In 2008 the United States Supreme Court decided a landmark case, District of Colombia v. Heller. For the first time, the Court recognized that an individual’s right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia, and to use for lawful purposes such as protection of one’s home, is protected by the Second Amendment. What might explain the United States’ evolution toward such a position, while other former colonies of the United Kingdom are said to have moved steadily in the opposite direction, toward strict gun controls? Each former colony of the United Kingdom moved towards independence but in varying degrees of violence.
Although America is the youngest nation why has its revolutions been fueled by violence and is there a correlation between America’s arms and its violent nature? This paper attempts to test these assumptions and answer these questions through analysis of the constitutional systems and historical roots of two of the United States’ common-law relatives: Ireland and Australia.
Democracy
Liberty and equality represent basic values of democratic political systems, including that of the United States. Rule by absolute monarchs and emperors has often brought peace and order, but at the cost of personal freedoms. Democratic values support the belief that an orderly society can exist in which freedom is preserved. But order and freedom must be balanced. The Birth of a Nation: America
The American government has its roots in the seventeenth and eighteenth century enlightenment in Europe, a movement that questioned the traditional authority of the monarch to rule. The age of enlightenment asked what gives one person the right to rule another? Enlightenment philosophes answered the question by acknowledging the importance of establishing order. They were influenced by the chaos of medieval times, when a lack of centralized government brought widespread death and destruction. Havens from invaders and attackers were necessary for survival, so weaker people allied themselves with stronger ones, and kings came to rule who provided protection in return for work and allegiance from their subjects. As order was established and new economic patterns emerged, people began to question the king’s right to rule. Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the “darkness” of the middle ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for philosophers, scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality. For example, John Locke, an eighteenth century English philosopher, theorized that the right to rule came from the ‘Consent of the Governed.” Montesquieu wrote with admiration about three “branches” of government that checked one another’s power. Rousseau believed that communities were most justly governed by the general will or majority rule of their citizens. Though the philosophes believed that rulers were important for maintaining order, they questioned the sacrifice of individual freedom that they saw under European monarchs. Democratic countries cherish individual freedom and believe that laws should not be repressive; a little order can be sacrificed in the name of liberty. Democratic societies also expect another kind of balance: a compromise between liberty and equality. Complete liberty logically leads to inequality. A strong or ambitious person might acquire more goods and property than another, and someone is bound to dominate. But the line has to be drawn before an individual seizes power that greatly restricts the liberties of others. In the late 18th century the Founders created the blueprints for the United States government in an effort to achieve these delicate balances between liberty and order, and between liberty and equality. Their success is reflected in the continuing efforts to refine them. The formula has changed with time, but the framework provided by the Constitution and the values expressed by the Declaration of Independence remain the same. The American colonies began developing a democratic tradition during their earliest stages of development. Over 150 years later, the colonists believed their experience was great enough to refuse to recognize the British king. The American Revolution and the domestic instability that followed prompted a call for a new type of government with a constitution to guarantee liberty. The constitution drafted in the early days of the independent American republic has endured longer than any in human history.
Important English Documents
Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch’s rule was not absolute. Although the document only forced King John to consult nobles before he made arbitrary decisions like passing taxes, the Magna Carta provided the basis for the later development of Parliament. Over the years, representative government led by a Prime Minister came to control and eventually replace the king as the real source of power in Britain. The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of “commoners” to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. Although King George III still had some real power in 1776, Britain was already well along on the path of democracy by that time. The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact.
The Colonial Experience
Each of the thirteen colonies had a charter, or written agreement between the colony and the king of England or Parliament. Charters of royal colonies provided for direct rule by the king. A colonial legislature was elected by property holding males. But governors were appointed by the king and had almost complete authority in theory. The legislatures controlled the salary of the governor and often used this influence to keep the governors in line with colonial wishes. The first colonial legislature was the Virginia House of Burgesses, established in 1619. Colonial economies operated under mercantilism, a system based on the belief that colonies existed in order to increase the mother country’s wealth. England tried to regulate trade, and forbid colonies from trading with other European countries. England also maintained the right to tax the colonies. Both trade and taxation were difficult for England to control, and so an informal agreement emerged. England regulated trade but allowed colonists the right to levy their own taxes. Smugglers soon exploited the English inability to guard every port by secretly trading against Parliament’s wishes. This delicate agreement was put to test by the French and Indian War. The war was expensive, and from the British point of view, colonists should help pay for it, especially considering that England believed it was protecting the colonists from French and Indian threats. The new taxes levied by the Crown nevertheless horrified the colonists. British naval measures to arrest smugglers further incited American shippers. These actions served as stepping stones to the Revolution. Religious freedom served as a major motivation for Europeans to venture to the American colonies. Puritans and Pilgrims in Massachusetts, Quakers in Pennsylvania, and Catholics in Maryland represented the growing religious diversity in the colonies. Rhode Island was founded as a colony of religious freedom in reaction to zealous Puritans. As a result, many different faiths coexisted in the colonies. This variety required an insistence on freedom of religion since the earliest days of British settlement. As tensions between Britain and the American colonies increased, a series of meetings were called, including that of the Second Continental Congress (1775-1776.) On July 4, 1776, the delegates approved the Declaration of Independence, the event that marks the birth of the United States. Thomas Jefferson, a delegate from Virginia, drafted the document primarily as a list of grievances against the king. His most important words, however, clearly shaped the philosophical basis of the new government. The famous introduction clearly reflected John Locke’s social contract theory: “…to secure these rights [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Jefferson further reasoned that since the British government had abused these rights, the colonists had the right “to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” The British, of course, did not recognize the Declaration and continued to send troops to contain the rebellion. The war continued until 1783, so the new government had to be put in place in a wartime atmosphere. The Articles of Confederation, a compact among the thirteen original states, was written in 1776 but not ratified by the states until 1781. The loose “league of friendship” that it created reflected the founders’ reaction to the central authority of King George III. The government gave most powers to the states, and the central government consisted only of a legislature. Above all, the colonists wanted to preserve their liberties, but the central governments’ lack of power proved to be disastrous. It could not regulate trade or keep the states from circulating their own currency. No chief executive could make real decisions, and no national court could settle disputes among states. And perhaps most importantly, they could not efficiently conduct a war nor pay the debts incurred once the war was over. By 1786 the new country was in serious economic straits, and states were quarreling over boundary lines and tariffs. An economic depression left not only states in trouble, but also many ordinary citizens, such as farmers and merchants, were deep in debt as well. Shays’ Rebellion, a revolt by angry farmers in Massachusetts, symbolized the chaos in the country. Even though the Massachusetts militia finally put the rebellion down, it pointed out the inability of the central government to maintain law and order. In reaction, Alexander Hamilton of New York initiated the organization of a meeting in Philadelphia in 1787. This convention would eventually throw out the Articles of Confederation and draft the Constitution. So the freedom that the American Revolution sought to preserve proved to create a government under the Articles of Confederation that could not keep law and order. But the failure of the initial experiment helped the founders to find a more perfect balance between liberty and order in the Constitution they produced in 1787.
Creating the Constitution
“Nothing spoken or written can be revealed to anyone ‘ not even your family ‘ until we have adjourned permanently. Gossip or misunderstanding can easily ruin all the hard work we shall have to do this summer.”
-George Washington, presiding officer
Most of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had already risked being hanged as traitors by the British. No wonder that they worried about their states’ reactions to their decision to abandon the Articles of Confederation and create a whole new document. Persuading the states to accept the Constitution was every bit as difficult as they predicted. It took two years for all thirteen states to ratify it. But their product was a blueprint for a new kind of government based on the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.
Ireland’s History
Origins trace back to 1171 when King Henry II of England consolidated Norman victories over the Gaelic inhabitants of Ireland and declared himself its ruler.
From that point forward, the Irish have willingly picked up arms, and there has been no shortage of bloodshed. Following King Henry’s seizure of Ireland in 1171 the Normans and Gaels fought for over two hundred years for control. Eventually the Gaels pinned the Norman invaders down in a small area near Dublin known as ‘the Pale.’ After conquering Ireland, the English provincial government and early settlers limited their presence to this area–for a time.
As England rose to world superpower status in the 1500s, the whole of the Irish island became a strategic Achilles’ heel. With only the narrow Irish and Celtic Seas separating England and Ireland, the allegiances the Irish chose made their English rulers increasingly anxious. First, the Irish spitefully developed strong ties with the French, the long-time bitter enemies of the English. Then in the 1580s, Irish rebels enlisted the aid of the Spanish in an uprising. As punishment for Ireland’s treasonous associations, English forces slaughtered thousands and expanded their control beyond the borders of the Pale.
Like the United States, Ireland’s first constitution was enacted amidst a whirlwind of violence and political upheaval. Ireland’s struggle for independence did culminate in the enactment of a constitution, but also in a division of its territory. By the early twentieth century, a majority of the Irish, through their representatives in the British Parliament, successfully voted for home rule in Ireland. But the Protestants in the north revolted, fearful of becoming a religious minority in a predominantly Catholic island. This revolt brought an Irish counter-reaction which led to a revolution for independence. Several Irish nationalist groups actively seeking independence from England began to form, most notably the Fenians, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and the Irish Republican Volunteers.
In 1916, the Irish Republican Volunteers attempted an insurrection known as the Easter Rising, but were quickly quelled by British forces.21 But in 1919, the pro-independence group reformed into the infamous Irish Republican Army (IRA). Michael Collins, the IRA’s Director of Intelligence, used guerilla tactics against the British with considerable success. The difficulty in dealing with the IRA’s attacks eventually convinced the British to at least discuss the possibility of an Irish free state. With both sides at the bargaining table, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in 1921. The treaty recognized the sovereignty of the twenty-six southern counties in Ireland, but with one major catch–the six northern counties were to remain under British rule. This division was called the ‘Partition.’ Provisions of the Anglo-Irish Treaty were incorporated into Ireland’s founding legal document, the Constitution of the Irish Free State, which would be replaced in 1937 by the Constitution of Ireland.
Following partition, the English relegated the Catholics in the north to second-class citizenship. The Protestant minority engaged in gerrymandering and discrimination in housing and employment–injustices that prompted a civil rights movement in the 1960s. These events served to further drive a rift between Catholics and Protestants. Even today, the Protestant community regards itself as British, and conversely, the Catholic community regards itself as Irish. Therefore, the conflict in Northern Ireland is not accurately characterized as a religious feud; ‘[i]t is really a question of identity.’
In 1949, the Irish Free State declared itself the Republic of Ireland, a state independent in all respects from the British Commonwealth. But the north remained a part of the British Commonwealth. On Good Friday, April 10, 1998, under the patient negotiation techniques of George Mitchell, the political parties in Ireland signed a peace agreement. Sinn Fein reiterated its former pledge of a ‘complete cessation of military activities.’ The Ulster Defense Association (UDA), the largest paramilitary group holding unionist prerogatives, also agreed to the cease-fire. The ‘Good Friday Agreement’ stipulated in its most relevant part that: (1) Northern Ireland’s constitutional status is dependent on the consent of a majority of Northern Ireland’s citizens (as opposed to all Irish citizens); (2) The Irish Constitution’s claim to Northern Ireland will be amended to reflect the need for consent; and (3) the parties ‘reaffirm the commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations.’ Time proved, however, that disarming Ireland’s many paramilitary groups was a daunting task.
In 2006, the Irish and British governments developed and began to implement the St. Andrews Agreement, using the Good Friday Agreement as a launching point. All major parties in Ireland agreed to support the police and uphold the rule of law. The agreement also provided for devolution of power away from England toward Belfast. At its core, the St. Andrews Agreement was a power-sharing agreement. Thus far, the power-sharing agreement has not been shaken by continuing sporadic terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Australia’s History
In 1770, James Cook led the HMS Endeavor to the eastern coastline of Australia, and annexed New South Wales in the name of King George the III. After losing its American colonies, Britain attempted to restructure its dwindling overseas empire and decided to form Australia into a penal colony. Like the United States, there was a significant native population in Australia when the first British settlers arrived. But unlike the Native Americans, Aborigines did not put up any serious resistance to early settlement. This is apparently because the Aborigine population was particularly susceptible to smallpox. ‘Because both the cities and the frontier were so much more secure, guns were not necessary as a means of self-defense against humans.’
During the 1800s, the French continued to drive the conquest decisions of the British. By 1839, the English had annexed most of the Australian mainland in an effort to curtail any Napoleonic designs on the Australian continent. From its founding days, stark societal divisions arose in Australia. Free settlers believed themselves the moral superiors to those whose family had arrived in Australia as a result of criminal wrongdoing. Britain looked upon all Australians as somehow tainted with criminality, and refused to allow any native-born Australians to take any official positions in the colony in the first few decades after the colony’s settlement.150 During the early 1800s, although most convicts served their jail sentence with few privileges, upon their release, they received a tract of land and seed to start a farm. This was an interesting twist of fate considering that these convicts usually came from lower socio-economic positions in England, where they were very unlikely to ever own land.
Overall, Australia’s move toward independence was a slow and nonviolent process, as distinguished from their American and Irish counterparts. But despite their commitment to Britain, the Australian colonies began to discuss joining together into a federation in the late nineteenth century. Although smaller colonies feared a lack of power in a new federation, all six states would finally agree to join the federation, and a constitution was enacted in 1901. Still, Australia remained tied to the British government. It was not until 1942 that Australia would take its next step toward independence. In 1942, Australia adopted the Statute of Westminster, which had been enacted by the English Parliament in 1931. The Statute set out as law the constitutional independence of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and other British colonies.167 The Statute also defined these former British colonies as having equal sovereign status as Britain itself. Finally, in 1980, Australia cut all significant ties to Britain in the Australia Act, though the Queen of England remains the Australian Head of State. The Act also ended all constitutional provisions providing for appeal from Australian courts to English courts, and ended the inclusion of Acts of the British Parliament into Australian law.
Constitutional Issues
A. United States
In the United States, the right to bear arms is now a substantive right. Heller put to rest the long debated question of whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms should be treated as protection for individuals or a collective right for militias. It also struck down one of the most restrictive gun control laws to ever be attempted in the United States.
Heller, if incorporated, will prevent states from ‘experimenting’ with methods of crime control that venture into the spheres of home-protection and self-protection, the two best reasons for having a right to bear arms. Unlike the District of Colombia’s outright ban on handguns and stringent trigger-lock requirement, most licensing schemes in the United States will likely remain constitutional. Although Heller was novel, it was not actually radical in its result. First, it made it clear that the right to bear arms is not an absolute right; there are several places, such as in ‘schools and government buildings,’ where the government has a stronger interest in prohibiting possession. There are also certain persons, such as insane persons or felons, who may yet be disqualified from bearing arms. Next, it did not hold that every weapon, such as ‘M-15 rifles and the like,’ would be allowed. The right to bear arms extends to only those weapons ‘in common use at the time.’
These limitations on the Second Amendment right to bear arms are consistent with the Court’s self-defense and home-protection rationales. Not every type of gun is needed to protect the home, and the need to protect one’s home is not applicable in several of the areas excused from the Court’s holding. For example, when a person is in a government building or a school, he or she obviously does not need to protect his or her home. The Court’s holding is also well-tailored to its self-defense rationale–the limitations on who can bear arms are not likely to undermine this rationale in any significant way. Insane persons or felons are two types of individuals unlikely to use a gun for self-defense in the first place. In sum, the Court’s decision accomplishes what it sets out to do–protecting law-abiding citizens in their homes from governmental experimentation with gun controls, while recognizing a limited state role in gun control.
B. Ireland
The primary checks on gun control in Ireland come from constitutional structure doctrines. Ireland’s separation of powers doctrine is a powerful tool against gun controls. Irish case law shows that police commissioners are not free to employ whatever policy they desire, but rather must only act where the legislature has explicitly granted authority. This is particularly important in terms of the right to bear arms because those most in favor of disarming citizens are most likely to be among the police ranks.
Irish case law also shows a heartening level of judicial examination of each individual decision made by licensing authorities. A licensing decision with even the slightest amount of inconsistency or illogic is likely to be overturned by the courts. Demanding uniform and well-reasoned decisions from licensing authorities fosters respect for the law.
On the other hand, the legislature has shown that it has the ability to adapt to the courts. Following Dunne, it passed the Criminal Justice Act, reinstituting many of the provisions the Supreme Court had struck down. The bad news for individuals in Ireland is that constitutional powers issues involve a tug-of-war match in which individuals essentially do none of the tugging. There is a strong argument that relying on the separation of powers and ‘persona designata’ doctrines to limit the expansion of gun control in Ireland only has the effect of buying time.
But while a reasonable mind might believe that the only thing preventing a total ban on firearms in Ireland is mere hesitation on the part of legislature, it would be premature to assume that the Irish judiciary would accept such wholesale legislation at face value. The Irish Supreme Court has on occasion found that there are certain unremunerated substantive rights held by the people. Furthermore, it seems doubtful that the Irish, successful in their struggle for independence because they were willing to take up arms against their oppressors, would be quick to forget their struggle for history was facilitated by firearms. It is also seems doubtful the Irish legislature would ignore classic thinkers like Blackstone, who embraced the individual right to bear arms as inherent in the common law.
On the other hand, it would be understandable if Ireland’s bloody experience with domestic terrorism eventually drives them in the opposite direction. The rate of legislation enacted certainly supports the assertion that gun controls are stiffening in Ireland as a result of paramilitary activity.
C. Australia
Case law shows that in Australia, the freedom of trade and the Commerce Clause are the primary barriers to gun control. Practically speaking, the freedom of trade does little to help an Australian citizen who just wants to keep a gun at home for self-protection. The freedom of trade most likely benefits firearms dealers. Amongst firearms dealers, the freedom of trade will only be of assistance to those selling guns to residents from other states. Narrowing the window further, the freedom of trade is now subject to proportionality review, which is more likely to uphold state infringement of the right. Moreover, shielding firearms dealers from government action is largely ineffective in advancing the personal self-defense rationale that Heller found so important in the United States. The Australian state legislatures have even determined that self-defense is not a legitimate need for owning a firearm.
The Commerce Clause is equally inadequate at protecting firearm ownership. Although the Australian Supreme Court does closely scrutinize national legislation passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause, in practice this does little to restrict the expansion of gun controls. Policing in Australia, like the United States, is mainly done at the state level. Thus, the states are the entities most likely to enact gun controls in the first place, not the federal government. The federal government is also able to employ its customs power to prevent the imports of many firearms into Australia.
Australia is a case study of the importance of express rights. Without a bill of rights in the Australian Constitution, the courts have been reluctant to extend even the most basic rights. It was not until 1992 that the Australian High Court found an implied freedom of expression in the constitution. Considering the slow evolution of other individual rights, it is not surprising that extending a right to bear arms is low on the High Court’s priority list. Australia’s slow evolution of rights itself is somewhat of a contradiction to Australia’s strong individualist tradition. Considering Australia’s origins as a penal colony, where rights were near absolute zero, it seems odd that Australians would again allow their liberty to be eclipsed.
Gun Violence Statistics
United Kingdom
Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons. Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United Kingdom is 4,060,000. The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United Kingdom is 6.7 firearms per 100 people. There are reportedly 14,501 handguns in civilian possession in the United Kingdom. The rate of licensed firearm owners per 100 people in the United Kingdom is 1.34.The number of registered guns in the United Kingdom is reported to be 2,149,330. 2011 gun homicide 35.
Ireland
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Ireland is 300,000. The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in Ireland is 6.35 firearms per 100 people. In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Ireland ranked at No. 98. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 178 countries, Ireland ranked at No. Unlawfully held guns cannot be counted, but in Ireland there are estimated to be 150,000.Gun homicide in the year of 2012 was 12 deaths.
Australia
Number of Privately Owned Firearms
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Australia is 3,050,000. The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in Australia is 15.0 firearms per 100 people. In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Australia ranked at No. 25. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 178 countries, Australia ranked at No. 42. The number of licensed gun owners in Australia is reported to be 2012: 730,000. The rate of licensed firearm owners per 100 people in Australia is 2012: 3.32. The number of gun homicide in the year 2011 was 25 deaths.
America
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000. The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.05 firearms per 100 people. In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1. The number of Gun homicide in the year 2011 was 11,101 deaths.
America’s Continued Violent Civil Unrest
“Among free men,” said Abraham Lincoln, ‘there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs.”
Nullification and the Civil War
By the mid-19th century, when slavery and tariffs became controversial issues between North and South, states’ rights were again a central focus. John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina and eventually Vice-President from 1825 to 1832, claimed that states had the right to nullify, or reject, a federal law. For example, when a tariff act negatively affected South Carolina, Calhoun declared that the state could declare the tariff “null and void” within its own borders.
Many feared that if a state rejected a new provision passed by Congress, then it also had the right to secede from the union. Decades later, South Carolina tested this notion by declaring independence from the United States. When other southern states followed suit, President Abraham Lincoln objected, and the Civil War began. With the South’s defeat in 1865, national supremacy was once again affirmed, and states have never again claimed the right to secede. It remains the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties. One estimate of the death toll is that ten percent of all Northern males 20’45 years old, and 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18’40 perished. Shortly after the end of the civil war and freeing of the slaves Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, was assassinated on April 15th 1865 from one shot of a gun.
The Civil Rights Movement
During the 1960’s America was having another civil unrest with the civil rights movement. During this time there was a push towards equality of African Americans. The African Americans joined by equal thinking whites began a nonviolent movement with marches and sit-ins to identify and eliminate racial inequalities. Although the movement was one of peace, those who opposed the movement reacted with violence. During this time we lost many leaders and activists of change to the hands of violence including Martin Luther King, Malcom X, President John F. Kennedy, and former U.S. Attorney General and then Democratic Presidential Contender Robert F. Kennedy.
The Mindless Menace of Violence
In April of 1968 Robert Francis Kennedy spoke about the mindless menace of violence in America which stains our land and every one of our lives. Robert stated that violence is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one – no matter where he lives or what he does – can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on. Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by his assassin’s bullet. No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people. Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily – whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence – whenever we tear at the fabric of life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded. Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition they desire. For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter. Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is now what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of human purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence. We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of all. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge. Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again.
Conclusion
Ireland , Australia, and America all receded from English control in varying degrees of violent revolution. America, out of all three countries, contains the least restrictive gun control laws. America remains a country with one of the highest number of civilian owned weapons and gun related deaths in the world. As a country founded in liberty justice and freedom for all, America remains steadfast to ensure that no right be taken away from its people including the right to bear arms. Yet have Americans become too polarized from each other and the rest of the world in an attempt to remain a free people? There are those who view giving equality to others as taking freedom from themselves and are not quick to resin what which they consider their natural given rights. For example, there are those who view giving marriage equality to Americans of all sexes and orientations as a taking of the freedom of the right to marry of men and women. However, this is akin to the giving of equal treatment to African American’s, no right was taken from anyone, the only act granted was the act of giving; of equal treatment to all men and women no matter what their color. Americans must begin to look outside themselves and their country, recognizing that all men were created equal, no matter where they were born, no matter their gender, the color of their skin, or who they choose to love. America, and the world, would be a more peaceful place if we begin to see the things in each other that make as the same and not focus on the things we think make us different. For as it was stated:
‘What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.’ Robert Francis Kennedy
Amid the tragedy of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King on Thursday, April 4th, 1968 breaking the news to a large gathering of African Americans that evening in Indianapolis, Indiana.