Why is owning a gun a right

But they may also cover up important areas of middle ground. Public policy based on the wedge approach risks forfeiting practical achievement in favor of principles taken to an extreme. If the goal in a social studies classroom is not only to engage students in lively debate, but to lead them to evaluate policies based on their effectiveness, some modification of the current "real world" debate is needed.

The following overview of the policy debate on gun violence, and the accompanying classroom strategy, suggest an alternative model for public policy formulation. The Problem The issue of gun control is as much about "controquot; as it is about "guns. Nor is it simply about liking or not liking control. It is-or should be-about judging the effectiveness of control, and particularly of government control as exercised through regulation.

Ideological cleavages in American politics generally involve a choice between more and less intrusive roles for government-a distinction between means rather than ends. Both sides, of course, would argue that because their means are obviously effective and their opponents' are not, dismissing them is merely a tactic that allows the opposition to conceal its true goals.

But, if we take both sides at face value in the debate over gun control, the question is not whether either side is advocating gun violence, but whether one side has better strategies than the other for reducing its current levels.

Recent federal policy in this area is marked by the Gun Control Act of , which was passed largely in response to public outrage over the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Highly publicized incidents of gun violence, including the wounding of President Reagan and Jim Brady as well as multiple shootings with assault weapons, led to the Brady Act and the Assault Weapons Ban of the following year. Though at least symbolically contested, both are relatively modest measures, in many cases less stringent than the patchwork of state laws that crisscross the nation.

Opponents of more gun control argue that there are already some 20, gun laws in the United States, and that, as more laws pass, more gun violence occurs. Proponents argue that these are largely state and local laws with limited impact, and that without them incident rates would be even higher.

Another area of dispute involves the use of guns in self-defense. Gun control opponents cite studies that say guns are used up to 2. Different data sets, different methodologies, extrapolations from limited samples. Both sides use comparative data from other countries to bolster their arguments. Gun control advocates draw comparisons with countries that have stricter gun laws and much lower levels of gun violence.

Opponents cite countries like Switzerland, with high levels of gun ownership and much lower gun-homicide rates, as evidence of the protective benefit of guns.

Clearly, gun-related crime has more than a single cause, and measurements and trends are subject to manipulation by both sides. For example, while decreasing adult homicide rates in urban areas with tough gun laws are cited as proof of the effectiveness of control, increasing youth homicide rates in the same areas are cited as proof of its futility. With such wildly divergent sets of statistical ammunition, one wonders if it even makes sense to prepare for this debate by arming oneself with facts and figures.

At a minimum, it seems useful to try to quantify the problem, if not its exact nature. Most estimates place the number of guns in the United States at somewhere over million.

Approximately million guns became available to the general public between and , according to statistics compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, but some of these are presumably no longer in existence or at least not in working order.

Handguns and rifles each account for slightly over a third of the total, with shotguns slightly under a third. An estimated 4 million new guns are added to these totals annually, and in recent years, over half of the new guns were handguns. Somewhere over a million crimes are committed each year involving a firearm, with recent estimates in the range of 1. The number of deaths due to guns each year is approximately 38,, divided about evenly between homicides and suicides, with a small fraction attributed to accidents.

The "Debate" Reducing the issue of gun control to "pros" and "cons" is probably the least desirable outcome of studying gun control, but it may be a very useful beginning. The pure pleasure of argument will attract some students. Other students may appreciate being asked for their opinions, rather than having to come up with a "right" answer at the outset of the discussion. The debate used to be waged-both in classrooms and elsewhere-largely on constitutional grounds in terms of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms versus the role of government in providing for the common good.

The U. Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Second Amendment, the main constitutional buttress of arguments that regulation is illegal. The amendment reads: "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. When the Supreme Court has ruled, it has been more likely to allow regulation than to prohibit it, at least at the state level.

Even Daniel Polsby, a lawyer and one of the most eloquent and persuasive opponents of gun control, suggests that seeking constitutional protection under the Second Amendment is a flawed approach. He argues that a guaranteed right to bear arms under any circumstances, including those that might endanger public safety, would provide grounds for repeal of the amendment rather than a case for respecting it.

Instead, Polsby argues that the best reason for opposing gun control is that "gun control laws don't work. The terms, but not the tenor, of the debate have changed.

Some of the most persuasive of the gun control opponents employ economic arguments, using rational choice theory to demonstrate the inability of regulation to stop the flow of guns into neighborhoods where crime is the dominant employer in local labor markets. Gun control advocates argue from a public health standpoint, noting that while guns may not cause violence, they do cause violence to be far more lethal.

This "lethality," in suicide and accidents as well as homicide, is the imperative from a public health perspective for regulating guns like other deadly substances. I recently listened to a debate, staged by a public policy school, that featured two respected figures hurling statistics at each other.

They treated each other with disdain. I was appalled that this was the way in which we modeled "public affairs" for adults, let alone for young people. Despite my own bias in favor of regulation, I found myself wondering if such regulation could be effective in a society so full of discord and so lacking in civil discourse.

Step up your safety with our weekly newsletter. Sign up to get tips on how protect everything and everyone in your home, whether it's preventing accidents, preparing for a natural disaster or responding to an emergency.

Sign Up. Statistics about having guns at home. Most Reliable Gun Safe. View on Amazon. Related articles on SafeWise. Compare the top home safety products. Google Nest Protect. Amerex B Complete Earthquake Bag. Airthings Corentium. Resideo Water Leak Detector. Kidde KL-2S. Data as of post date.

Written by. Kaz is a journalist who covers home security, parenting, and community and child safety. Her work and product testing in the security and safety field spans the past four years. Her degree in education and her background as a teacher and a parent make her uniquely suited to offer practical advice on creating safe environments for your family.

Read More. Recent Articles. Medical alert systems can save lives, but how much do they cost? Today, alongside this rights-based narrative, a parallel narrative exists that is perpetuated by the U. This so-called gun-rights narrative manipulates the ideals of human rights to establish not only an inalienable right to life but also an unfettered right to armed self-defense to protect oneself from any perceived threat of harm.

This narrative hinges on fear and the need to defend oneself and loved ones from unknown but ever-present threats through whatever means necessary and without regard to the rights of others. It is grounded by the false claim that the most effective means of self-preservation involves using a firearm.

This argument is destructive. It undercuts the fundamental right to life of countless persons at the hands of an armed civilian whose subjective fear of harm can, in some states, serve as justification for pulling a trigger. This dangerous narrative is also pervasive. Large swaths of the U. In the worst of instances, armed civilians motivated by bias use their gun lobby-empowered positions to serve as judge, jury, and executioner against people they deem as a threat.

In , the Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR laid out, on a global scale, a set of rights guaranteed to every human being and explicitly called on member states to observe, promote, and protect these rights. While the right to security of person is often misconstrued as a broad right to self-defense against any perceived threat, 9 it actually enshrines the right for someone to have security and safety over their body, protecting them from attack.

The use of force falls under the right of security only when the force is proportional to the impending attack. International human rights law establishes boundaries on how broadly domestic laws on personal self-defense between private persons may be drawn. States may not prohibit self-defense altogether, but in protecting the right to life they must also be sure that self-defense rights do not exceed reasonable boundaries.

Contrary to what has been asserted by some gun rights advocates, international law does not establish a right to firearms as a means of self-defense. The linkage between the right to self-defense and the right to be armed is a fallacy perpetuated not by human rights scholars but by lobbyists for the firearms industry. In , the Supreme Court heard the case of the District of Columbia v. The case was heard by the Supreme Court, with the court finding that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to possess firearms in the home for self-defense purposes.

Following the landmark decision, cases challenging gun safety legislation such as assault weapons restrictions or bans on high-capacity magazines were brought in numerous states. The majority of courts found that the Heller decision in no way infringes on the constitutionality of laws that address the significant gaps in legislation around gun ownership within the United States such as laws requiring background checks on all firearm sales or restricting civilian access to military-style firearms and ammunition magazines.

Individual gun ownership is a deeply entrenched cultural tradition in parts of the United States. Through strategic lobbying efforts launched primarily by the National Rifle Association NRA in the late 20th century, the gun industry has sought to exploit the intersection of gun ownership and cultural tradition by developing an insidious narrative portraying any regulation of firearms as an attack on freedom.

Their efforts have given rise to the so-called gun rights movement. Many people now rely on firearm ownership as a reaction to a gun industry-constructed doomsday scenario.