this type of violence (Levy). Mandatory background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon and mandatory wait times are good policies to put into place; it may be problematic for gun dealers, but overall, it would help to halt some of the violence before it starts (Levy).
There is no complete solution to gun violence in the United States. Gun rights advocates are right about one thing-- criminals will always be able to access guns, because they are willing to circumvent the law to do so. However, there are ways to curb gun violence that involves restricting certain aspects of gun ownership. Requiring safety devices and background checks could slow accidental gun death and spree killings respectively. The issue that faces America now is how to design responsible legislation that will preserve the rights of the individual while still finding a way to slow (and ideally halt) the rising tide of gun violence in the United States today.
References
Brendt, David A. et al. "Firearms and Adolescent Suicide A Community Case-Control Study." JAMA Pediatrics, 147. 10 (2003): Print.
Henigan, Dennis. "The Right to be Armed: A Constitutional Illusion." Handgun Control Inc.
page. Print.
Levy , Robert A. "Reflections on gun control by a Second Amendment advocate." LegalTimes [Washington] 11 02 2013, n. pag. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
Liptak, Adam. "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling." New York Times. 2010. Web. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?src=me&_r=0].
Newman, K. S. Rampage, the social roots of school shootings. Basic Books (AZ), 2004. Print.
Roleff, Tamara L. Gun Control. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Print.
Scotusblog.com. "Circuit Court bolsters gun rights." 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2013.
Unknown. "Personal Guns and the Second Amendment." New York Times. 2012. Web. 18 March 2013. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-second-amendment.html].
