Right: Panicked children are herded out of their school by police, emergency service personnel and some parents who rushed to the site of the Uvalde shooting..
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against gun law reform in the United States
1. United States citizens have a Constitutional right to bear arms to defend themselves
The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the country. It determines how the country is governed. It came into force in 1789. Among other things, it describes the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. It has been amended 27 times. The first 10 amendments are known as the Bill of Rights and were ratified in 1791.
They are intended to guarantee basic freedoms to United States citizens.The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States refers to citizens' rights to gun ownership. It states, '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.'
Though some legal experts see this amendment as having limited application to the arming of a citizen militia (or informal army) to defend the nation in time of attack, it is generally seen as conferring on all United States citizens the right to own and carry firearms. The FindLaw site, supplying advice for legal professionals, states, 'The right to bear arms generally refers to a person's right to possess weapons. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's right to bear arms as an individual self-defence right, making it very difficult for Congress to regulate guns.'
A definitive ruling, supporting the individual's right to carry weapons for self-defence was not made until 2008. Although accepting that the historical use of the phrase 'keep and bear Arms' often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase "well-regulated Militia" referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription, that is, to the general male population.
Finally, the Court reviewed contemporary state constitutions, commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include a citizen's right to self-defence.
Using this individual rights theory, the Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns and required that any other type of firearm in a home be always dissembled or bound by a trigger lock. The Court rejected the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety of reasons, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defence in the home.
Similarly, the requirement that all firearms be rendered inoperable at all times was found to limit the core lawful purpose of self-defense. However, the Court specifically stated that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns.
The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), commenting on the Supreme Court decision of 2008, has stated, 'The court decision was a breakthrough for Second Amendment rights. It meant that the Founding Fathers' intention to grant that the individual's right could not be misinterpreted by those seeking to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation.
The ruling read, in part: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home...
So, what does all this mean for you? While the Second Amendment is short in length, it is broad in the scope of its protections.
Gun laws vary by state, and some, such as California, have stricter regulations than others. That means the place you call home may impact exactly how and when you can exercise your Second Amendment rights.
However, if you can legally purchase and own a gun, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms regardless of city or state."
2. Reducing access to guns will not protect the community
Those who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that they are ineffective. They claim there is no clear connection between limiting community access to firearms and reducing the incidence of gun-related crimes. They further claim that that having citizens able to own guns can serve to reduce crime in the community.
Critics of taking legal action to reduce the access of ordinary citizens to guns argue that there is no correlation between the level of gun ownership in a community and the extent of gun-related crime. The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has claimed over the past three decades (1991-2019), violent crime rates have dropped by more than half, while the number of privately-owned firearms in the United States doubled in the same period. The Association also claims that the number of people carrying a firearm for protection outside the home has also risen to all-time highs in the same period as violent crime dropped.
The NRA-ILA maintains that it is likely that an armed citizenry has contributed to the decline in the violent crime rate. They also note that a decline in violent crime at the same time as more citizens are owning guns does not support their opponents' claims that arming ordinary people contributes to crime.Referring specifically to mass shootings, a study presented in The Conversation on April 2, 2021, found, 'Mass shootings tended to occur in states with stricter regulations. Of the states with the highest per capita rates of mass shootings, many - like Connecticut, Maryland and California - employ background checks and assault weapons bans. By contrast, 18 states did not have a single mass shooting event over the entire 40-year period. Many of these states - like West Virginia, Wyoming and South Dakota - have high rates of gun ownership and relatively loose gun control laws.' Those presenting this research argued there is no simple connection between restricting gun ownership and presenting mass shootings.
Referring to the danger posed by mass shootings in schools, those who support an armed citizenry argue that teachers and school administrators should be able to protect students from armed intruders. Following the recent deaths of 19 students and two teachers shot at Robb Elementary School in Texas, the state's Attorney General Ken Paxton stated, 'We can arm and prepare and train teachers and other administrators to respond quickly, because the reality is we don't have the resources to have law enforcement at every school.'
Paxton is a supporter of what some commentators refer to as the 'good guy with a gun' theory. The same position has also been put by former president Donald Trump who in response to the recent school shooting in Texas stated, 'The existence of evil in our world is not a reason to disarm law-abiding citizens... The existence of evil is one of the very best reasons to arm law-abiding citizens.' Trump then went on to argue that America needs to 'harden' its schools, including having armed personnel to protect students.
Texas has already pioneered a training scheme for giving gun training to teachers in schools, the School Marshal Program. The Program allows teachers and administrators to carry handguns after an 80-hour training at academies overseen by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. The program was enacted in 2013.
It has further been claimed that citizens with guns are serving to protect themselves and others outside special locations such as the nation's schools. In 2013, the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) conducted research that appears to indicate that armed citizens are saving the lives of themselves and others. The research claims that guns are 16 to 100 times more often being used to save lives than to take lives.
The CDC research further confirmed the National Rifle Association claims that despite increased gun ownership, the incidence of gun-related crimes and deaths is declining. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. The report stated, "Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years...Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable...Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009...[and] firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.'
3. More rigorous law enforcement, strict penalties for criminals who use guns and improved community policing have all been found to reduce the level of gun violence
Opponents of greater controls being placed on gun ownership argue that better policing is more effective in deterring gun crime. In an article published on January 4, 2019, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) draws on the recent experiences of Chicago and New Orleans where better policing practices have seen a decline in gun crime over two consecutive years from 2016 to 2018 inclusive. The NRA-ILA argues that what is required is targeted policing in those areas where gun crime is known to be an issue. It states, 'Chicago's recent strategy was to change the policing and management practices in its police districts. Twenty of the twenty-two police districts are now home to Strategic Decision Support Centers, which put crime analysts and police officers in the same room to address problems close to the source.'
The NRA-ILA has highlighted similar success in New Orleans which in 2018 achieved a 47-year low in the number of homicides. There were also about 28 percent fewer non-fatal shootings than in 2017. It marked the lowest annual murder toll since 1971, when there were 116 slayings. And it was the second year in a row the number of murders had fallen in the city. New Orleans Police Superintendent Michael Harrison explained that he has tasked a specialised team of tactical officers and detectives with removing repeat violent offenders from the streets over the past two years.
The NRA has praised the targeted policing strategies employed in Chicago and New Orleans that focus on criminal groups rather than seeking to control the behaviour of ordinary citizens. The NRA-ILA has stated, 'We're always happy to see efforts to reduce violence focus on the criminals and not law-abiding gun owners.' The NRA-ILA has also stated that there needs to be consistent applications of strict prison terms against those who commit gun crimes. The Association has cited 'Project Exile,' a program launched in Richmond, Virginia in 1997, where, in order to reduce high homicide rates, Richmond prosecutors began enforcing existing gun laws to the fullest, imposing lengthy sentences against drug dealers and other criminals who were carrying firearms illegally. The project was highly successful. Hundreds of illegal guns were taken off the street, and Richmond's homicide rate dropped dramatically.
During the first 10 months of 1998, compared with the same period of the previous year, the total number of homicides committed in Richmond was down 36 percent and the number of firearm homicides was down 41 percent. Research conducted by the United States Sentencing Commission has shown that throughout the United States, those convicted of gun-related offences have been sentenced to significant prison terms. In the fiscal year 2016, offenders convicted of gun-related offences received an average sentence of over 12 years (151 months) of imprisonment. Similarly, in the fiscal year 2016, offenders convicted of an offense carrying the 15-year mandatory minimum penalty under the Armed Career Criminal Act received an average sentence of over 15 years (182 months) of imprisonment. It has also been found that the targeting of social factors within high-crime communities can have positive results. Mayors in Houston and New York City have implemented police reforms that fund more focused policing alternatives aimed at addressing mental health and other social issues that are associated with crime. For example, One Safe Houston funds adding officers to beats in crime hotspots, gun buyback programs, and other reactive policing methods.
At the national level, in March 2022, President Biden and his administration proposed a $300 million plan to reduce gun crime and make communities safer. While his plan would fund the hiring of more police officers, it would also divert funding to community-based violence prevention and intervention programs. The Biden administration stated, 'Stronger law enforcement is critical in stopping gun crime, but it's made more effective when we make real investments in making our communities stronger and in addressing the causes of crime before it spills over into violence.' Biden's plan will invest in proven tactics, including hospital-based interventions, youth programming, after-school activities, job training, and stable housing.
4. United States citizens have a cultural and historic attachment to guns, which has intensified since September 11
Gun ownership is an emotive issue in the United States, and this encourages a significant percentage of the country to oppose gun reform. Many Americans claim that owning a gun is a fundamental element of their national culture, relating this to the American War of Independence and to the gun-toting traditions of the Wild West.
For many Americans owning a gun is part of their sense of cultural identity. This partially derives from beliefs about western frontier life and the historical necessity for Americans to be able to protect themselves from the many hazards that they have faced. Adam Winkler, a professor, and specialist in American constitutional law, at UCLA School of Law, has stated, 'People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part. Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea.'
An attachment to this era has persisted into the present. Cowboy action shooting is a recreational shooting sport in which shooters don 'Old West' cowboy costumes and engage in competitive target shooting using antique replica firearms, which shoot live ammunition. Cowboy action shooters use myths and narratives of 'Wild West' America and images from Hollywood westerns to self-consciously create identities modeled on fictionalized and "real" characters of the Wild West. This shooting sport is very popular in the United States.
A further contributor to the American belief that citizens should be armed is the need for them to defend themselves and their country from an outside power. This belief is in part attributable to the American War of Independence against the British. Prior to the War of Independence only about 13 percent of Americans owned guns.
Some commentators have claimed that British attempts to restrict gun ownership in the colonies contributed to the revolution. It has further been claimed that the rebellion against the British historically consolidated the belief now held by many Americans that they need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical oppressor. Among the American founding fathers who declared that the citizenry needed to be armed to protect themselves from oppressors was Thomas Jefferson who stated, 'No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.' For those who support general gun ownership among the United States public, these cultural attitudes have endured into the present. About three-quarters of gun owners in the United States (74 percent) say the right to gun ownership is essential to their own sense of freedom. Views on the essential nature of the right to own guns are linked both to current gun ownership and personal history. Gun owners who grew up with guns in their household are among the most likely to say the right to own guns is essential to their personal sense of freedom. 79 percent hold this view.
It has further been noted that the belief that gun ownership is important so that individual citizens can defend themselves against outside attacks has grown stronger since September 11. Andrew Exum, American Middle East scholar and former US Army Officer has written, 'After the September 11 attacks, I spent several years at war and then lived abroad as a civilian for another several years. And when I finally returned to the United States in late 2008, I noticed something different about the gun culture in the country...I noticed how many billboards on the side of the highway advertised guns...the kind of tactical firearms, including assault rifles, that I had carried in Iraq and Afghanistan.'
Exum argues that in the twenty years since September 11, America's gun culture has taken a new direction, with a growing enthusiasm for high grade tactical weaponry among people who believe these are necessary for national self defence.5. Mental health problems that provoke gun violence need to be dealt with more effectively
Opponents of wide-ranging gun law reform in the United States argue that the issue is a human-centred one, not a gun-centred one. They maintain that part of the reason for school shootings, for example, is mental health issues among American youth and other sections of the United States' community. They claim that it would be more effective to address mental health issues than to restrict access to guns for the general community.
Opponents of stricter gun regulation in the United States maintain that it is more important to address the mental health issues which cause a minority of gun owners to misuse weapons. Following the recent school shooting incident at the Robb Elementary School in Texas, the state's governor, Greg Abbott, noted that the underlying problem was the incidence of mental health issues in the community. The governor claimed he had been given this advice by the state's chief law enforcement officers. The governor stated, 'I asked the sheriff and others an open-ended question ... "What is the problem here?" And they were straightforward and emphatic. They said we have a problem with mental health illness in this community.' Governor Abbott made a similar observation following an earlier mass shooting in Texas. On August 3, 2019, a gunman killed 22 shoppers at an El Paso Walmart. Governor Abbott made the following explanatory statement, 'Bottom line is mental health is a large contributor to any type of violence or shooting violence.'
The link between gun violence and mental health was also stressed by former United States president Donald Trump. Following the El Paso massacre in 2019, President Trump stated, 'I don't want people to forget that this is a mental health problem. I don't want them to forget that, because it is. It's a mental health problem.'
The president further suggested that mass shootings would be better prevented by treating mental illness differently. The president stated, 'Mental illness is something nobody wants to talk about. These people are mentally ill, and nobody talks about that. ... I think we have to start building institutions again because, you know, if you look at the '60s and '70s, so many of these institutions were closed.' A significant number of Americans share the view that ineffectively treated mental illness is a major cause of gun violence in the United States. In 2013, a Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans blamed the mental health system for failing to identify potential perpetrators of gun violence. In a similar CBS poll from 2017, 68 percent of respondents thought better mental health screenings could prevent gun violence.
One recent study supports a link between mass shootings and mental illness. It also questions the adequacy of the support given to those with a mental health disorder who subsequently commit a violent crime. A United States Secret Service report released in 2019, presented findings on 27 mass gun attacks in 2018. The report found that 44 percent of attackers had been treated for or diagnosed with a mental illness. The report concluded, 'The treatment received by the attackers varied widely and was not always sustained. The type of treatment received ranged from counselling or medication management to involuntary hospitalization. This highlights the importance of not only engaging those with mental health symptoms in treatment, but also ensuring that they maintain access to treatment over time.'
Ineffective management of a mental disorder has been identified as a contributor to the behaviour of those who commit school shootings. According to a 2013 study, two leading causes of school shootings are non-compliance with and the side effects of psychiatric drug treatment. This was linked to the behaviour of 12 percent of school shooters. Of those school shooters who had been prescribed psychiatric medications, 10 percent displayed medication non-compliance (failed to take drugs prescribed). Many school shooters who were taking psychiatric drugs for their disorder experienced side effects of the drugs prior to carrying out a violent act.