Every time a shooting happens within minutes the news is blazing with gun control debates. Battle lines are drawn and each side uses the tragedy to reinforce its positions. Essentially society is divided on this issue because at the deepest level people disagree about what a firearms function should be in a society.
There is no doubt that guns do have a cost. Inevitably guns will be used to do terrible things. The question is if the benefits of firearms in society outweigh the costs of the lives lost by their misuse and how far our regulations regarding firearms should go. Some act as if any deaths from shootings justify ridding society of firearms. For instance, we allow cars and they are far more deadly than guns. We simply realize the benefits are worth the cost in lives lost. So what benefits of guns in society could possibly justify the loss of life from their misuse? Lets explore this and examine some of the facts.
Fact: Gun control already exists. (and rightfully so).
First, we must recognize that gun control already exists. Children cannot purchase guns or carry them to school and automatic weapons cannot be purchased without extensive government permits and authority. However, the question is how far we want to regulate firearms and why. This is where the debate begins. People are either arguing for or against more gun regulations. However, before debating more or less regulations you must first have formulated your ideas about the role firearms play in a civilized society, as this will frame your opinion about the reasonableness of any particular gun control policy. The writers of the American Constitution had notions about the role of firearms in society and regardless of whether you like them or not are important if you want to understand the context of the debate.
Fact: The 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the citizenry a means by which they could protect their rights.
The following overviews the historical context of the creation of the second amendment.
Enlightenment philosophical ideas about liberty heavily influenced the original authors of the US constitution. These ideas viewed firearms as a tool for the preservation of individual liberty from any entity which tried to rob an individual of their rights. A firearm gave a free man teeth so that his liberty could be defended. This is not just for cases of a burglar stealing your property but is more so intended toward a society generally. Armed people have power. Armed people can band together to defend themselves when social order breaks down. The notion is that a person should not outsource their ultimate security to the government. If the government loses its control or becomes corrupt you are left naked and have essentially sold your liberty because you have no means of defending it without the assistance of the government.
Fact: Insurgencies have a long success record against standing armies.
But what about the common objections like "the government has tanks, are you going to use guns against tanks?" On the face of it this may seem totally reasonable, until you consider the history of armed insurgencies against some of the greatest powers on earth. Utilizing asymmetrical tactics a group of probably between 100-300 thousand Taliban fighters have kept the US military stuck in a quagmire in Afghanistan for almost 20 years. It was largely the insurgents in tiny impoverished south Vietnam (the vietcong) that caused the US to withdraw from Vietnam. What many people don't realize is that the largest military on earth today (China) has about 2 million soldiers. The US citizenry has nearly 100 million people of fighting age, 400+ million privately owned firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition. Simply put, the US citizenry is the largest insurgent force in the history of the world by a long shot. Ultimately, power is determined by whoever has the means to impose their will by violence or threat of violence. The free people of the US have power because they have the ability to say no and the means to back that up with force. Why would we give that up? Yes rights can be abused, but the defenders of the 2nd amendment believe that when you trade liberty for security you often get less of both.
To many these notions seem antiquated and inapplicable in 21st century society. Usually, those who espouse the view above are attacked as right wing conspiracy theorist, or as doomsday preppers. However, while a complete collapse of the American government may be far fetched, it is not out of the question and certainly history teaches that all nations rise and fall. Is it wrong for society today to preserve the rights of an armed citizenry for future generations who may live in less stable times? After all, even in a stable society social order can deteriorate (as we have seen with all the recent rioting/looting). Ultimately, those who defend the 2nd amendment usually do not do so for purely practical reasons. They do it largely because the believe that a firearm represents their liberty and their independence. It is a symbol that says despite the ebbs and flows of social order, I hold in my hands the means of fighting for the preservation of my liberty. This may seem like strong language but it is the exact language of freedom fighters throughout history.
Fact: Gun ownership has no correlation to gun violence in the United States.
One notion that is simply not correlated by the data is that an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in gun violence. There is no correlation. However by the data I cite below there is a VERY weak correlation suggesting that higher gun ownership leads to lower gun related crimes. Some might think the data below is cherry picked but any data from other years comparing gun ownership with gun violence between the 50 states will yield similar results (IE no correlations between gun ownership and gun deaths). In fact, many of the cities in the US with the worst gun violence also have some of the strictest gun control laws. (IE, Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore) and some of the cities with the highest levels of gun ownership and loose laws have some of the lowest (IE, Plano Texas, Gilbert Arizona). In fact it seems that states where the NRA is popular like Idaho, Montana and South Dakota correlate with lower levels of shootings despite very high levels of gun ownership. Its simply a matter of fact that more guns does not mean more gun violence.
Fact: Some of the highest murder rates in the world are in countries where guns are essentially outlawed
So does gun control actually work? Well, that depends on what data you look at. Its very common for people to cherry pick facts when comparing the US to other countries for gun violence. The US has the highest per capita gun ownership in the world but is middle of the road when it comes to gun violence. It also is essential to keep in mind this largely because of cities like Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore (all which have relatively strict gun laws). Also, there is a false impression that our European neighbors are nearly gun free. When compared to other nations around the world they are substantially armed. Lastly and most importantly some of the highest gun violence rates in the world happen in some of the least armed populations with the tightest restrictions on private gun ownership. The data just does not support the narrative that more guns equals more gun violence on either the national or international level.
Fact: Most gun violence correlates with uncivilized culture.
So what is the source of gun violence? It seems pretty clear that there are huge cultural differences between inner city Chicago and Gilbert, Arizona, just like there are huge differences culturally between Honduras and Switzerland. The data would seem to suggest that people, not guns are the root of the problem behind gun violence. We use the words 1st world or 3rd world to differentiate countries who we view as more or less in step with modern civilization. However, within a country you also have groups who culturally are more or less civilized. The more civilized a group of people the less likely they are to misuse a firearm.
It may be politically incorrect to use such a term but the truth is certain segments of all races have lower levels of restraint when it comes to violence. These less civilized segments often have broken families that leave them lacking healthy values, uneducated, impoverished, unloved and underdeveloped as human beings. This sad group often misuse firearms as a means of attaining status and power or as a way of unleashing their anger, frustration, and rage against those who they deem as their enemy. Again, this is not a racial demographic but a type of human being that is found in all races. Uncivilized may seem a harsh word but it is the only term I can think of to describe the demographic that is most responsible for gun violence in the US. The root of gun violence is found not in guns, but in the broken lives of the people pulling the trigger and only when we find ways to change these people will we find a way to reduce their misuse of firearms.
Fact: When adjusted for population differences mass shootings in the U.S are not that far off what happens in other countries.
We all have heard about how many mass shooting sprees we have in the U.S compared to Denmark or Sweden but very rarely do people actually do the math and realize that our population is 50 times that of those countries. Hence in order to get an accurate comparison you need to adjust for population size. Based on OECD data the US is not that far off other countries when adjusted for population size.
Also it must be considered that there is no uniform way to define or measure "mass shootings" and depending on the researcher, the methods and the way it is defined changes the results. So be very wary of any data you see on "mass shootings".
Here’s an important caveat to establish: There is no consistent definition of “mass shooting” or “mass public shooting” across countries, or even among researchers who track them within the United States.
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/
Fact: Mass shootings generally correlate with either mental illness, terrorism or a combo of the two.
Interestingly, guns are not even always a common factor when an individual wishes to commit a mass act of violence. Bombs are frequently used in countries where gun ownership is less common. Usually, if a lunatic or terrorist wants to commit mass murder they will find a way to do so. It is true however, that a lack of access to weapons does make it more difficult, but it certainly will not eliminate the root of the problem. Furthermore, nearly all rational people (including a majority of members of the NRA) want to keep guns out of the hands of the insane or those with criminal backgrounds and are supportive of finding ways to ensure that these people are not able to own firearms. However, the devil is in the details on exactly how to make this happen. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and we can find reasonable and functional solutions.
Some questions to ponder.
Practically speaking firearm misuse is a sad and inevitable problem in a society where gun ownership is a right but sensible actions should be taken to try and reduce it. However, just creating a law does not always solve the problem (remember how drug laws stopped drug use? Neither do I). In addition, there is no consensus on the role firearms should play in modern society. So the debates rage over more or less gun control, but before you make up your mind here are a few questions to ponder.
What is the proper purpose of firearms in society? Should their be any regulation on firearms? Where do we draw the line and why? Who ultimately has the responsibility to protect your rights and life? Are you comfortable knowing your ultimate means of protection have been outsourced? Who is primarily responsible for gun violence and how will they respond to as given gun control law? Should a citizen be prepared for the possibility of the collapse of social order? If a populace is unarmed and the government is, what power do the people really have? What level of citizen armament is reasonable? Bazookas? High Capacity Magazines? Assault Rifles? Have gun control laws worked in cities like Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore?