Gun Ownership in America Introduction œOur hearts are broken today (Boles & King Jnr, 2012). These were the words of US President Barrack Obama uttered during an emotional televised address after the sociopath identified as Adam Lanza, 20, opened fire claiming 26 lives at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The unprecedented fatalities, as per the death toll released by Amnesty International hours later, included 20 children aged below 10 years and six adults (Boles & King Jnr). It was a poignant moment for America as unfortunate event dated December 14, 2012 sparked national outcry rekindling the gun debate. This issue of gun ownership remains in the center of competing liberal and conservative political ideologies. Conservatives view gun possession as a civil rights issue; the republican ideology is that all individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms for protection purposes and no authority should deprive civilians of their civil rights. The liberals, in contrast, believe that even though citizens are entitled to bear arms for their own protection, state and federal law enforcement authorities should closely monitor the flow of such arms for national security purposes. Likewise, nobody should bear unregistered firearms. In bid to mitigate gun violence, enforcement of stricter firearm laws, policies, and overall restrictions beats amending the Second Amendment. Dispensing with civilian right to own arms would not be beneficial to campaign against gun violence; proper firearm regulation is what would actually reduce crime. Evaluation Since its inception as a nation, the United States has had a longstanding gun culture. Gun ownership remains an integral part of the American heritage. Even the birth of America itself was occasioned by a series of struggles against the Crown where citizens took up arms and drove the colonial power away. In his sensation article dubbed America as a Gun Culture, Richard Hofstadter coined the phrase ˜gun culture’ in reference to America’s profound affection for guns. Hofstadter claims that America has a sentimental attachment to guns, a sentiment echoed by prominent political scientist Robert Spitzer. Spitzer claims that the American gun culture is a function of a longstanding cultural dispensation that dates back to the revolutionary years and civil war days. He identifies the frontier/ military ethos alongside the hunting/ sporting ethos as the two pillars of the American gun culture (Hofstadter 34). In his discourse, Spitzer traces the emergence of the hunting/ sporting ethos back to the historical timeframe during which America was an agrarian nation. During these years, hunting became a major means of getting food for the settlers. They hunted big game for food. Likewise, guns offered protection from wild predators as well as those animals that terrorized their farms. They also hunted big game for fur, animal skin as well as other valuable products. Hunting thus became an integral part of the agrarian-America’s socio-cultural dispensation subsequently spreading to the present-day political economy. As for the frontier/ military ethos, Spitzer traces its origins back to the years of hostility from Native Americans and foreign armies. For purposes of protection, guns became exceedingly vital that upon independence, the constitution of the United States spelt out the right of citizens to bear arms, a culture that endures to date (Winkler 1). Meanwhile, this veneration of guns has left a cultural dispensation in which there is a stalemate between the government’s responsibilities in the commitment to prevent crime against the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms. Though initially intended to enhance security within the United States, the issue of gun ownership has become a partisan political issue especially in light of concerns amid rising insecurities in selected neighborhoods. Unfortunately, and in light of these concerns, the issue of guns has had its complications over the years. As stipulated in the US Constitution, every citizen has a right to bear arms for purposes of their protection and self-defense as well for their recreation/ sport. This right to bear arms draws validity from the Second Amendment enforced in 1791. Passed December 15 by Congress and subsequently ratified by the States, Thomas Jefferson the then US Secretary of State authenticated the Second Amendment. The text reads in part, œ¦a well regulated militia being necessary to enhance the security of a free state, the constitution of the United States hereby upholds the right to bear arms¦ no authority shall infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms(Spitzer 25) Apart from the legislative mandate to bear arms, the judiciary also endorsed citizens’ entitlement to bear arms. In 2008, for instance, the US Supreme Court held that Amendment II safeguards an individual’s right to acquire, possess and carry firearms. The Supreme Court further issued two landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 thereby officially establishing this interpretation. In the 2008 case: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, the Supreme Court held that Amendment II protects an individual’s right to bear arms, which are to be used for traditionally legitimate purposes such as defense of property or self-defense (McGovern 498). In the landmark ruling, the court reiterated that the use of such arms must be œwithin many longstanding restrictions and prohibitions listed by the Court as being unwavering and consistent with the Second Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570). In a 2010 case: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court held that Amendment II restricts the mandate of state, local and federal governments to infringe on the privileges stipulated therein (McGovern 498). Data retrieved from the annals of Amnesty international indicate that as of 2011, an estimated 47 % of American adults bore arms in their homes and/ or elsewhere on their property. Gun ownership in the U.S. varies most significantly by gender as sources indicate “ for instance, only 15 % of women compared to 45% of men personally own guns (McGovern 512). The Gun Debate Debate rages on amid the continuing tussle between the rights of citizens to bear arms against the need for gun control through federal or state interference. Gun ownership remains in the center of competing liberal and conservative political ideologies. Right-wing conservatives of the Republican Party view gun possession as a civil rights issue; their ideology is that all individuals have a constitutional privilege to bear arms for their own protection and no authority should deprive civilians of their civil rights. Self-defense is a basic and unalienable human right; all citizens ought to exercise this right freely without undue influence. Republicans believe that prohibition, regulation, and control of arms are repugnant to Thomas Jefferson’s ideas as espoused in the United States Declaration of Independence. Conversely, the left-wing liberals believe that even though citizens are entitled to bear arms for their own protection, state and federal law enforcement authorities should closely monitor the flow of such arms for national security purposes. A section of the American civil society that includes the United Nations Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International among other civil rights organizations also favors gun control and tighter regulations to monitor the flow of arms. There have been concerns that the constitutional provision to bear arms is prone to abuse consequently allowing for criminal activities. Over the years, there has been a series of unfortunate events where innocent civilians lost their lives while others sustained serious injuries due to restrained mandate of federal, local, and state law enforcement to control the flow of arms. The recent school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary is one regrettable incident triggered by lax oversight in gun control. Controlling the flow of arms is thus a prerequisite, and the Second Amendment ought to facilitate reasonable control on the right of citizens to bear arms. Current efforts geared towards addressing these concerns are underway. Taking Action The fundamental starting point is by holding the manufacturers and distributors of arms where there is probable cause to believe that the manufacturers and distributors either intentionally or negligently perpetuated the occurrence of gun violence through reckless disregard of their ˜duty of care’ and ˜responsibility to protect.’ Likewise, they should be eligible for prosecution if they systematically target criminal gangs or drug cartels through subtle and unscrupulous market practices. Similarly, the legislature should reduce second amendment constraints on federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and grant them the mandate to supervise, regulate, and control the flow of arms especially in those neighborhoods where crime is imminent. This would in turn help mitigate gun violence and enforce security (Hofstadter 34). In 2004, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a lawsuit accusing 45 gun manufacturers for perpetuating ˜public nuisance’ through pervasive ˜negligent marketing’ of handguns. The NAACP alleged that as manufacturers and distributors of handguns dubbed ˜Saturday night specials,’ they were guilty of conducting their gun marketing strategies in a way that cultivated a predisposition for violent acts in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. NAACP President, Kweisi Mfume, accused the gun industry of failure to take reasonable measures to ensure that criminals and prohibited persons did not obtain firearms. Echoing these concerns, human rights watchdogs have faulted the gun industry for using unscrupulous marketing tactics through which they systematically target criminal gangs and drug cartels as their main customers. This, in turn, increases instances of gun violence since the second amendment provides a loophole that allows individuals to access arms for self-defense. Though the NAACP lawsuit was later dismissed, the fact remains that the gun industry is as responsible as the criminals are for dumping firearms in over-saturated markets. Through unregulated flow, these arms find their way into the hands of criminals (McGovern 476). Obama’s bid for gun control emerged after Connecticut shootings (Boles & King Jnr, 2012). Commentators observe that the bid for gun control is a slippery slope in the political economy of the United States. Gun-rights lobby groups; most notably the National Rifle Association often shut down such efforts dismissing them as nuisance claims devised to drive gun manufacturers out of business through the legislature and the judiciary. Due to the proliferation of lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the industry continues to lobby Congress for the enactment of specific laws barring gun control activists from ˜abusing the second amendment privileges.’ In October 2005, the gun industry finally got a breakthrough through the enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). A section of left-wing liberals criticized this law for providing legal protection for the arms industry while disallowing victims of firearm violence from accessing damages in compensation for actual negligence of gun distributors and manufacturers. Due to public outcry over persistent gun violence, congressional representative Adam Schiff tabled a bill The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence bill in U.S. House of Representatives on January 22, 2013 to counter the PLCAA. Amendment II notwithstanding, the federal government reserves the responsibility to protect civilians from the escalating crime rates and cases of domestic violence. The most plausible manner to achieve this end is through the initiation of a proper framework of laws that allow federal regulation of arms. The goal of gun control is not to amend the second amendment; the fundamental aim of gun control is to ease the restriction on law enforcement to mitigate crime emanating from abuse of second amendment right to bear arms (Hofstadter 34). In response to claims that American homeowners were at high risk of apprehending immediate harm from home invasions if they did not bear arms, Arthur Kellermann sought to investigate circumstances surrounding home-based homicides. Following a series of studies, Kellermann found that the risk of an in-home homicide was in fact slightly lower in homes where the homeowners did not bear arms and higher where a handgun was present (Kellermann et al 5). In reference to Kellermann’s studies, experts have inferred that homeowners who bear arms are likely to sustain physical injuries since they will mostly likely retaliate thus provoking the invader. In their bid to defend their property, they endanger their lives. From his studies, Kellermann further argues that in households where arms are present, there is a higher probability of spouses committing crimes of passion following domestic disputes, which ends in a fatal injury. Essentially, the presence of guns in homes increases the overall probability of physical injury and death compared to instances of domestic violence in the absence firearms where there is a relatively lower rate of fatality. The marginal propensity of the occurrence of fatality is thus reasonable enough to overwhelm the protective effect firearms in deterring or defending homeowners against home invasions and neighborhood burglaries. In view of Kellermann’s studies, therefore, there is an increased risk of fatality in homes where homeowners bear arms (Kellermann et al 5). New York is perhaps one of the most affected states in view of domestic violence, home invasions, and neighborhood burglaries. The presence of gun control in New York has eased law enforcement in the recent past as anti-gun activists lobby Congress for tighter gun control mechanisms. In his nationwide bid to call for tighter gun control, Mayor Michael Bloomberg applauds the enactment of strict gun control laws attributing historic crime lows in New York to the enforcement of tight arms regulations. Though the National Rifle Association persistently dismisses Bloomberg’s campaign, leading criminologists note that the all-time low incidences of slayings in New York are attributable to tight gun control policies (Saad). The debate on gun control has sparked much political heat in America today. There has been significant fallout over gun control as both sides of the political spectrum continue to wage debate through intensive media campaigns in bid to assert pressure on legislators and policymakers while influencing public opinion (Kohn 34). A critical look at the modern landscape of waging political war indicates that social networking has become a very influential tool of swaying public opinion. Likewise, the internet and mainstream media have been very effective tools of deceptive framing and articulation of ideologies; both sides have mastered this art. The New York Times reveals that Senate Democratic leaders are expecting a gun bill to move to the floor of the Senate soon. Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, told Washington Monday that this bill, which notably excludes a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, includes proposals backed by the Office of the President. The bill in question seeks to expand background checks to cover gun sales by virtue of private transactions, control the capacity of ammunition magazines, and demand authentic record keeping to bar criminals and the mentally unstable from accessing firearms (Boles & King Jnr). It seeks, as well, to curb the sale and distribution of guns in states with lax gun control laws and focus on buyers in states with stricter regulatory laws. This move is an indicator of how Senate Democrats are planning to move forward towards major gun legislation in coming weeks. The gun industry, as powerful as it is, is currently lobbying Congress in bid to undermine Obama administration’s move to enforce tighter gun control. They have lobbied the Republican Party threatening to impeach President Obama citing gross abuse of the second amendment rights to bear arms. Works Cited œJudge rules against stun gun law Detroit Free Press [Detroit, Mich] 23 Apr 2011: A.4. œSuicide Risk Linked to Rates of Gun Ownership, Political Conservatism Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology April 4, 2013 Boles, Corey & King Jnr, Neil œSenate to Move on Gun Control The Wall Street Journal February 2012 Hofstadter, Richard. œAmerica as a Gun Culture American Heritage Magazine, October 1970. Kellermann, Arthur L; Rivara, Frederick P; Rushforth, Norman B; Banton, Joyce G; Reay, Donald T; Francisco, Jerry T; Locci, Ana B; Prodzinski, Janice; Hackman, Bela B; Somes, Grant œGun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home The New England Journal of Medicine 329. 15 (Oct 7, 1993): 1084-1091. Kohn, Abigail œThe War against Gun Owners The American Enterprise 16 4 (Jun 2005): 34-35. McGovern, Owen œThe Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance and Novel Textual Questions about the Second Amendment Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 2012 Reynolds, Glenn. œA Critical Guide to the Second Amendment Tenn. L. Rev. 62 (461) 2009 Saad, Lydia œSelf-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993 Gallup October 26, 2011 Winkler, Adam œScrutinizing the Second Amendment Mich. L. Rev. 105 February 2007