Skip Navigation

Is Gun Control the Answer? Maybe, But Do It Anyway

Image by Winnerslay
Image by Winnerslay

It’s not clear that gun control could have prevented the killing of 20 children and 7 adults in Newtown, Connecticut this past Friday. The weapons used by gunman Adam Lanza were owned legally by Lanza’s mother. A few states (but not Connecticut) require guns to be sold with trigger locks, although the laws don’t require owners to use them. It’s important to note that Lanza’s main weapon was a Bushmaster assault rifle, which would have been illegal under the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2004. Some people have looked beyond gun control and argued that the best way to prevent future tragedies like this is to improve the mental healthcare system, which is undoubtedly true.

All of these facts do not excuse the cowardly lack of action on gun control in the last decade. Democrats, including President Obama, have calculated that it’s not worth spending political capital to take on the gun lobby. You could have a plausible case that health reform will save more lives than gun control, and maybe the president was right to turn his attention to that thorny issue. But the president is a capable leader with a large staff. He can handle multiple issues at once. He has said he supports reinstating the assault weapons ban, but has done little about it.

The statistics on gun violence are being widely touted in the wake of this tragedy, but they still shock. In the New York Times, Nick Kristof writes that “More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.” Looking at per capita data, one science blogger writes that “The rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 individuals in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom is 0.1, 0.5, and 0.03, respectively. In the U.S., the overall rate is 2.98.”

Many positions held by conservative skeptics of government action have merit, at least in a theoretical sense. Raising taxes does introduce inefficiencies into the marketplace. The rising federal debt is a problem that has to be tackled. States may be able to handle some things better than the federal government. But fanatical opposition to gun control has little merit. Do loose gun laws make America a better or stronger country? What advantage is gained by letting our citizens purchase guns easily? Japan has some of the world’s strongest gun laws, and only had 11 firearm-related homicides in 2009. These laws haven’t prevented Japan from becoming an economic powerhouse.

The main arguments for guns are that they are used for self-defense, they have recreational uses, and they are protected by the Second Amendment. These arguments are deeply flawed. Some have argued for arming school employees to prevent tragedies. Do we really want to turn our schools into armed camps? Kristof notes that mass shooters typically kill themselves, so the threat of being killed by an armed citizen will not be much of a deterrent.

Guns do have legitimate recreational purposes. As a Boy Scout, firing rifles was always the best part of scout camp. My father enjoys target and clay pigeon shooting. But do recreational shooters need assault weapons? High capacity magazines? Or even handguns? These implements are designed to maim and kill human beings. The assault rifle used in the Newtown killings is mainly use by the police and military.

The Second Amendment argument is problematic at best. It’s not an accident that the amendment begins with the phrase “a well regulated militia.” The founders distrusted standing armies, and local militias were the primary bearers-of-arms for much of American history. The Second Amendment was meant to allow these militias to operate as a check against federal power. Even if you ignore the part about militias and believe the Second Amendment protects all individual gun ownership, this doesn’t have to lead to the dismissal of all gun laws. Even freedom of speech, maybe our most sacred right, is restricted: for example, you can’t yell “Fire!” in a theater and cause a panic. No rights are absolute, and must be articulated so that they do not trample on the rights of others.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an incredibly glib response to a serious public policy question. Its logic is easily dismantled: explosives don’t kill people, terrorists kill people; or, drugs don’t harm people, drug users harm other people and themselves. Yet we feel it’s justified to regulate the sale of explosives and drugs. It’s impossible to regulate what someone thinks and does, which is why there will always be murderers like Adam Lanza. But shouldn’t we try to regulate the tools they use to kill, especially when these tools are so incredibly deadly and efficient? Will Saletan notes in Slate that a madman in China attacked a school the same morning as the Newtown shooting. No children were killed. The attacker was using a knife.

Now is the time to take on the issue of gun control. Yes, people are still mourning, and this grieving is the most important thing that has to happen right now. But politicians are elected to take action to alleviate societal problems, and this spate of mass shootings qualifies. The N.R.A., for the first century of its history, supported sensible gun laws in the interest of safety. A conservative prime minister in Australia passed strict gun control laws in 1996 in response to a mass shooting, and there is some evidence these laws have reduced gun violence. Our gun control debate doesn’t have to be polarized. But even if it remains so, gun control advocates should push aggressively for new laws. It might not stop every incident like the one in Newtown, but it’s still the right thing to do.

About the Author

Matt is a native Rhode Islander and a recent graduate of Brown with a bachelor's degree in history. After spending the last three years living in Boston and working at Harvard Law School, he returned to Brown to pursue a master's degree in public policy. When not inundated with schoolwork, Matt likes to relax with a Red Sox game, some Miles Davis, or a Sherlock Holmes mystery.

SUGGESTED ARTICLES