America's gun debate wastes most of its time on whether the law protects individual gun ownership rights. This is primarily because of constitutional provisions. To the extent that the Second Amendment protects gun rights, the the written language of the Second Amendment does not encompass the modern problems with guns. First, the historical usefulness of guns was not as narrow as the modern use of guns. Second, the modern context of guns is one plagued by fear, much of it irrational. Law always has a social context, one that can help us understand the law. With this understanding we can deal with current realities.
A concrete example is in order. In the mid-19th century, Americans living in Illinois might have been very dependent on their guns. First, guns were a useful tool. Hunting in 1800s Illinois was not a casual sport that it is for most modern hunters. Early American settlers would have found frontier Illinois cold and inhospitable. (Modern Americans might find Illinois cold and inhospitable as well, but that's beside the point.) Forests would have been an impediment to farming. But, those forests did contain an important food source: wild animals. So primarily, guns were a tool to obtain a basic need: food.
Second, our mid-century citizens of Illinois would have found guns necessary for another vital personal purpose: securing themselves. With no major military presence, and no significant police force, citizens had to defend themselves against anyone who would attempt to harm them. Of course, widespread gun ownership would have provided a significant deterrent to those who might have been inclined toward violent crime. It was also true that a violent criminal was likely to be caught by his neighbors. When populations are small, there are few places to hide.
Third, not only did the citizens of Illinois need to protect themselves, but government expected those citizens to protect their community.
In mid-1800s Illinois, a hostile invading nation could threaten the security of the community. It was not merely a possibility, but a recognized threat. The government occasionally called citizens into government duty to defend against this threat. The Native American nations (perhaps understandably) did attack American farmers and frontiersmen.
Illinois citizens rarely had formal military training. Their military experience and training was not similar compared to the modern national guard receives. This generation had the limited training that would have been learned in the basic use of a common household tool, the gun. And lest my hypothetical citizen seem too abstract for you: Abraham Lincoln was called to duty in a militia of this kind.
In this historical context, the Second Amendment makes perfect sense. "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." State government, and the individuals who resided in the states, would have expected that the federal government could not prevent them from keeping guns. Guns were necessary for life and liberty. The Second Amendment understandably restricted federal power so that individuals would not have a survival tool taken away from them. It would be like taking away an ax, a shovel, or a pitchfork.
In the modern context, however, this amendment is much harder to understand. While in early America it was taken for granted that individuals (at least the white males) would have access to guns (even handguns) modern America is dissimilar. People in modern Illinois, particularly in urban areas like Chicago, will no longer view a gun as a useful tool for daily survival. Modern Chicagoans are much more likely to see personal ownership of guns, at best, as unnecessary, and at worst, irrationally dangerous.
This is not a legal phenomenon. Law has not changed the nature of guns. Culture has changed the nature of guns. Guns have always been tools designed to kill people. Handguns, in particular, were designed for personal protection or the battlefield.
The gun debate would be better off without the legal posturing. It is time that we recognized guns not only for what they are, but also the practical realities concerning the quantity of guns available to the law-abiding and lawbreaking. Most American citizens, if they do own guns, pose no threat either to government or their fellow citizens. This was true in the mid-19th century, and there is no reason to believe it is untrue now.
And when I say there is no reason to believe that this is untrue now, that includes the examples of gun violence in urban America. Despite the accurate sense that guns in the hands of the criminal, or the insane, provide a ready tool to harm large numbers of individuals, most Americans are neither criminal nor insane.
Guns have developed an irrational fear, particularly in urban America. This is no small part due to poor educational policies on guns. The current policy of almost every school system in urban America regarding guns seems to be: "Children, if you see a gun, let adults know immediately." A policy adopted from the major advocate for gun ownership, the NRA. This is the sum and total of most gun education in schools through elementary and middle school and often high school environments. This is an outrage.
Why? The answer is simple. Will the adults know what to do with a gun? How will they know? Had they been trained by anyone? Did they learn anything about guns, or gun ownership in high school or college? No. The adult fears the gun; it is unfamiliar. The child fears the gun; it is wholly alien. This policy creates a generation of American citizens who do not understand one of the most basic tools of the prior century; a tool that is commonly found in urban homes.
But there is a second problem as well. If children in America find guns in their homes, which is where most children will find guns, are they likely to go tell an adult? Movies and television show guns with an air of mystery and mastery that arouses curiosity. Whether the gun is being used by a "good guy" or a "bad guy," complete amateurs are often shown as having almost supernatural skill with a complex and difficult to use weapons. When a gun is found in the home, a child, with no experience or training, now possesses a fascinating object. It seems that the current educational policy would have no greater or lesser impact on the child's ability to be injured or killed in a gun accident. As we round all the dangerous corners and sharp edges, guns are clearly on our list of items to be removed from the grasp of children and adults alike.
But guns are unlikely to be removed. There are more guns in America than there are people. There is no reason to believe that this will change in the near future, or even in the distant future. If guns were completely banned, it is quite likely that many gun owners would not give up their weapons. Many gun owners would treat a gun ban in the same way as the now discarded prohibition on alcohol. They would treat it as an unreasonable law.
Perhaps it's time we recognize these realities, and go on with our lives. Perhaps it's time to set aside the irrational fear of guns, because they kill fewer children per year than swimming pools, and time to teach ourselves about responsible gun ownership. Perhaps it's time that we recognized our problem has to do with criminals.
It goes without citation that convicted felons are not allowed to have guns. Background checks address the problem of anonymity in gun purchases. A background check is worth the minor inconvenience. In the electronic age, it is not difficult or time-consuming to effectuate a fairly accurate check of a person's identity and background, particularly with a secure state identification system. Digital technology, including digital fingerprint analysis, could provide an extra measure to keep gun dealers from selling to either the criminal or the insane.
As for the guns that are already available in significant quantities to criminals, criminal research labs and improved police protection would be the best place to direct our attention. The perception of the modern crime lab is distorted. Crime laboratories are underfunded. DNA evidence and ballistic evidence takes a considerable amount of time and training to process, and frequently communities have insufficient facilities, or investigators, to analyze this evidence.
While many people discuss the deterrent effect of harsh criminal penalties, a better deterrent would be the regular capture of criminals for their first offense. If America did a better job of actually catching criminals, criminal gun violence would be less prevalent. This may mean that police forces need to be improved, better trained, and more adequately funded. Prosecutor’s offices and courts need to be able to have adequate resources for criminal prosecutions. America should provide criminal investigators with better tools to investigate violent crime, including more DNA and ballistics labs.
And perhaps Americans should again take advantage of widespread gun ownership as a deterrent to crime. It is more difficult to intimidate armed, well-trained people than unarmed, untrained people.
Urban public schools must recognize that most children will become adult citizens. In most states, 18 year-old citizens possess some kind of civil right to own a gun. Adolescents and teens must have some training in responsible gun ownership. Schools which attempt to teach the responsibilities connected with other civil rights (like the First Amendment rights and voting rights) ought to add gun ownership to the curriculum. Children need to be thoroughly educated in the legal duties of gun ownership. Guns cannot be used to defend property. Guns can only be legally used against another person to defend your-self or others from the immediate threat of death or severe bodily injury. Pointing a gun at another person is nearly always a crime.
Gun safety should be more than teaching children to seek an adult when they find a gun. At minimum, children need the opportunity to examine a variety of guns up close, understand how guns operate, and understand how guns can be carried safely and unloaded.
Guns exist to kill people and animals. This is truth. Despite this truth, it is better to understand guns than to fear them in the abstract. America will be better off for it.