America's Gun Problem
Why do some believe that our right to bear arms is more important than our children's lives?
Guns have permeated American society in so many ways that it’s sometimes difficult to recall how or why they play a role at all. Questions arise, such as: How have guns solidified their purpose in the United States, and for whom? The answer may depend on who you are, or who you ask. Also, to what extent have guns done more harm than anything else? Unfortunately, the answer once again depends, even in the wake of serious, mass atrocities which have plagued this country time and time again—or in the case of American cities, every day. The American gun debate tends to revolve around three key areas which will be discussed at length below: (1) guns as a personal right; (2) guns as a tool; and (3) guns as an inherent danger.
Not all countries have a reference to personal gun ownership enshrined in their governing documents the way the United States does. For example, Japan actually outlaws the possession of firearms by non-military personnel. Therefore, to understand guns as a personal right—both as a concept and as an opinion to debate—it’s necessary to look to the text of the Second Amendment.
“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.”
The vast majority of gun rights advocates cling to this text and interpret it literally as: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But that isn’t exactly what it says, does it? We will circle back to this…
To understand the framers’ intent, context is important. In 1789, the newly-formed United States had not yet developed a system to protect itself beyond small, untrained, state-regulated militias. In fact, as early as 1776, individual states such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts had written their own pre-Second Amendment texts regarding personal gun ownership. The Pennsylvania Declaration of Independence of 1776 read, in relevant part:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
“The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”
Obviously, these are two very different interpretations of an individual citizen’s right to own a firearm. The Massachusetts model states that citizens could generally own guns, but not without prior permission from the legislature. On the other hand, Pennsylvania apparently intended for there to be a personal right to gun ownership, but that right was limited to personal self-defense and for the defense of the state. Regardless of which way you look at it, the common denominator is that early legislatures wanted to instill the principles of (a) defense of the state, and (b) self-defense, in their governing documents. So is there really an inherent personal right to own a gun, or is that right limited to self-defense? And is that right to self-defense truly afforded to everyone?
Many defend the idea that there is a personal right to gun ownership by reading into the context of post-Revolutionary War America, and the “intent of the founders.” Once again, this argument hinges on the text of the Second Amendment.
In James Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment, he wrote:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Madison (and others) were wary of a large federal government after disbanding from the rule of King George III and wanted to emphasize the rights of individuals over that of the state. A committee in the House of Representatives debated this text at length, and ultimately decided that it was more important to stress the need for a strong central defense “of the people,” than to hone in on whether firearms themselves were a personal right. At the end of the day, the main objective of the freshman Congress was to form a strong, united union that would rally behind this new government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Unfortunately, this debate has been construed today to insinuate that the right to keep and bear arms is based solely on an underlying freedom to overthrow a would-be tyrannical government.
This idea that Americans’ right to bear arms is premised on the idea that we would potentially need to overthrow the government is disingenuous at best. The historical context of the Second Amendment is clearly based on states’ insistence that individuals have the ability to take up arms in defense of the state, as well as have the right to protect themselves if necessary. And, as a practical matter, the notion that a government would build protective measures ensuring its own demise is contrary to rational thought—the framers of the United States Constitution wanted this country to succeed by whatever means necessary.
With the understanding that guns were at least partially intended for Americans as tools, one must ask: what gun gets the job done? And, is that right really for everyone? To succinctly discuss guns as a tool, let’s frame the conversation around (a) hunting and gathering; and (b) self defense.
For many years, the most popular hunting rifle in the United States was the Remington 700 (Remington filed for bankruptcy in 2020 and has since struggled to maintain solvency). This long gun allows users to load one shot at a time for the purpose of shooting and killing wild game, such as deer. In the United States, hunting animals is regulated state-by-state and usually requires an active license issued by the state game commission. Without such licenses, individuals found hunting could be fined or even imprisoned for illegally hunting. Whether or not a license is required for owning and operating the firearm varies by state, and there are currently twenty-two states that do not require licenses to carry guns outside of your home.
Self defense is a different story. In the United States, the most popular gun used for self defense is a handgun, and the most popular handgun for over 30 years running is the Glock 19. The Glock 19 has a shorter range than a long gun, but allows users to fire 15 shots from its standard magazine. It should be noted that ten states have banned high capacity magazines—magazines which generally hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition—although my home state of Pennsylvania is not one of those ten.
With all of the historical context and modern statistics in mind, the question becomes whether any private citizen would need to own and operate a high capacity, semi automatic rifle—often referred to as an “assault rifle.” The most popular assault rifle in the United States in 2022 (and in fact, the most popular gun in general) is the AR-15, which has a standard capacity of 20-30 rounds and potential to shoot 45 rounds per minute, without any modifications. A “modified” AR-15 which has been fitted with a “bump stock” could fire as many as 400 rounds per minute. Without getting too technical, it’s safe to summarize that the AR-15 and similar assault rifles are designed to shoot as many rounds as possible in the shortest amount of time. These weapons are designed to kill human beings in a warzone setting as efficiently as possible. Why would the average American need this? To be frank, they simply don’t. History has already demonstrated this.
AR-15 style rifles have been the weapons of choice in at least 11 mass shootings in the United States in the last 5 years alone. From Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut to Parkland, Florida, and as recently as the Robb Elementary shooting in Uvalde, Texas, hundreds have died at the hands of evil people with access to assault rifles.
Gun advocates, including the National Rifle Association, who spend millions per year lobbying elected officials against passing gun control legislation, argue the classic phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” While that statement is literally correct, it is yet another disingenuous argument construed to protect a nonexistent personal right to bear arms. While it is true that guns do not fire themselves, it is also true that Americans’ access to guns present a grave danger. In cities across the country, we are witnessing unprecedented levels of gun violence thanks to unchecked access to firearms.
In 2021, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania witnessed its highest number of gun deaths in recorded history. That record is on track to be surpassed in 2022 with current rates of killings exceeding those of the previous year. Similar trends can be observed in cities such as Chicago, Illinois, Baltimore, Maryland, and St. Louis, Missouri. What all these cities have in common is both (a) unprecedented access to guns AND (b) staggering levels of poverty. Philadelphia is often referred to as America’s “poorest big city,” with just over 23% of its population living below the poverty line. With many citizens seeing no path towards upward mobility, resorting to street violence is often the only viable answer. Without a concerted effort from local, state, and federal officials, these communities will continue to experience harmful trends of violence as a means of survival.
Although not a “cure all,” investment in communities where gun violence is most prevalent will have generational impact. This means more than simply adding a couple of community centers and libraries in low income neighborhoods (although those are positive steps); it also requires investment by the private sector to bring much-needed jobs to struggling communities. It has been shown time and time again that access to higher quality of life through higher income earning potential drives crime rates down. Currently, there are numerous neighborhoods in cities across the United States without even a suitable, affordable grocery store. These small factors make a world of difference towards achieving a more humane society.
At a minimum, laws must be passed to screen potential future gun owners who pose a risk to the general public based on certain criteria. Congress possesses the power to pass legislation that would preempt state law limiting certain individuals’ right to own a firearm. For example, when a person has been diagnosed with a mental illness that affects their ability to make rational decisions, they should not own a gun. Similarly, a person who has been previously arrested or documented by law enforcement as a risk to the public should not be able to obtain a license to carry a firearm. These types of protections could have prevented numerous mass shootings, including the mass killing in Hyland Park, Illinois, where the shooter had been documented by police as a risk to his family after he threatened to kill them all, but was nonetheless able to obtain a license to carry a firearm.
Lastly, regardless of whether guns are a personal right, a tool for hunting and self-defense, or weapons of mass violence, they are not guaranteed to all people. Under federal law, individuals who are convicted of felony crimes are banned from owning a firearm unless their corresponding conviction has been expunged or pardoned.
At the end of the day, we need to see informed, lifesaving changes to the laws governing guns in our nation. Without real leadership on this issue, we will continue to see unprecedented levels of gun crime in our neighborhoods, continued mass killings in our schools, and overall unnecessary loss of life. In a nation as powerful and prosperous as the United States, we should not be hesitant to confront this problem which has torn apart families, communities, and our nation as a whole.