In the wake of yet another school shooting in the US, gun control is once again a hot topic. And while the actual risk of ending up a victim of a mass shooting is still miniscule (we put it in perspective here), the emotional impact of these events means they are straightforward to weaponize in the debate about the “easy” access to guns which is afforded to most Americans. Against the gun-control crowd stands the usual suspects: the NRA, gun owners in general and civil libertarians opposed to the state disarming the people. The problem with the debate, however, is that it doesn’t always get to the fundamental issue at stake – liberty – and tends to get utilitarian, focusing on whether and how such tragedies can be avoided in the future.
There is no doubt that making access to guns highly regulated, as it is in most other western countries, would reduce gun crime and make mass shootings less frequent. Of course, making guns illegal and taking them off the streets are two different things, and bad guys will still be able to obtain weapons – just look at Chicago, where some of the tightest gun laws in the US have made little headway in preventing gun crime from getting out of control. The substitute for gun crime is clearly not no violent crime either: in the UK, where access to firearms is highly restricted, knife crime is rampant: in the year to September 2017, there were 37,443 recorded knife offences in the UK (there were 6,694 gun offences) – almost 13,000 of those in London, where 80 people were stabbed to death. None the less, going on a rampage is likely to have a much lower death toll if the assailant is armed with a knife rather than a gun.
Other arguments against tinkering with the 2nd Amendment are equally flawed. Some contend that if everyone were armed, the good guys would be able to defend themselves and others against the bad guys. That might occasionally be true, but in general, the solution to gun crime is not more guns. To suggest that schools and bars would be safer if everyone were armed is not an argument which will win over many doubters.
Much more sound is the argument that we should vehemently resist any attempts from the government at disarming the people, because a disarmed population is easier controlled. At least in theory, if an armed population ganged up on the government, they could overthrow it. Admittedly however, no-one actually thinks they are going to walk away victorious after a confrontation with law enforcement. In practice gun rights don’t mean much: if you disobey the law, the ultimate consequence is the state using physical force to coerce your compliance, and no arsenal of guns will make them back down. The Branch Davidian massacre is the bloodiest proof of that in modern American history.
So why not just give up guns? Well, because the right to bear arms is more than just a practical right, it is an important line in the sand. It is a reminder that government was set up by the Founders with strict limits on how much infringement the authorities should be allowed into the lives of the people. When the government slowly chips away at those rights, we end up in tyranny. Economically, the US (along with all other countries) arguably has tyranny already – how else do you describe the confiscation of income in the form of taxation? But remember, the federal income tax was originally significantly curtailed by the Constitution, and only after the passing of the 16th Amendment in 1913 was it originally levied – initially at two percent. Standing firm on your rights is a bulwark against tyranny, and once you give up a fundamental right – to your income or to your guns – it is almost always gone forever. That’s why even those who would never dream of owning a gun should cherish the right to bear arms.
So, in the absence of gun control, what can be done about gun crime in America? Maybe at some point politicians will look at the war on drugs, which is the background for the majority of gun crime in the US. Maybe parents need to get back in charge of their children’s upbringing and education (which has been taken over by the state) and provide strong, positive role models. Maybe there are deep rooted cultural reasons why America is prone to gun crime and mass shootings. Maybe an inhomogeneous society like the US needs to get better at dealing with conflict in general. But then maybe there is nothing that can be done. Maybe these killings are just the price of living in a “free” society. Though it may seem abhorrent to those personally affected, in order to preserve what freedom is left in the US, it’s a price worth paying.