I understand that slightly more than half of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court believe that the Second Amendment right to own a firearm in this country is inviolable. They have now made that clear in their 5–4 decision on McDonald v. City of Chicago striking down Chicago’s 30-year old handgun ban and extending to all the states the protections of the amendment. Okay, I get that.
What I don’t understand is why that unassailable right to “keep and bear arms” trumps the right to public safety. And I really can’t grasp how expanding the number of guns and the people who have them will reduce the volume of gun violence in this country. Is this an individualized version of the policy of mutually-assured destruction (MAD)? Is there any evidence to suggest that this court decision will not result in the increase in the sale of firearms? It appears that one result of the court’s decision is a way of life in society where deterrence is the desired effect, rather than the promotion of the common good.
I don’t know what the odds are that my home will be invaded, or that I will be mugged on the street. My guess is that neither of these is likely to happen, or at least I hope not. What is interesting to me, however, is that many of the commentators happy about the court’s decision are now saying that there will be less crime because criminals will be mindful that their intended victims are more likely to be packing heat. Instances of breaking-and-entering, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault will decline because perpetrators can no longer assume that their targets will be unarmed. Indeed, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action is quick to point out that there is less violent crime in those states where it is lawful to carry a gun.
So we are launching out into a brave new world. The near-universal right to own a firearm is not yet exceeded by the number of venues where it can be permissibly carried, but we can be fairly certain that gun enthusiasts and their lobbyists will continue to contest every effort to reign in the proliferation of firearms. For the moment, the court has made it very clear that the right to own firearms for the purpose of providing a militia is no longer in play. What we have, now, as a reason to guard the right to own a gun is self-defense in one’s home.
It would seem to me, however, that the number and type of circumstances where a firearm could be used as a means of self-defense are much more likely to occur outside the home, so one way or another, we are looking at further relaxation of state laws that guarantee the right to bear one’s arm in public. According to the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, currently 40 of the 50 states grant right-to-carry permits to persons who meet state-established standards. A handful of others have minimal restrictions (Connecticut and Alabama), or no restrictions (Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont). Another handful have very high restrictions and two, (Illinois and Wisconsin) do not allow persons to carry firearms, or, as the NRA-ILA says, this “right” to carry a weapon in these two states is “infringed.”
Now I’m all for self-defense, and I certainly see the logic of the idea that one can more effectively defend oneself if one has lethal force at one’s disposal. Does anyone really doubt that if one is carrying a weapon and suddenly finds oneself threatened with bodily harm, that one would chose not to use it in self-defense? Of course not. Brandish it, but not fire it? Hardly. In fact, what has happened in this scenario is that the likelihood of gun violence has only increased.
Police officers in Chicago, whose handgun ban has now been overturned, told reporters for the Chicago Tribune that “crime rates are lower in the city than they were in the 1990s,” and that “most murders involving handguns take place on the street. At least half are gang-related, and the majority of both victims and offenders have criminal records.” With only a modicum of despair, one officer noted, “Half of our day is spent protecting criminals from other criminals.” Precisely the ones who (a) cannot lawfully own a firearm let alone carry one or use one, and thus (b) are not affected by the court’s decision.
The people at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, using data provided by the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, report that in one year, 30,896 people died from gun violence and 78,622 people survived gun injuries. By comparison, during all the Vietnam War, 58,226 military personnel lost their lives and 153,303 were wounded. Each year, by comparison, approximately 43,000 are killed in automobile accidents. So far, as of June 27, 2010, the number of U.S. service members who have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stands at 5,521.
Again, according to the Brady Campaign, gun death rates are higher in those states where there are higher rates of household gun ownership. When states with the highest levels of ownership are compared to states with the lowest, the highest states have 114% higher gun-related homicide rates. Indeed, according to one study by researchers at the Center for Injury Control at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, “guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.” So much for the court’s argument on self-defense.
What is missing in the court’s decision and all the glee among its supporters is recognition that this ruling accentuates, legitimizes, and further establishes our violent character as a nation. Its premise is that violence is best met with and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to practice violence in turn, including lethal violence. It clearly supposes that the way to reduce violence is to increase the capacity and means to inflict it. Moreover, it authorizes the privatization of state-sanctioned violence; each person can now be given the requisite permission to own and carry—and in certain circumstances, use—a firearm to injure or take the life of another.
It might be unreasonable to expect the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the principles of non-violence and the sacredness of all life in struggling to find a way to validate the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, these principles were not enshrined in the Constitution. Nonetheless, it certainly is not reasonable—or moral—to put at risk the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, natural law, and biblical ethics, by the vagaries of a court majority that believes everyone has the right to pull the trigger.
