The Second Amendment Ratified

Another one of my papers for school...this one was for writing class, and the assignment was to develop and defend a thesis on gun control.

The Second Amendment Ratified

When you look at the world throughout history, there have been some problems that most people have acknowledged will never leave us. Perhaps an idealistic few have held on to their utopian dreams, but overall societies have observed rationally that human behavior has its flaws. That does not stop us from trying to manage these flaws, however, and in recent years talk has gone around about dealing with the amount of violence that takes place daily in the United States. Article after article, we hear of school shootings, robberies, armed assault, acts of terrorism, and even more seemingly random violent acts. As the most obvious connection between these acts, guns bear the weight of much of the criticism, and it’s not hard to see why. With the power and speed that these machines have, it can be a frightening thought to think of how many people do or can possess them.

With this being so, anyone speaking up in favor of some sort of gun control—whether just more restrictive gun licensing, the illegality of certain types of weapons, or no gun access at all—will automatically have the gut reaction of everyone on their side who has seen how guns can kill hundreds in seconds. As everyone knows, though, gut reactions are notoriously subjective, and I’m not sure it’s wise to trust them in this case.

But then, there are admirable reasons for gun control. Such powerful weapons should not be easily available, common sense says. Even if most are purchased by responsible people, merely their presence could prove a danger to those who have a mind to take them and use them for less responsible means. And there is an ease in how they can be used—it is much more tempting than other weapons. Highly restrict them, or ban them altogether, and you should eliminate much of the threat of violent crime. However, this is only a pretty ideology by itself. Though in the mind it may seem solid, even a more thorough theory shows that gun control does not reach its goals.

When trying to effect social change, it is wise to look to social psychology, the area of science that examines how we think and behave as a society. We don’t have to dig deeply here to find the first problem with the idea of gun control, that pesky idea that can be expressed by the proverb “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. It’s common sense that those who would break the law that says that it is illegal to kill would not find any number of lesser laws, such as those that banned guns, a deterrent. Simply making something illegal does not eliminate it, as everyone knows from the easy supply of illegal drugs currently available. As long as someone wants it, they will be able to get it; laws don’t get in the way all that much. So, rationally speaking, the only effect of gun control laws would be that law-abiding people would give up their guns. We aren’t really worried about them, are we?

Even without that common sense, however, there are deeper psychological truths about the effects of laws and punishments. When it comes to stopping behavior, psychologists have learned that you can’t simply put an end to one behavior without doing one of two things: replacing the original behavior with a more approved one, or making the punishment too severe to be contemplated. Because, as should make sense from experience, punishments are most likely to make people more adept at avoiding punishment. Except those non-dangerous law-abiding people, of course. When faced with an inconvenient law, such as speed limits, most people are willing to break them. Even if there are fines, they must be enforced, and even if police vehicles are stationed every so often, they can’t be stationed everywhere. Instead of stopping our speeding, we just learn to speed when police vehicles are not around. Why should we think that gun control laws would have more success? Criminals would be most likely to find better ways of hiding that they possessed a gun.

All of this is a theoretical discussion of gun control, however. As it’s not a brand new concept, why don’t we address the varied levels of gun control around the world? After all, surely the evidence here proves a point in one direction or another.

Unfortunately, it’s not quite so clear-cut. Correlations could be made between violent deaths and gun control laws, but that would not prove causation. It would prove even less if the correlations were different in each case, as they indeed seem to be. Switzerland requires all males to keep a service weapon and ammunition in their homes at all times, and has very low crime rates compared to America. Israel has very high standards for who can purchase and own a weapon, but they encourage everyone to own a gun, and have the lowest rate of violent deaths involving guns. Britain, it is true, has higher gun control laws and a lower crime rate than the US, but they had that before adopting those laws, and that accounts for more than just crimes involving guns. As Don B. Kates said, paraphrasing British analysts, “First, how do those who blame ‘lax American gun laws’ for the far higher U.S. rate of gun crime explain the country's also having far more knife crimes? Do they think that Englishmen must get a permit to own a butcher knife? Second, how do those who attribute U.S. gun murders to greater gun availability explain the far higher U.S. rate of stranglings and of victims being kicked to death? Do they think that Americans ‘have more hands and feet than’ Britons?” (Guns, Murders and the Constitution). As he concludes, societal differences make it next to impossible to make comparisons between countries over what laws they have.

And why would people want to carry guns in the first place? The answer, of course, is self-defense. The original intent behind the Second Amendment right to bear arms was so that Americans would always be able to rise up against their government if it proved oppressive. As long as they always had a way to fight back, Americans could feel safe under their government. And they weren’t just paranoid; Hitler convinced the Germans to give up their rights to weapons, and then had no resistance to fear when he took over the country with his armed soldiers.

Even if you say that the time for men to be part of militias and ready to fight against an oppressive government is passed, that is not the most likely reason for a modern person to own a gun. Besides hunting and target practice, people are most likely to own a gun for personal self-defense purposes. Though it may seem that using a gun in self-defense would escalate the situation unnecessarily, John R. Lott showed that, 98% of the time, just pulling out a gun is enough to prevent a crime from taking place. He also pointed out surveys that showed that guns are five times more likely to be used in defense than in crime.

So yes, in a perfect society we would not need such things as guns. In a perfect society laws would be obeyed, and no one would need to fear at all. But in an imperfect world, where criminals break laws left and right, passing stricter ones on the ownership of guns to prevent violence is not a bad thought, but one that is sadly lacking the support of logic and common sense. As long as there are criminals, there will be a need for law-abiding citizens to have a means to protect themselves. The Founding Fathers were firm when they guaranteed the right to own firearms to all American citizens, and even 200 years later there is no evidence to suggest that they made a mistake.