Political arguments of gun politics in the United States
Encyclopedia
Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, debate about the right to bear arms, centers on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
and how it should be interpreted. Other factors include the correlation between gun ownership to crime and murder rates, ethical considerations, the balance between an individual's right of self-defense, national security, and citizens' interest in maintaining public safety.
The fundamental right view was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States
in 2010 when it decided McDonald v. Chicago
.
is a touchstone of modern political debate about guns in America.
Before District of Columbia v. Heller
there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the second amendment included an individual right. The Heller case concluded that there was indeed such a right. There remain groups of people who believe that this was an incorrect interpretation by the court.
After the Heller decision there was an increased amount of attention on whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the states. That issue was decided in 2010 as part of McDonald v. Chicago
where the Supreme Court held that it is incorporated.
Each of the fifty states has its own constitution and laws regarding guns. Most of the states' constitutions provide for some form of state-level right to keep and bear arms with only seven states remaining silent on the issue. Many states' constitutional provisions for firearm rights are at least similar to, if not directly derived from, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Hawaii's constitution simply copies the text of the Second Amendment verbatim, while North Carolina, and South Carolina begin with the same but continue with an injunction against maintaining standing armies. Alaska also begins with the full text of the Second Amendment, but adds that the right, "shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State". Rhode Island, on the other hand, subtracts the first half of the Second Amendment leaving only, "[t]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The majority of the remaining states' constitutions differ from the text of the United States Constitution primarily in their clarification of exactly to whom the right belongs or by the inclusion of additional, specific protections or restrictions. Seventeen states refer to the right to keep and bear arms as being an individual right with Utah and Alaska referring to it explicitly as "[t]he individual right to keep and bear arms", while the other fifteen refer to the right as belonging to "every citizen", "all individuals", "all persons", or another, very similar phrase. In contrast are four states which make no mention whatever of an individual right or of defense of one's self as a valid basis for the right to arms. Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Tennessee all state that the right is "for the common defense", while Virginia's constitution explicitly indicates that the right is derived from the need for a militia to defend the state.
Most state constitutions go on to ennumerate one or more appropriate reasons for the keeping of arms. Twenty-four states include self-defense as a valid, protected use of arms; twenty-eight cite defense of the state as a proper purpose. Ten states extend the right to defense of home and/or property, five include the defense of family, and six add hunting and recreation. Idaho is uniquely specific in its provision that "[n]o law shall impose licensure, registration, or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony". Fifteen state constitutions include specific restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Florida's constitution calls for a three day waiting period for all modern cartridge handgun purchases, with exceptions for handgun purchases by those holding a CCW
license, or for anyone who purchases a blackpowder handgun. Illinois prefaces the right by indicating that it is "[s]ubject...to the police power". Florida and the remaining thirteen states with specific restrictions all carry a provision to the effect that the state legislature may enact laws regulating the carrying, concealing, and/or wearing of arms.
, hunting, and target shooting. Gun rights supporters argue that the phrase "the people" applies to all individuals rather than an organized collective, and state that the phrase "the people" means the same individuals in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. They also cite the fact that the Second Amendment resides in the Bill of Rights
and argue that the Bill of Rights, by its very nature, defines individual rights
of the citizen.
s equivalent to those of the British soldiers to gain independence. Thomas Jefferson
also stated that the right to bear arms is necessary for the citizens to protect themselves from the "tyranny in government"
A position taken by some personal gun rights advocates and organizations including Mike Huckabee
, Ron Paul
, and Gun Owners of America
is that an armed citizenry is the population's last line of defense against tyranny by their own government, as they believe was one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. This belief was also held by some of the authors of the Constitution, though a right of rebellion was not explicitly included in the Constitution, and instead the Constitution was designed to ensure a government deriving its power from the consent of the governed
.
The Declaration of Independence itself says when discussing the abusive British rule: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
Abraham Lincoln
, echoing the Declaration
in his first inaugural address
, said:
Thomas Jefferson wrote in defense of the Shays' Rebellion
in a letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy,
Yet, the legal scholar Roscoe Pound
has said:
Opponents of this right of revolution theory also argue that the intent of the Second Amendment was the need to avoid a standing army by ensuring the viability of people's militias, and that the concept of rebellious private citizens or rogue militias as a check on governmental tyranny was clearly not part of the Second Amendment. As historian Don Higginbotham
notes, the well-regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment was more likely to put down rebellions than participate in them. In his book "Armed People Victorious," Larry Pratt recounts how countries as dissimilar as Guatemala and the Philippines preserved their freedom against communist insurgency by arming the people and forming rural militias in the 1980s. Gun-rights advocacy groups argue that the only way to enforce democracy is through having the means of resistance.
Critics of the 'security against tyranny' argument argue also that replacing elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check, although there are numerous examples in history of elected officials assuming absolute power, with little regard to laws. Gun right advocates put forward the Battle of Athens on August 2, 1946 as an example of citizens in desperate circumstances using firearms where all other democratic options have failed.
Then-senator John F. Kennedy recognized the intent of the founding fathers "fears of governmental tyranny" and "security of the nation" in his statement Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960),
Gun rights advocacy groups rarely believe in the plausibility of an "instant" rebellion's success through traditional warfare. Those who believe that arms allow for successful rebellions against tyranny hold that guerrilla warfare
is the method in which liberty could once again (or even for the first time) be achieved. The right of free people to form militias to protect life, liberty, and property, Larry Pratt argues, has been shown historically to be essential for the preservation of freedom.
Author John Longenecker (Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns) writes that one of best evidence facts of who militia is lies in United States Code where the original militia is officially recognized as not coming under control of the Commander-in-Chief. It is essential, Longenecker argues, that this body remain so independent and be officially recognized as such. This defeats the legal pleading that one must be part of a militia to own, keep and bear arms, since one of legal age is automatically part of the militia.
in the United States in comparison to other developed countries look to restrictions on gun ownership as a way to stem the violence. Those supportive of long-standing rights to keep and bear arms point to the Second Amendment
of the Constitution
, which some interpret as specifically preventing infringement of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", independent of serving in a militia, as the means by which to stem the violence.
Within the gun politics debate, gun control advocates and gun rights advocates disagree on more practical questions as well. There is an ongoing debate over the role that guns play in crime
. Gun-rights groups say that a well-armed citizenry prevents crime and that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would increase the crime rate by making law-abiding citizens vulnerable to those who choose to disregard the law. They note that more people defend themselves with a gun every year than the police arrest for violent crimes and burglary and that private citizens legally shoot almost as many criminals as public police officers do. Some gun control organizations say that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide
and other negative outcomes. Others point to successes outside the US such as, for example, to the absence of mass shooting events in the UK since the near total banning of handguns in response to the 1996 Dunblane massacre
. This being in marked contrast to the US over the same period.
The "gold standard" for how an intervention (such as a new law) affects a human population is the double-blinded, randomized control study. Such studies are almost never available to answer public policy questions. Current studies (see below) examining guns and violence have either tried to stratify the risk of violence based on gun ownership (determined by interview for individuals within one locale, or by population statistics for international comparisons) or by level of legal restriction, using either an international comparison for different levels of regulation or a historical one (i.e. how did the regional crime rate change when a new gun law was introduced there).
These studies have different faults. The chief problem of the gun-ownership-as-risk-factor studies is that while they can– if well designed– show an association (or lack thereof) of gun-ownership and violence risk, they cannot decide whether the relationship is a causal
one. John Lott
uses the example of hospitals: there may be a significant association between those who recently died and those who recently were in hospital, but that does not necessarily mean the hospital stay caused their deaths. A third factor (e.g. severe illness) may have caused both the hospitalization and the death.
The internationally controlled comparisons are flawed by the fact that other international differences (such as level of illegal drug trafficking or level of civil-rights limitations on police surveillance) may overwhelm the gun-restriction or gun-ownership differences as a source of difference in violent crime rate.
Similarly, the historically controlled studies may miss other trends over time (e.g. economic cycles, changes in gang presence, changes in other laws etc.) that are more important than the introduction of the studied gun law.
No study can be free of all of these faults and so part of the policy debate will center on which studies are "most free" of confounding error. It must be considered, however, whenever a public policy change concerning firearms is proposed (either loosening or tightening gun restrictions) that three assumptions are being made.
First, it is assumed that the proposed law, if enforced as intended, would actually reduce overall violent crime (or simply gun-related crime, if that is the goal). Second, it is assumed that enforcement of the law as intended (that is, its application to the target population–, e.g. criminals or identifiable potential criminals– without its simply being ignored or easily circumvented by that group) can, in fact, be accomplished. Any study claiming that its data "shows" that a given law produced a given effect is simultaneously asserting that these first two assumptions were true.
Finally, as the resources to prevent violence will never be infinite, there is a third assumption: that devoting the resources to implement the new law will make more of a difference in violence prevention than simply devoting those same resources to (better?) implementation of existing laws.
Frequent talk show guest, Examiner.com GunRights columnist and liberty book publisher John Longenecker argues that the nation's founders' Original Intent
continues to align with the interests of the nation. Longenecker sees the Founding Fathers' defeat of the abuse of due process in overthrowing British rule as a crucial aspect of enduring freedom, without which the nation will perish. Longenecker adds that the Founders did not write the Constitution for citizens as much as to impose limits on government - a subject they knew only too well. Regarding the Second Amendment, the Founders did not fear nor imagine weapons of the future, but foresaw and forbade abuses of due process in the future. They wrote that the citizen is the supreme authority to protect the new nation against abuses for all time. The Second Amendment embodies this by backing that ultimate citizen authority with force. Longenecker emphasizes that crime is often used as an excuse to disarm that ultimate authority - the people - for the unhampered growth of cottage industries and other anti-crime policy. Finally, Longenecker shows how claims of no change in right-to-carry states are untrue. For the FBI's report of 10,177 gunshot deaths in 2006, there were 2.5 million crimes de-escalated by armed citizens, who believed they had sufficient control of the situation that they did not have to fire their weapon. "Clearly," Longenecker says, "What the people don't see tells the story 2.5 million times a year. Armed citizens play their role in crime control and they do it in due process."
Some writers, such as John Lott
, author of More Guns, Less Crime
, say they have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals victimize law-abiding citizens. Lott asserts that criminals ignore gun control laws and are effectively deterred by armed intended victims just as higher penalties deter crime. His work involved comparison and analysis from data collected from all the counties in the United States. Lott's study has been criticized for not adequately controlling for other factors, including other state laws also enacted, such as Florida
's laws requiring background checks and waiting period for handgun buyers. More recent similar findings by Jens Ludwig further support John Lott statistical evidence. Since concealed-carry permits are only given to adults, John J. Donohue suggests that analysis should focus on the relationship with adult and not juvenile gun incident rates. He finds a small, positive effect of concealed-carry laws on adult homicide rates, but states the effect is not statistically significant
. NAS suggests that new analytical approaches and datasets at the county or local level are needed to evaluate adequately the impact of right-to-carry laws.
Another researcher, Dr. Gary Kleck
, a criminologist at Florida State University
, estimated that approximately 2.5 million people used their gun in self-defense or to prevent crime each year, often by merely displaying a weapon. The incidents that Kleck studied generally did not involve the firing of the gun and he estimates that as many as 1.9 million of those instances involved a handgun. The National Rifle Association regularly reprints locally-published stories of ordinary citizens whose lives were saved by their guns.
One study found that homicide rates as a whole, especially homicides as a result of firearms use, are not always significantly lower in many other developed countries. This is apparent in the UK and Japan, which have very strict gun control laws, while Israel, Canada and Switzerland at the same time have lower homicide rates and high rates of gun distribution. Dr Kleck has stated, "...cross-national comparisons do not provide a sound basis for assessing the impact of gun ownership levels on crime rates." One study published in the [International Journal of Epidemiology], which found that for the year of 1998:
Similarly statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) show that the number of homicides per 100,000 in the UK at 1.14 as of 2006, was considerably below that of the US (5.62 per 100,000) in 2006, and again far below the rate of homicides in the US specifically using a firearm (3.36 per 100,000 people) in the same year. The UK rate of homicide was also below that of Canada in 2006 (1.86 per 100,000). However, the UNODC statistics from the same year also show Switzerland to have a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000, again indicating the difficulties of direct international comparisons.
In a New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann found that people who keep a gun at home increase their risk of homicide. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck disagrees with the journal authors' interpretation of the evidence and he notes that there is no evidence that the guns involved in the home homicides studied by Kellermann, et al. were kept in the victim's home. Indeed, it was later discovered that Kellermann's own data indicated that no more than 1.7% of the homicides committed in the counties he studied were committed with a gun kept in the victim's home. Thus, victim gun ownership could not have had more than a negligible effect in elevating the risk of being murdered . Similarly, Dave Kopel, writing in National Review, criticized Kellermann's study. Researchers John Lott, Gary Kleck and many others still dispute Kellermann's work. Kellerman's work has also being severely criticized because he ignores factors such as guns being used to protect property, save lives and deter crime without killing the criminal—which, Kleck and others argue, accounts for the large majority of defensive gun uses. Kellermann responded to similar criticisms of the data behind his study in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, though his response did not actually refute the main claims made by critics, in particular the claim that hardly any of the homicides studied were committed with a gun from the victim's household Finally, another argument cited by academics researching gun violence points to the positive correlation between guns in the home and an already violent neighborhood. Lott's results suggest that only allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. The possibility of getting shot by an armed victim is a substantial deterrent to crime and prevents not only petty crime but physical confrontation as well from criminals who do not possess the means to match an increase in force. Lott's data comes from the FBI's massive crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties. Other scholars, such as Gary Kleck
, dispute Lott's findings, arguing that there is no evidence that total rates of gun carrying (legal and illegal) actually increased after Right-to-Carry laws made it easier to get a carry permit, or that criminals' perceptions of crime as risky increased after the laws were passed . While criticizing Lott's theories as overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime. Others have pointed out that the beneficial effects of firearms, not only in self-protection, deterring crime and protecting property, but also in preserving freedom, have not been properly studied by public health researchers.
In his book Private Guns, Public Health, David Hemenway makes the argument in favor of gun control and he provides evidence for the more guns, more gun violence and suicide hypothesis. Rather than compare America to countries with radically different cultures and historical experiences, he focuses on Canada, New Zealand and Australia and asserts that the case for gun control is a strong one based on the relationship he finds (contrary to most other researchers) between lower crime rates and gun control. More thorough reviews of the research literature, however, do not support Hemenway's optimistic claims about the impact of gun laws
Firearms are also the most common method of suicide, accounting for 53.7% of all suicides committed in the United States in 2003. Most research has nevertheless found no relationship between gun availability and suicide rates, suggesting that other suicide methods, such as hanging, can usually be substituted for shooting.
A 2003 CDC study determined "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." They go on to state "(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)" after reviewing 54 studies and over one hundred years of history.
For a more detailed discussion of the historical and current gun violence issues in the United States, see Gun violence in the United States
.
Research, an independent organization, published in 2009 several evidence briefs summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that concern the effectiveness of various laws related to gun safety .
There is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of "shall issue" laws, as distinct from "may issue" laws, as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.
There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of waiting period laws as public health interventions aimed at preventing gun-related violence and suicide.
Although child access prevention laws may represent a promising intervention for reducing gun-related morbidity and mortality among children, there is currently insufficient evidence to validate their effectiveness as a public health intervention aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
There is insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of such bans as public health interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
There is insufficient evidence to validate the effectiveness of firearm licensing and registration requirements as legal interventions aimed a reducing fire-arm related harms.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second...
and how it should be interpreted. Other factors include the correlation between gun ownership to crime and murder rates, ethical considerations, the balance between an individual's right of self-defense, national security, and citizens' interest in maintaining public safety.
Rights-based arguments
Rights based arguments are based upon the most fundamental question about gun control; whether or not the government has the authority to regulate guns.Fundamental Right
One point of view about firearms is that gun possession is a fundamental civil right, intimitately related to the right to life, and so does not depend on the US Constitution. In this view, arguments about whether gun restrictions reduce or increase violent crime are irrelevant: "I am not here engaged in...recommending...policy prescriptions on the basis of the promised or probable results [on crime]...Thus these essays are not fundamentally about guns at all. They are, foremost, about...the kind of people we intend to be...and the ethical and political consequences of decisions [to control firearms]." Jeff Snyder, an author who has written on the topic terms the main principle behind gun control "the instrumental theory of salvation:" that, lacking the ability to change the violent intent in criminals, we often shift focus to the instrument in an attempt to "limit our ability to hurt ourselves, and one another." His work discusses the consequences that flow from conditioning the liberties of all citizens upon the behavior of criminals.The fundamental right view was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
in 2010 when it decided McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states...
.
The Second Amendment Argument
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Disagreement about the Second Amendment to the United States ConstitutionSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second...
is a touchstone of modern political debate about guns in America.
Before District of Columbia v. Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 , was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as...
there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the second amendment included an individual right. The Heller case concluded that there was indeed such a right. There remain groups of people who believe that this was an incorrect interpretation by the court.
After the Heller decision there was an increased amount of attention on whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the states. That issue was decided in 2010 as part of McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states...
where the Supreme Court held that it is incorporated.
State constitutions
See also Gun laws in the United States (by state)Each of the fifty states has its own constitution and laws regarding guns. Most of the states' constitutions provide for some form of state-level right to keep and bear arms with only seven states remaining silent on the issue. Many states' constitutional provisions for firearm rights are at least similar to, if not directly derived from, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Hawaii's constitution simply copies the text of the Second Amendment verbatim, while North Carolina, and South Carolina begin with the same but continue with an injunction against maintaining standing armies. Alaska also begins with the full text of the Second Amendment, but adds that the right, "shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State". Rhode Island, on the other hand, subtracts the first half of the Second Amendment leaving only, "[t]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The majority of the remaining states' constitutions differ from the text of the United States Constitution primarily in their clarification of exactly to whom the right belongs or by the inclusion of additional, specific protections or restrictions. Seventeen states refer to the right to keep and bear arms as being an individual right with Utah and Alaska referring to it explicitly as "[t]he individual right to keep and bear arms", while the other fifteen refer to the right as belonging to "every citizen", "all individuals", "all persons", or another, very similar phrase. In contrast are four states which make no mention whatever of an individual right or of defense of one's self as a valid basis for the right to arms. Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Tennessee all state that the right is "for the common defense", while Virginia's constitution explicitly indicates that the right is derived from the need for a militia to defend the state.
Most state constitutions go on to ennumerate one or more appropriate reasons for the keeping of arms. Twenty-four states include self-defense as a valid, protected use of arms; twenty-eight cite defense of the state as a proper purpose. Ten states extend the right to defense of home and/or property, five include the defense of family, and six add hunting and recreation. Idaho is uniquely specific in its provision that "[n]o law shall impose licensure, registration, or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony". Fifteen state constitutions include specific restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Florida's constitution calls for a three day waiting period for all modern cartridge handgun purchases, with exceptions for handgun purchases by those holding a CCW
Carrying concealed weapon
Concealed carry, or CCW , refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity....
license, or for anyone who purchases a blackpowder handgun. Illinois prefaces the right by indicating that it is "[s]ubject...to the police power". Florida and the remaining thirteen states with specific restrictions all carry a provision to the effect that the state legislature may enact laws regulating the carrying, concealing, and/or wearing of arms.
Right of self-defense
Many gun rights advocates believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns for individual self defenseSelf-defense (theory)
The right of self-defense is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.- Theory :The...
, hunting, and target shooting. Gun rights supporters argue that the phrase "the people" applies to all individuals rather than an organized collective, and state that the phrase "the people" means the same individuals in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. They also cite the fact that the Second Amendment resides in the Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and...
and argue that the Bill of Rights, by its very nature, defines individual rights
Individual rights
Group rights are rights held by a group rather than by its members separately, or rights held only by individuals within the specified group; in contrast, individual rights are rights held by individual people regardless of their group membership or lack thereof...
of the citizen.
Security against tyranny and invasion
Many gun rights advocates also read the Second Amendment to state that because of the need of a formal military, the people have a right to "keep and bear arms" as a protection from the government. The cultural basis for gun ownership traces to the American revolution, where colonists owned and used musketMusket
A musket is a muzzle-loaded, smooth bore long gun, fired from the shoulder. Muskets were designed for use by infantry. A soldier armed with a musket had the designation musketman or musketeer....
s equivalent to those of the British soldiers to gain independence. Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom , the third President of the United States and founder of the University of Virginia...
also stated that the right to bear arms is necessary for the citizens to protect themselves from the "tyranny in government"
A position taken by some personal gun rights advocates and organizations including Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
Michael "Mike" Dale Huckabee is an American politician who served as the 44th Governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007. He was a candidate in the 2008 United States Republican presidential primaries, finishing second in delegate count and third in both popular vote and number of states won . He won...
, Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul is an American physician, author and United States Congressman who is seeking to be the Republican Party candidate in the 2012 presidential election. Paul represents Texas's 14th congressional district, which covers an area south and southwest of Houston that includes...
, and Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America is a gun rights organization in the United States with over 300,000 members. They make efforts to differentiate themselves from the larger National Rifle Association , and have publicly criticized the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be the selling out...
is that an armed citizenry is the population's last line of defense against tyranny by their own government, as they believe was one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. This belief was also held by some of the authors of the Constitution, though a right of rebellion was not explicitly included in the Constitution, and instead the Constitution was designed to ensure a government deriving its power from the consent of the governed
Consent of the governed
"Consent of the governed" is a phrase synonymous with a political theory wherein a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised...
.
The Declaration of Independence itself says when discussing the abusive British rule: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States, serving from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. He successfully led his country through a great constitutional, military and moral crisis – the American Civil War – preserving the Union, while ending slavery, and...
, echoing the Declaration
United States Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. John Adams put forth a...
in his first inaugural address
Inauguration
An inauguration is a formal ceremony to mark the beginning of a leader's term of office. An example is the ceremony in which the President of the United States officially takes the oath of office....
, said:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Thomas Jefferson wrote in defense of the Shays' Rebellion
Shays' Rebellion
Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in central and western Massachusetts from 1786 to 1787. The rebellion is named after Daniel Shays, a veteran of the American Revolutionary War....
in a letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy,
"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Yet, the legal scholar Roscoe Pound
Roscoe Pound
Nathan Roscoe Pound was a distinguished American legal scholar and educator. He was Dean of Harvard Law School from 1916 to 1936...
has said:
"(a) legal right of a citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted. ... In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which would defeat the whole Bill of Rights."
Opponents of this right of revolution theory also argue that the intent of the Second Amendment was the need to avoid a standing army by ensuring the viability of people's militias, and that the concept of rebellious private citizens or rogue militias as a check on governmental tyranny was clearly not part of the Second Amendment. As historian Don Higginbotham
Don Higginbotham
Don Higginbotham was an American historian and Dowd Professor of History and Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A leading scholar of George Washington, he was a pioneering practitioner of the “new” military history and an expert on colonial and...
notes, the well-regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment was more likely to put down rebellions than participate in them. In his book "Armed People Victorious," Larry Pratt recounts how countries as dissimilar as Guatemala and the Philippines preserved their freedom against communist insurgency by arming the people and forming rural militias in the 1980s. Gun-rights advocacy groups argue that the only way to enforce democracy is through having the means of resistance.
Critics of the 'security against tyranny' argument argue also that replacing elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check, although there are numerous examples in history of elected officials assuming absolute power, with little regard to laws. Gun right advocates put forward the Battle of Athens on August 2, 1946 as an example of citizens in desperate circumstances using firearms where all other democratic options have failed.
Then-senator John F. Kennedy recognized the intent of the founding fathers "fears of governmental tyranny" and "security of the nation" in his statement Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960),
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
Gun rights advocacy groups rarely believe in the plausibility of an "instant" rebellion's success through traditional warfare. Those who believe that arms allow for successful rebellions against tyranny hold that guerrilla warfare
Guerrilla warfare
Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare and refers to conflicts in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and...
is the method in which liberty could once again (or even for the first time) be achieved. The right of free people to form militias to protect life, liberty, and property, Larry Pratt argues, has been shown historically to be essential for the preservation of freedom.
Public policy arguments
A second class of political arguments is founded on the premise that even if the government has the authority to regulate guns, to do so may or may not be sound public policy.Importance of a militia
Opponents of a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment point out that at the time of the Second Amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Even today, the United States Code states that the militia is all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45 with or without military service experience, including additionally those under 64 having former military service experience, as well as including female citizens who are members of the National Guard. Some people argue about even the number of commas in the amendment. Also, there is disagreement about the difference between organized militias and unorganized militias and their relationship to the Second Amendment. The general question here is, "Does the right pertain to only organized, well-regulated militias or all citizens?"Author John Longenecker (Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns) writes that one of best evidence facts of who militia is lies in United States Code where the original militia is officially recognized as not coming under control of the Commander-in-Chief. It is essential, Longenecker argues, that this body remain so independent and be officially recognized as such. This defeats the legal pleading that one must be part of a militia to own, keep and bear arms, since one of legal age is automatically part of the militia.
Firearm deaths
Those concerned about high levels of gun violenceGun violence
Gun violence defined literally means the use of a firearm to threaten or inflict violence or harm. Gun violence may be broadly defined as a category of violence and crime committed with the use of a firearm; it may or may not include actions ruled as self-defense, actions for law enforcement, or...
in the United States in comparison to other developed countries look to restrictions on gun ownership as a way to stem the violence. Those supportive of long-standing rights to keep and bear arms point to the Second Amendment
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second...
of the Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
, which some interpret as specifically preventing infringement of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", independent of serving in a militia, as the means by which to stem the violence.
Within the gun politics debate, gun control advocates and gun rights advocates disagree on more practical questions as well. There is an ongoing debate over the role that guns play in crime
Crime
Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction...
. Gun-rights groups say that a well-armed citizenry prevents crime and that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would increase the crime rate by making law-abiding citizens vulnerable to those who choose to disregard the law. They note that more people defend themselves with a gun every year than the police arrest for violent crimes and burglary and that private citizens legally shoot almost as many criminals as public police officers do. Some gun control organizations say that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide
Suicide
Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death. Suicide is often committed out of despair or attributed to some underlying mental disorder, such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism, or drug abuse...
and other negative outcomes. Others point to successes outside the US such as, for example, to the absence of mass shooting events in the UK since the near total banning of handguns in response to the 1996 Dunblane massacre
Dunblane massacre
The Dunblane massacre was a multiple murder-suicide which occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. Sixteen children and one adult were killed by Thomas Hamilton before he committed suicide.-Timeline of events:...
. This being in marked contrast to the US over the same period.
Logical Pitfalls in the Gun-Violence Debate
The essential question in the gun policy debate is, "Will restrictions on gun ownership (or, for a particular proposed law, will this restriction) cause violent crime to decrease?" Debate attends even this question, with some claiming that overall reduction in violent crime is the goal, while others claiming that reduction in gun-crime is a good in itself (even if replaced by equal numbers of, say, knife-crime) because of the gun's assumed higher potential for lethality.The "gold standard" for how an intervention (such as a new law) affects a human population is the double-blinded, randomized control study. Such studies are almost never available to answer public policy questions. Current studies (see below) examining guns and violence have either tried to stratify the risk of violence based on gun ownership (determined by interview for individuals within one locale, or by population statistics for international comparisons) or by level of legal restriction, using either an international comparison for different levels of regulation or a historical one (i.e. how did the regional crime rate change when a new gun law was introduced there).
These studies have different faults. The chief problem of the gun-ownership-as-risk-factor studies is that while they can– if well designed– show an association (or lack thereof) of gun-ownership and violence risk, they cannot decide whether the relationship is a causal
Correlation does not imply causation
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other "Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common cause" and questionable cause) is a...
one. John Lott
John Lott
John Richard Lott Jr. is an American academic and political commentator. He has previously held research positions at academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park,...
uses the example of hospitals: there may be a significant association between those who recently died and those who recently were in hospital, but that does not necessarily mean the hospital stay caused their deaths. A third factor (e.g. severe illness) may have caused both the hospitalization and the death.
The internationally controlled comparisons are flawed by the fact that other international differences (such as level of illegal drug trafficking or level of civil-rights limitations on police surveillance) may overwhelm the gun-restriction or gun-ownership differences as a source of difference in violent crime rate.
Similarly, the historically controlled studies may miss other trends over time (e.g. economic cycles, changes in gang presence, changes in other laws etc.) that are more important than the introduction of the studied gun law.
No study can be free of all of these faults and so part of the policy debate will center on which studies are "most free" of confounding error. It must be considered, however, whenever a public policy change concerning firearms is proposed (either loosening or tightening gun restrictions) that three assumptions are being made.
First, it is assumed that the proposed law, if enforced as intended, would actually reduce overall violent crime (or simply gun-related crime, if that is the goal). Second, it is assumed that enforcement of the law as intended (that is, its application to the target population–, e.g. criminals or identifiable potential criminals– without its simply being ignored or easily circumvented by that group) can, in fact, be accomplished. Any study claiming that its data "shows" that a given law produced a given effect is simultaneously asserting that these first two assumptions were true.
Finally, as the resources to prevent violence will never be infinite, there is a third assumption: that devoting the resources to implement the new law will make more of a difference in violence prevention than simply devoting those same resources to (better?) implementation of existing laws.
Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership
There is an open debate regarding the relationship between gun control and violence and other crimes. The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership is debated by criminologists. Research difficulties include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime".Frequent talk show guest, Examiner.com GunRights columnist and liberty book publisher John Longenecker argues that the nation's founders' Original Intent
Original intent
Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. It is frequently—and usually spuriously—used as a synonym for originalism generally; while original intent is indeed one theory in the originalist family, it has some extremely salient differences which has...
continues to align with the interests of the nation. Longenecker sees the Founding Fathers' defeat of the abuse of due process in overthrowing British rule as a crucial aspect of enduring freedom, without which the nation will perish. Longenecker adds that the Founders did not write the Constitution for citizens as much as to impose limits on government - a subject they knew only too well. Regarding the Second Amendment, the Founders did not fear nor imagine weapons of the future, but foresaw and forbade abuses of due process in the future. They wrote that the citizen is the supreme authority to protect the new nation against abuses for all time. The Second Amendment embodies this by backing that ultimate citizen authority with force. Longenecker emphasizes that crime is often used as an excuse to disarm that ultimate authority - the people - for the unhampered growth of cottage industries and other anti-crime policy. Finally, Longenecker shows how claims of no change in right-to-carry states are untrue. For the FBI's report of 10,177 gunshot deaths in 2006, there were 2.5 million crimes de-escalated by armed citizens, who believed they had sufficient control of the situation that they did not have to fire their weapon. "Clearly," Longenecker says, "What the people don't see tells the story 2.5 million times a year. Armed citizens play their role in crime control and they do it in due process."
Some writers, such as John Lott
John Lott
John Richard Lott Jr. is an American academic and political commentator. He has previously held research positions at academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park,...
, author of More Guns, Less Crime
More Guns, Less Crime
More Guns, Less Crime is a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. He presents the results of his statistical analysis of crime data for every county in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994...
, say they have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals victimize law-abiding citizens. Lott asserts that criminals ignore gun control laws and are effectively deterred by armed intended victims just as higher penalties deter crime. His work involved comparison and analysis from data collected from all the counties in the United States. Lott's study has been criticized for not adequately controlling for other factors, including other state laws also enacted, such as Florida
Florida
Florida is a state in the southeastern United States, located on the nation's Atlantic and Gulf coasts. It is bordered to the west by the Gulf of Mexico, to the north by Alabama and Georgia and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean. With a population of 18,801,310 as measured by the 2010 census, it...
's laws requiring background checks and waiting period for handgun buyers. More recent similar findings by Jens Ludwig further support John Lott statistical evidence. Since concealed-carry permits are only given to adults, John J. Donohue suggests that analysis should focus on the relationship with adult and not juvenile gun incident rates. He finds a small, positive effect of concealed-carry laws on adult homicide rates, but states the effect is not statistically significant
Statistical significance
In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase test of significance was coined by Ronald Fisher....
. NAS suggests that new analytical approaches and datasets at the county or local level are needed to evaluate adequately the impact of right-to-carry laws.
Another researcher, Dr. Gary Kleck
Gary Kleck
Gary Kleck is a criminologist at Florida State University.-Criminology:He has done numerous studies of the effects of guns on death and injury in crimes, on suicides, and gun accidents, the impact of gun control laws on rates of violence, the frequency and effectiveness of defensive gun use by...
, a criminologist at Florida State University
Florida State University
The Florida State University is a space-grant and sea-grant public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, United States. It is a comprehensive doctoral research university with medical programs and significant research activity as determined by the Carnegie Foundation...
, estimated that approximately 2.5 million people used their gun in self-defense or to prevent crime each year, often by merely displaying a weapon. The incidents that Kleck studied generally did not involve the firing of the gun and he estimates that as many as 1.9 million of those instances involved a handgun. The National Rifle Association regularly reprints locally-published stories of ordinary citizens whose lives were saved by their guns.
One study found that homicide rates as a whole, especially homicides as a result of firearms use, are not always significantly lower in many other developed countries. This is apparent in the UK and Japan, which have very strict gun control laws, while Israel, Canada and Switzerland at the same time have lower homicide rates and high rates of gun distribution. Dr Kleck has stated, "...cross-national comparisons do not provide a sound basis for assessing the impact of gun ownership levels on crime rates." One study published in the [International Journal of Epidemiology], which found that for the year of 1998:
During the one-year study period (1998), 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in high-income (HI) and upper middle-income (UMI) countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17) or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.
Similarly statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is a United Nations agency that was established in 1997 as the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention by combining the United Nations International Drug Control Program and the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division in the United Nations...
(UNODC) show that the number of homicides per 100,000 in the UK at 1.14 as of 2006, was considerably below that of the US (5.62 per 100,000) in 2006, and again far below the rate of homicides in the US specifically using a firearm (3.36 per 100,000 people) in the same year. The UK rate of homicide was also below that of Canada in 2006 (1.86 per 100,000). However, the UNODC statistics from the same year also show Switzerland to have a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000, again indicating the difficulties of direct international comparisons.
In a New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann found that people who keep a gun at home increase their risk of homicide. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck disagrees with the journal authors' interpretation of the evidence and he notes that there is no evidence that the guns involved in the home homicides studied by Kellermann, et al. were kept in the victim's home. Indeed, it was later discovered that Kellermann's own data indicated that no more than 1.7% of the homicides committed in the counties he studied were committed with a gun kept in the victim's home. Thus, victim gun ownership could not have had more than a negligible effect in elevating the risk of being murdered . Similarly, Dave Kopel, writing in National Review, criticized Kellermann's study. Researchers John Lott, Gary Kleck and many others still dispute Kellermann's work. Kellerman's work has also being severely criticized because he ignores factors such as guns being used to protect property, save lives and deter crime without killing the criminal—which, Kleck and others argue, accounts for the large majority of defensive gun uses. Kellermann responded to similar criticisms of the data behind his study in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, though his response did not actually refute the main claims made by critics, in particular the claim that hardly any of the homicides studied were committed with a gun from the victim's household Finally, another argument cited by academics researching gun violence points to the positive correlation between guns in the home and an already violent neighborhood. Lott's results suggest that only allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. The possibility of getting shot by an armed victim is a substantial deterrent to crime and prevents not only petty crime but physical confrontation as well from criminals who do not possess the means to match an increase in force. Lott's data comes from the FBI's massive crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties. Other scholars, such as Gary Kleck
Gary Kleck
Gary Kleck is a criminologist at Florida State University.-Criminology:He has done numerous studies of the effects of guns on death and injury in crimes, on suicides, and gun accidents, the impact of gun control laws on rates of violence, the frequency and effectiveness of defensive gun use by...
, dispute Lott's findings, arguing that there is no evidence that total rates of gun carrying (legal and illegal) actually increased after Right-to-Carry laws made it easier to get a carry permit, or that criminals' perceptions of crime as risky increased after the laws were passed . While criticizing Lott's theories as overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime. Others have pointed out that the beneficial effects of firearms, not only in self-protection, deterring crime and protecting property, but also in preserving freedom, have not been properly studied by public health researchers.
In his book Private Guns, Public Health, David Hemenway makes the argument in favor of gun control and he provides evidence for the more guns, more gun violence and suicide hypothesis. Rather than compare America to countries with radically different cultures and historical experiences, he focuses on Canada, New Zealand and Australia and asserts that the case for gun control is a strong one based on the relationship he finds (contrary to most other researchers) between lower crime rates and gun control. More thorough reviews of the research literature, however, do not support Hemenway's optimistic claims about the impact of gun laws
Firearms are also the most common method of suicide, accounting for 53.7% of all suicides committed in the United States in 2003. Most research has nevertheless found no relationship between gun availability and suicide rates, suggesting that other suicide methods, such as hanging, can usually be substituted for shooting.
A 2003 CDC study determined "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." They go on to state "(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)" after reviewing 54 studies and over one hundred years of history.
For a more detailed discussion of the historical and current gun violence issues in the United States, see Gun violence in the United States
Gun violence in the United States
Gun violence in the United States is an intensely debated political issue in the United States. Gun-related violence is most common in poor urban areas and in conjunction with gang violence, often involving juveniles or young adults...
.
Public Health Law Research
Public Health LawPublic health law
Law is an important public health tool that plays a critical role in reducing illness and premature death. Public health law examines the authority of the government at various jurisdictional levels to improve the health of the general population within societal limits and norms.Public health law...
Research, an independent organization, published in 2009 several evidence briefs summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health, that concern the effectiveness of various laws related to gun safety .
There is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of "shall issue" laws, as distinct from "may issue" laws, as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.
There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of waiting period laws as public health interventions aimed at preventing gun-related violence and suicide.
Although child access prevention laws may represent a promising intervention for reducing gun-related morbidity and mortality among children, there is currently insufficient evidence to validate their effectiveness as a public health intervention aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
There is insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of such bans as public health interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
There is insufficient evidence to validate the effectiveness of firearm licensing and registration requirements as legal interventions aimed a reducing fire-arm related harms.
See also
- Carrying concealed weaponCarrying concealed weaponConcealed carry, or CCW , refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity....
- Coalition to Stop Gun ViolenceCoalition to Stop Gun ViolenceThe Coalition to Stop Gun Violence , and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence , its sister organization, are two parts of a national, non-profit gun control advocacy organization.-History:...
- Gun law in the United StatesGun law in the United StatesGun law in the United States is defined by a number of state and federal statutes. In the United States of America, the protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution...
- Gun Owners of AmericaGun Owners of AmericaGun Owners of America is a gun rights organization in the United States with over 300,000 members. They make efforts to differentiate themselves from the larger National Rifle Association , and have publicly criticized the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be the selling out...
- Gun politicsGun politicsGun politics addresses safety issues and ideologies related to firearms through criminal and noncriminal use. Gun politics deals with rules, regulations, and restrictions on the use, ownership, and distribution of firearms.-National sovereignty:...
- Gun politics in the United StatesGun politics in the United StatesGun politics in the United States refers to an ongoing political and social debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms within the United States. It has long been among the most controversial and intractable issues in American politics...
- Gun violenceGun violenceGun violence defined literally means the use of a firearm to threaten or inflict violence or harm. Gun violence may be broadly defined as a category of violence and crime committed with the use of a firearm; it may or may not include actions ruled as self-defense, actions for law enforcement, or...
- Gun violence in the United StatesGun violence in the United StatesGun violence in the United States is an intensely debated political issue in the United States. Gun-related violence is most common in poor urban areas and in conjunction with gang violence, often involving juveniles or young adults...
- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms OwnershipJews for the Preservation of Firearms OwnershipJews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is a group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States and "to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone". The group was founded by former firearms dealer Aaron S. Zelman in 1986...
(JPFO) - Joyce FoundationJoyce FoundationThe Joyce Foundation is a charitable foundation based in Chicago in the United States and operating principally in the Great Lakes region.The Foundation primarily funds organizations in the Great Lakes region .-Programs:* Education: Focuses on public schools in Chicago, Cleveland, and Milwaukee;...
- Mayors Against Illegal Guns CoalitionMayors Against Illegal Guns CoalitionMayors Against Illegal Guns is a coalition of over 600 mayors who support a number of gun control initiatives that the group calls "commonsense reforms" to fight illegal gun trafficking and gun violence in the United States...
- National Rifle Association of America (NRA)
- One handgun a month lawOne handgun a month lawA one-handgun a month law is a law which limit handgun purchases to one per 30-days, for an individual. Proponents support such laws in the effort to keep criminals, or would be criminals from amassing large numbers of handguns in a short period of time...
- Pink PistolsPink PistolsThe Pink Pistols are a gay gun rights organization in the United States and Canada. Their mottos are "Pick on someone your own caliber" and "Armed gays don't get bashed." Inspired by a Salon.com article written by Jonathan Rauch, Krikket , a libertarian activist from Illinois while living in...
- Right to arms
- Second Amendment FoundationSecond Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation or SAF is an educational- and legal-defense organization which describes its mission as “promoting a better understanding about our constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms...
(SAF) - Second Amendment SistersSecond Amendment SistersSecond Amendment Sisters, Inc. is a non-partisan women's advocacy group in the United States dedicated to the protection of gun rights, specifically for the purpose of self defense...
- Second Amendment to the United States ConstitutionSecond Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second...
- Students for Concealed Carry on CampusStudents for Concealed Carry on CampusStudents for Concealed Carry on Campus is a national grassroots, non-partisan organization of U.S. college students, faculty, staff, and others who support allowing law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits to bring their legal guns to campus for the purpose of self-defense...