Guns have consistently been a part of America’s society since its beginnings. Firearms have been used mainly to protect the nation and families, to hunt for food or for personal desires, and even to engage in sporting activities. As a nation, American gun rights have long been scrutinized and debated with extreme controversy. There are strong arguments in favor for both sides of the divide; arguments that bring up American liberty, security, ethics and morality to name a few points. This paper aims to explore the intricacies of these points and the consequences of any policy involving gun rights using a Stonean analysis as well as to evaluate the usefulness of such an analysis.
Commons problem in this policy debate is when an individual is lead to a personal cost due to the public interest. Sometimes, the individual costs may even be costly. In the gun rights debate, the commons problem is mainly divided into two groups; security and liberty. For citizens to feel safe and secure in America, some individuals would have to give up their guns. On the other hand, some would decide to purchase guns to protect themselves from danger and from others for security purposes. To put it more distinctly, the pro-gun rights outlook is cored at the idea of liberty; the anti-gun rights outlook is cored at the idea of security.
From a pro-gun rights activist’s point of view, the enforcement of stricter gun control policies is an attack on his or her’s freedom of rights and the Second Amendment, for it is stated as “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Cornell). Our founding fathers saw the right to bear arms as one of the fundamental liberties for every law-abiding citizen, as thoroughly written in the Second Amendment. Stone emphasizes that freedom is a ““mythic ideal” whose practical meanings emerge and change through “debates, disagreements, and struggles” … [and] the dilemma of liberty revolves around the question of when government can legitimately interfere with citizens’ choices and activities” (Stone, 108). Even though it is written in the laws that people are free to own guns, ultimately to protect those around us, the government restrains people’s rights to ensure the safety of others. In a literal interpretation of the law, when limiting people’s freedom to “bear arms”, it is a violation of their civil rights; it is an attack on their individual entity. Every individual has a right and the freedom to purchase and own firearms. Because if one always has a right to do what one wants, then one should also have the right to own guns. Stone analyzes John Stuart Mill’s conceptualization of freedom, in which she accentuates that the only time a government can exercise power over citizens’ liberty against his or her will is to prevent others from harm (Stone, 109). However, from the pro-gun rights’ standpoint, owning a firearm is not harmful and is for their personal protection to avoid and prevent harm to themselves from others. Thus, a restriction on individual freedom to possess firearms is only a restriction on fundamental liberties of individuals.
From an anti-gun rights perspective, government should have control over people’s liberty, to prevent harm from others. The government may not always know the exact wants and desires of the people. But the liberty to possess guns can bring harm to others, and be seen “in a negative way as a lack of interference with individual action” (Stone, 109). Physical injury is an example of self-evident type of harm that every individual should be prevented from. By owning a firearm, an individual can become physically hurt by the gun, if used in an inappropriate way. Stone criticizes that “actions that cause injury or death do not belong in the sphere of liberty” (Stone 109). There are countless number of intentional or accidental deaths caused by guns, such as suicide, mass shootings or even accidental shootings through misfires. To avert from such harms, Stone’s analysis of the liberty-equality trade-off argument is directly applied: “one person’s equality comes at the expense of another’s liberty” (Stone, 125). In other words, to achieve anti-gun rights’ equality, or gun control, comes at the expense of pro-gun rights’ liberty to possess guns freely. There is no guarantee that the right-to carry laws make any individuals safer.
Stone defines security into three definitions. First is defined as “an ideal of perfect safety, the guaranteed absence of bad things and, therefore, a total lack of worry” (Stone, 130). This means absolute security and that no harm can be done. Second definition is that “security is the children’s luxury of obliviousness and the adults’ confidence that they or their leaders can prevent all harms” (Stone, 131). The last concept of security is “the scientific ideal of security: danger can be analyzed, strategized, and prevented, or, in the worst case, planned for” (Stone, 131). Applying these definitions to both sides of the gun rights debate, pro-gun rights believe that owning firearms mean absolute security, because they can self-protect and are easily ready for danger. According to a research done by the Pew Research Center, protection tops the list of reasons of owning a gun: “Two-thirds of gun owners say protection is a major reason they own a gun” (Parker, 8). By promoting self-protection, individual security is at the core of the pro-gun rights’ argument. From a pro-gun rights standpoint, guns do not account for majority of deaths (Agresti, 2); people kill people, not guns. “For example, 71% of Republican or Republican-leaning gun owners say there would be less crime if more Americans owned guns” (Parker, 57-58). There is no direct relationship between the ownership of guns and the rate of crime in America. When looking at fatal accident rates, “in 2014, there were 586 fatal firearm in the United States, constituting 0.4% of 136,053 fatal accidents that year” (Agresti, 4). The sense of security that people want and need to feel is not based on the ownership of guns of individuals and “most see little link between access to guns and likelihood of committing crime” (Parker, 59). Additionally, “a majority of gun owners say stricter access to guns would not decrease mass shootings” and rather, about 53% of gun owners feel that if it was harder for people to legally obtain guns in the United States, there would be no difference (Parker, 59). Some may argue that getting rid of guns would be the ideal path to ensure protection in all people, however, ironically, they also support the idea of self-protection to promote security. In other words, anti-gun rights advocates are expressing that buying guns is for self-protection and that people kill people, not guns. Although guns may be used as an instrument to conduct murder and other criminal offenses, but the harm is ultimately done by the actions of human beings, so the sole blame of murder and crime should not be concentrated on the possession of firearms.
However, anti-gun rights supporters feel insecure for various reasons, such as more guns than people, and the lack of background checks and loose eligibility requirements to legally own a gun. Firearms causes insecurity within the anti-gun rights norm, because to them, their insecurity “comes not only from uncertainty about whether something bad will happen, but also from how bad we expect the bad thing to be” (Stone, 131). Current gun laws are not effect or well-enforced to provide a sense of security for the anti-gun rights supporters. Even through the barriers and policies to prevent people from obtaining guns, “ease of access to illegal guns [seem] as the biggest contributor to gun violence” (Parker, 56), which leads to lack of security. The issue of legally obtaining guns in this country is widely unregulated and through the illegal possession of guns, everyone is at risk of their own security and will be more prone to gun violence. For example, firearm prohibitions for drug abusers are justified, because “substance abuse is associated with increased risk of domestic violence, and incarnation for violent crime, as well as suicide” (Webster, 3). Additionally, by setting age restrictions to enforce security and promote less gun violence, children are less likely to be at high-risk of abusing gun violence. For instance, “Minimum age restrictions for firearm possession are prudent because the risk of perpetrating or being victimized by serious violent crimes increases rapidly during adolescence and in the early 20s” (Webster, 3). When looking at mass shootings or any deaths related to firearms, supporters of more controlled gun policies “often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws, background checks, and more protections against the mentally ill buying guns” (ProCon). That is, by enacting more strict gun laws, the people who are not in favor of guns would feel that society would be much safer this way. Reality is that “the eligibility and background screenings done to own a firearm is very rare and is not done in an efficient and proper way to ensure the security of all citizens” (Agresti, 5). People are legally allowed to own more than one gun, which for some may seem unnecessary. There are countless types of firearms being produced, so it is extremely difficult to regulate them individually on both regional and national levels. According the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, “assault weapons and LCMs are common characteristics of guns discussed in policy debates because they are disproportionately used in mass shootings… Mass shootings involving assault weapons typically involve more victims per incident than mass shootings with other weapons” (Webster, 9). Regulating these designs and reducing the types of guns can save lives and increase security within the citizens from an anti-gun rights perspective.
In the realm of guns, community divides into various types of subcategories: interest groups, politics, and race. First, it can be separated into the National Rifle Association, also known as NRA, and those who are not. From a pro-gun rights point of view, the NRA is influential enough, if not too influential, in the realm of firearms. The main goal of the NRA is to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis” (NRA, 1). Within the group, “NRA members are largely satisfied with the amount of influence the organization has over gun laws in the U.S.” (Parker, 15). The National Rifle Association consists of “roughly one-in-five gun owners” (Parker, 14) of all U.S. gun owners, which explains why so many of the gun owners are content with the performance of the NRA. Today, “the NRA is the unquestioned leader in the fight against gun control” (Winkler). The NRA promotes the liberty for all people to use guns, and promote the right to bear arms for all individuals. They “condemn every one of [restrictive] provisions [against all individuals] as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the [Second Amendment]” (Winkler). Ultimately, the National Rifle Association is widely known and regarded as “one of the nation’s most influential advocacy groups” (Ingraham). On the other hand, people who are outside of the NRA are usually anti-gun rights. This community believes that the current gun laws are not effective and that NRA is not influential at all. Surprisingly, as shown in a Washington Post article about the National Rifle Association, “a large majority of American gun owners are not NRA members”, specifically between 73 million and 81 million gun owners are not members of the NRA (Ingraham). The main driving force behind the non-NRA members are incidents like Sandy Hook and other mass shootings, and are sometimes partake in gun control lobbying, with groups such as “Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to stop Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and Violence Policy Center” (ProCon). The non-NRA members tend to promote stricter gun control policies and favor background checks for gun shows and private sales, as well as a ban on assault-style weapons to assure the protection of citizens.
Another set of segregations within a community can be political: Democrats and Republicans. Democrats tend to lean more towards gun control, and Republicans tend to lean more towards gun rights. Looking back through history, the Democratic party voices support for responsible gun owners, more expansive background checks and keepings guns off the streets. On the other hand, the Republican party voices its concern for the right of individuals as well as their freedom to own guns, and is strongly opposed to restrictive gun rights. This type of community is based solely on the type of political party that one supports, and the guidelines and membership within these communities are clearly managed. The gap between these two norms is drastic in some areas. For example, about 72% of Republicans favor allowing concealed carry in more places, when only 26% of Democrats somewhat favor this issue (Oliphant). Additionally, 80% of Democrats are in favor of banning assault-style weapons and creating a federal database to track gun sales, while only 54 to 56% of Republicans are in favor of such issue (Oliphant). These partisan divisions over gun policies reflect on their contrasting standards and this will only impact the direction the nation will take as a whole on issues, much like gun violence crimes and mass shootings. However, there is some consensus within these communities: 85 to 90% of both Democrats and Republicans are strongly in favor of preventing the mentally ill from purchasing guns and barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists (Oliphant). Though there may be differences between the two political groups, these statistics prove that the political realm has an understanding that the issue of gun issue is extremely important and exists in this nation.
Gun ownership is more prevalent among Whites than African Americans. Statistically speaking, “about half of white men (48%) say they own a gun” (Parker, 6). Although people usually associate guns and much of gun violence with African Americans, due to the stereotype of African Americans committing most crimes in general, the numbers tell us otherwise. Such racial exclusions made by society will only cause more friction between the racial groups. When looking at the demographics of gun ownerships, only 24% of Blacks personally own a gun, while Whites are as high as 36% (Parker, 7). Additionally, only 8% of Black population do not own a gun but live with someone who does, when 13% of Whites do the same. Speaking in terms of numbers, Blacks have a lower rate in most aspects of gun ownership. However, “nearly half (49%) of blacks and 29% of Hispanics say gun violence is a very big problem in their local community; just 11% of whites rate this as a very big problem” (Parker, 54-55). The African American community has been on the spotlight recently due to local authorities, especially White policemen, using gun violence as a way to apprehend them, which to an extent led to death for some. Some blame the African American community for acting in irrational behaviors that lead to the use of guns in local authorities. However, there is no rational behind the use of guns to apprehend or engage anyone. Rather than having control over the situation, guns bring out fear from those who are being aimed at and only create more chaos and panic. By hindering to those who are facing between life and death over one bullet, guns bring more harm than benefits to society on a racial realm.
In Stone’s analysis of policy paradox, she notes the importance stories that contain three elements: heroes, victims, and villains. One of the deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history happened at a music festival in Las Vegas on October 2nd, 2017. Stephen Paddock, 64, decided to step into a hotel and without any motive, opened fire at innocent people, injuring 546 and killing 58 people. As he opened fire in a hotel, people were scrambling left and right to find cover and run for their safety. Fortunately, there were also people who were near the scene, valiant enough to aid those who were looking for protection and personal safety. Police have reported that “more than 20 firearms were found in Paddocks hotel room, including some modified to fire like fully automatic weapons” (CBS).
With thousands of ammunitions left on the hotel room floor, Paddock was found dead and left the nation in fear as to what his true motives were. Reported by CNN, he had “left no apparent clues as to his motive, no ties to political or extremist groups and left no note explaining why he would meticulously plan the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history” (Lah, 1). In this storyline, there are distinct heroes, victims and villains. The heroes are those who saved people; those who went out of their way to protect the helpless people. The innocent people who died are the victims. As for the villains, there are two categories. First, Paddock is a villain that mass murdered people for no intention. There was no reasoning behind his actions and only brought harm with guns. Government is another example of a villain. Had they enforced stricter gun policies, Paddock would not have had easily accessible guns to carry out this horrendous mission. With “neighbors in Paddock’s senior living community [recalling] him as a reclusive” (Lah, 2), government authorities should have conducted safer background screenings to avoid such situations. By allowing mentally ill individuals to access guns without much eligibility requirements, the security of all citizens in this nation is at risk.
The importance of wording also needs to be address in this debate. Stone critically remarks that, “names can be such powerful persuasive devices because they carry implicit stories and moral connotations” (Stone, 315). For example, in this gun rights debate, there are two possibilities for wording: gun rights and gun control. When discussing issues of “gun rights”, it gives a sense of equality and fairness in all aspects. Moreover, it takes a political stance. When making facts in the polis, Stone states that “the problem of neutrality and objectivity begins in naming but goes far deeper than naming” (Stone, 316). Gun rights can be understood in a broader sense, by focusing on the liberties of the people. Gun control, however, comes with a negative connotation. The word “control” has a stringent tone on the issue of guns. Gun control creates a sense of urgency on individual security and restriction on people’s liberties. With the use of two words, facts of guns could be understood in multiple direction unconsciously. Terms, such as “rights” or “control” can unknowingly insinuate positive or negative expressions of facts that are unchanging.
By analyzing the debate of gun rights, both sides of the debate provide strong arguments and evidence. Both of their values are cored mainly in liberty and harm and the idea of ethics and morality on each side of the argument were clearly stated through the discussion between security and liberty. Using the Stonean analysis, it has improved my ability to evaluate debates, by raising awareness for factors and values, such as community, security, liberty, numbers, and many others that need to be taken into consideration. Each side of the policy debate had its own merits and ultimately, the gun rights debate is at a stalemate. Although there is rational basis to create new policies either enforcing gun control or refraining civil liberties, there is no way to absolutely achieve either of the motives to the full extent. One side will always have rebuttal to an argument raised by another side. Until recently, anti-gun rights seemed to have a more resolute argument against mass shootings and gun related deaths and violence. However, throughout the Stonean evaluation, the value of community, security, liberty and civils all must be considered, therefore, leaving this policy debate at a gridlock condition.