Gun rights and gun control is a controversial debate. Every time a mass shooting takes place somewhere in the US, this debate arises, and new regulations are put forward. Then, security is in the spotlight, and objections to the right to bear guns gain ground on the basis of its social cost. It’s time to see beyond the headlines and take a look at the deep political implications of this debate.
Today, I want to speak to you about the controversy around the debate between those who advocate for gun rights, and those who campaign for more gun control. Unfortunately, this debate arises when a mass shooting takes place in a school, a mall, or any other location where many people are killed. The resulting situation is not the best for a rational debate on gun control. Indeed, the emotional atmosphere prevents that debate because of the harm produced by the mass killing. That context is favorable to advance a specific political agenda, and especially to use the social mood to break resistance to legislative changes.
However, we need a broader perspective to see the big picture. And political science can provide it. So, here I want to address this issue by discussing the current frame of this debate, the political implications of gun rights, and the political consequences of more gun control.
Mass shooting news is shocking, and they frame these events in emotional terms. Healthy people empathize with victims and their harm. And this feeling is stronger for other members of the victims’ community. Mass media report these events and contribute to spread insecurity, fear, and suffering. That’s completely normal because they are unintended consequences of such events. However, what follows is quite different when the debate about gun control arises. Shootings cause a favorable situation to bring into the spotlight the supposedly need for more gun control. It happens when someone draws attention to the use of firearms and its relation to these sorts of crimes. From then on, the situation evolves in the same way because the frame is already set. Everything becomes a matter of safety and control to prevent these crimes.
A representative government rules thanks to the consent of the governed. For this reason, it’s necessary to have the support of the public to implement policies. Therefore, the shaping of public opinion is a critical matter for any authority, and also for anyone interested in ruling the country one day. That explains why, in specific circumstances, some actors try to take advantage of the situation, as dramatic as a shooting, to advance their interests and their political agenda.
In these cases, the attention focuses on a vital aspect of the political community, that is, safety. Insofar as the main task of any government is to provide its citizens with protection, shooting becomes a special concern because it shows its failure on this. And if the government fails in performing its chief tasks, its legitimacy results damaged.
Nevertheless, the emotional atmosphere after these tragic events makes the public opinion more sensitive to certain political messages. When safety draws all the attention, people lose a broad perspective to see the big picture and forget the raison d’etre of the second amendment.
Gustave le Bon, a French sociologist, wrote in the nineteenth century an essay on social psychology. In that work, he claimed that the crowd behaves irrationally. It follows its emotions and instincts. Environment, circumstances, and events represent the social suggestions of the moment, and they contribute to guiding the crowd behavior.
In modern politics, and more specifically in representative governments, a suggestive effect on the crowd results critical for any political agenda. That makes some events an excellent opportunity to take political advantage.
In these situations, the social concern is about access to guns, as they were the cause of these crimes and not people. So, they blame guns and not those who shoot them. That brings in an interesting question about personal responsibility, but leave it for now.
However, people forget very quickly that the second amendment was incorporated to the US constitution to grant, among many other things, the natural right of self-defense. And that right doesn’t authorize the misuse of guns by committing mass killings.
At this point, everything becomes paradoxical. Framers drafted the second amendment to grant at the same time safety and freedom against tyranny. But now it’s considered a source of insecurity due to the misuse of the right to bear guns by specific individuals. Therefore, it’s urgent more regulations to constrain this right by imposing more gun control. The mood of the public opinion after these events makes easier the acceptance of new measures of this sort.
Part of society turns to the government to ask for more regulations, more gun control, and more security. And that might have an unexpected consequence for those who ask for such measures.
Why did gun rights become so controversial? Because they are a hindrance to the natural development of any government.
As I commented on another occasion, the Bill of Rights was drafted to constrain the national government and check its power. The second amendment is part of this system to keep balanced the relationship between government and society.
Any government looks for the monopoly on violence, and can’t stand those situations in which people keep the right to bear guns and self-defense. The reason is quite obvious. They can resist any attempt to rule without consent.
Now let’s take a look at the European experience on this. In this case, we observe how the formation of most European nations went through despotic regimes. Kings could build large standing armies, and at the same time, they expanded their power by striping their subjects of the right to keep and bear arms. The absolute European monarchies tried to prevent any resistance from below by disarming people.
I’m not talking only about the private armies of the nobility, but also about the commoners’ right to bear weapons. It was necessary different measures to disarm them, and the most common one was restrictions on this historical right. How? By imposing licenses and controls, aside from many prohibitions. It was part of the process of the centralization of these countries under the crown’s direction. And it resulted successful because in most European countries there is no right to bear guns. The State controls the possession of firearms for specific purposes and with many technical, legal, and logistical limitations. Usually, they have a central registry for all firearms. Self-defense is not recognized as a right because the State is in charge of providing citizens with security.
However, the continental European tradition is alien for Americans. Neither Americans nor English people went through the traumatic experience of absolutism. For this reason, Anglo-Americans enjoyed more freedom compared to most Europeans.
Despite the proximity between America and England in historical and political terms, the latter has its particularities on this issue. Indeed, it might show the way for new restrictions on gun rights in the US. That’s because England has limited this right since 1689 through different laws. And now, if you want to have or bear guns, you need the police permission. So, to get the authorization is at the police officer’s will.
In the US, as in the UK, gun rights might vanish if legislatures pass more regulations. Then, the right to bear guns would end up being a dead letter in the constitution due to the many constraints introduced in the legislation.
In addition to this, there are deeper political consequences related to these dynamics. We can’t forget the fact that the US has the largest and most powerful standing army in the world nowadays, and it has shifted the relationship between the government and society. Today that relationship is unbalanced. That combines with the leading role of this country in world affairs. Hence, insofar as foreign policy needs require changes in the domestic policy to maintain the US position on the international stage, they might involve unpopular measures. As a result, they may ignite conflicts in the inner realm that can undermine their global position. For this reason, armed people are always a threat because they can resist government policies.
All in all, any government is always looking for more power. And that happens in representative and constitutional regimes too. For this reason, framers incorporated the Bill of Rights to the constitution to constrain the government and prevent it from establishing tyranny.
Yes, I know what many people think of this. They only want to stop mass killings, and they believe the way to do so is with more gun control. In brief, they ask for more protection from the government by surrendering the individual right to self-defense.
But, what happens when you turn to the government for more safety? You end up depending on the government. Its power expands while yours shrinks. How? It’s easy to explain, let’s take a look at it.
More gun control means new regulations, so, legislative changes. And more laws require someone to enforce them. And that means more police, more courts, more prisons, more bureaucracy, and more taxes to pay all of that.
Then, you notice you live in prison because you surrendered your freedom for security, and you ended up enslaved.
If we dismiss all of this and conclude safety is more important than freedom, we have to admit that more gun control is not the solution in the long run. Why? The cause of mass shootings is not guns, but people who misuse firearms.
Other countries with fewer regulations don’t have this problem. That’s the case of Switzerland, where it’s easier to keep and bear guns due to the low restrictions.
In other countries where guns are allowed only for sporting activities, most violent crimes involve the use of sharp objects. That’s the case of Spain with a proportion of 53% of these crimes. The UK has also experienced a rise in these crimes in recent years, especially in urban areas such as London. I want to mention that the campaign the Metropolitan Police launched against knifes’ possession had the unexpected consequence of boosting acid attacks. You might set restrictions, but those who have the determination to kill or harm people will do it at any cost by resorting to other means. Sharp objects are cheaper and easier to obtain, as well as chemical fertilizer to prepare explosive weapons.
Hence, we can draw a preliminary conclusion. Firearm crimes, such as mass shootings, stir up alarm in the public opinion, and people panic. So, many people perceive firearms as more dangerous than other weapons. Or at least that’s their impression when they watch shooting news on the TV. And that causes great concern.
Although violent crimes committed with other weapons don’t receive the same attention from mass media, we have to admit that most mass shootings perpetrators are insane. Indeed, a panel of mental health and law enforcement experts has estimated that people with a serious mental illness committed roughly one-third of acts of mass violence since the 1990s. However, no one cares about it. It’s easier to say: it’s not my problem if they are insane. It isn’t until you come across a Joker around the corner.
The dilemma of safety versus freedom is a false dilemma. Liberty is the best protection. That’s when you control your life and needs, and you don’t depend on anyone else to grant your safety. It’s a matter of personal responsibility, but also a political issue insofar as you retain the means to resist tyranny.
Life involves risks, and always there will be insane and evil people doing bad things. And the government won’t do anything for you when you’re in danger because someone is pointing at you with a gun. So, trust in yourself and not in those who promise safety in return for your liberty.
“If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
Question of the day! What do you think is the future of gun rights in the US? Tell me your opinion by posting it in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.
Bibliography used:
Vestal, Christine, “One-Third of Mass Shootings Committed by People With Mental Illness, Study Says” in PEW Trusts 2019, http://tiny.cc/oyu2jz
“Homicides in England reach highest level in a decade” in The Guardian 2019
Oses, José M., “La radiografía del crimen en España” in El Mundo 2015
Whitaker, Robert, “Psychiatric Drugs and Violence: A Review of FDA Data Finds A Link” in Psychology Today 2011
Ellis, Steven G., Tudor Frontiers and Noble Power: The Making of the British State
Isambert, François-André et alii (eds.), Recueil des anciennes lois françaises, depuis l’an 420 jusqu’à la Révolution de 1789
Buisseret, David, Sully and the Growth of Centralized Government in France, 1598-1610
Ruff, Julius R., Crime, Justice and Public Order in Old Regime France: The Sénéchaussées of Libourne and Bazas, 1696-1789
Blackstone, William, Commentaries of England
Le Bon, Gustave, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind
Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
En esta ocasión analizamos los orígenes del Estado moderno.
Analizamos diferentes conceptualizaciones del modo en el que funciona la política: como organismo, máquina, mercado,…
On this occasion, we analyze the civil-military relations and the paradox between democracy and militarism.
En este episodio desvelamos las claves del funcionamiento de la política.
Abordamos el Estado moderno y sus principales características que lo diferencian de formas estatales previas.
This website uses cookies.