Guns in America

The United States is home to nearly 328 million people and 350 million guns.

The debate surrounding the Second Amendment, gun violence and supposed “common sense” gun reform is an endless cycle of outrage and polarization—with little concession.

Guns are undoubtedly an established part of American life and culture. The Pew Research Center reports that 72 percent of American adults “have shot a gun,” 48 percent “grew up” in a gun-owning home and 30 percent currently own a firearm.

For non-gun owners, it’s critical to dispel a few misconceptions. CNN reports that “all federally licensed gun dealers” are obligated by law to run a background check “on every buyer, whether a purchase is made in a store or at a gun show.” The “AR” in “AR-15” stands for “ArmaLite Rifle,” not “Assault Rifle.” There is also no such thing as a “full-semi-automatic” firearm. Lastly, automatic weapons are prohibited for civilian ownership except for those who acquire a unique permit, which involves substantial regulation from the U.S. government.

Although there are deeply-rooted quarrels between firearm owners and gun control advocates, researchers have discovered some common ground. Two distinct groups—gun owners and non-gun owners—agree that individuals who are mentally ill should be prevented from purchasing firearms. There is also a majority view supporting “background checks for private sales and at gun shows,” something that is already a standard in many cases.

It’s also important to consider how the courts view private gun ownership. One of the many disagreements found within this debate is whether everyday individuals have a right to possess firearms. In Moore v. Madigan, the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Second Amendment affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes, not only in their own homes but also in public. This legal analysis is supported by a number of other rulings including People v. Aguilar and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Stemming from these court cases, the conversation evolves into a debate over the utility of firearms. According to the New York Times, 63 percent of those who own guns do so for self-defense. However, gun control advocates may argue that firearms are used for only one thing: to take a life or commit a crime. With over 38,000 gun-related deaths in 2016 it may seem that a national problem exists. Yet, what most media outlets don’t mention is that the majority of these deaths—nearly 60 percent—are suicides.

To continue, academic investigations into this debate reveal a controversial truth: Firearms are used significantly more to save lives and stop crime than the opposite. Before presenting the evidence that supports this claim, it is important to understand that many erroneous comparisons exist that simply compare the number of gun-related homicides with the number of justified self-defense killings with a firearm. As one Forbes reporter explained, “We don’t judge whether the police are doing a good job by the numbers of criminals they kill but rather by how well they stop crime. The same should be true in judging the effectiveness of civilian [defensive-gun uses].”

During the Obama administration, the Center for Disease Control—along with the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine—released a $10 million report on gun violence in the U.S. In their analysis, researchers cited surveys that display how there are, on average, between 500,000 to 3 million gun-defense uses per year. This averages out to around 1,300 to 8,200 self-defense uses of a firearm every day. Studies from the 80s and 90s have similar findings. For perspective, in 2016 the rate for murders with a firearm was 39.5 per day.

Promoters of gun control tend to insinuate that more guns equate to more violence. Available evidence, however, dismisses this claim. A 2013 study published by the Department of Justice found that homicides, non-fatal victimizations and incidents involving firearms have—along with violent crime in general—decreased significantly from 1,548,000 in 1993 to 478,400 in 2011. The extraordinary fact, however, is that in the same time period, the number of guns in America nearly doubled, with gun manufacturing increasing as well.

Moreover, we can look to Kennesaw, Georgia where, in 1982, each household was required to own and maintain a firearm. Even though local officials say the law was never enforced, the burglary rate fell 89 percent following its implementation, which is an unprecedented decline even when compared to Georgia’s overall drop in crime. To this day, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is less than two percent. This effect led another Georgian town to adopt a similar law in 2013, hoping for comparable results.

As for gun control measures, data exists to dispute their effectiveness. Time after time American activists for gun control note foreign places like Australia and Britain as the golden standards for reducing gun crime. They tend to specifically cite Australia’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA). As reported by the BBC, this initiative banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, implemented “28-day waiting periods” and forced potential gun owners to present a “justifiable” reason not related to self-defense for purchasing a firearm.

Multiple researchers from different countries have reached a similar conclusion: This didn’t actually work. One specific study from the University of Melbourne in 2008 concluded that “there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.” A 2007 study by the British Journal of Criminology and conclusions from the Crime Research Prevention Center back up these findings.

Moreover, in 1976, Washington, D.C. implemented what CBS News referred to as “one of the toughest gun laws in the nation,” which rendered the local populace virtually defenseless. Local prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro duly noted that not only did this ban have essentially no effect on the crime rate in D.C. but killings actually increased after its enactment. In 1976 the annual murder rate was 188; it then rose to 369 in 1988 and 454 in 1993. In a landmark 2012 court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court dismissed the gun ban entirely and no significant increase in murder has been recorded as a result. This shows that reducing the availability of firearms has no accredited positive effect on crime rates.

Lastly, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 was introduced by the Clinton Administration and prohibited a wide variety of “assault weapons” in the U.S. This bill was considered widely ineffective in lowering gun crime. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania concluded that if the ban had been “renewed, [its] effects on gun violence” would have been “small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

Aside from the gun control debate, it’s noteworthy to mention that perpetrators of violence will use any means necessary to inflict harm on others, with or without a firearm. We can see examples of this in the 2016 truck attack in Nice, France, the 2014 knife assault in Murrysville, Pennsylvania, the 2013 Boston bombing in Massachusetts, the 2017 knife/car attack in London, England and unfortunately, many others.

At the end of the day—irrespective of the data and facts—the founding fathers concluded the Second Amendment with a fundamental declaration: that the right of individual gun ownership “shall not be infringed.” As Americans, it’s imperative that we remain objective when scrutinizing constitutional rights. Solving national issues that may deal with such rights can only be accomplished by considering multiple perspectives, reviewing various solutions and ultimately committing to the preservation of individual liberties.

Salvatore Pinero is a fourth-year student majoring in political science with a minor in journalism. ✉ SP828988@wcupa.edu.