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. In an age where firearms are widespread across the nation, the Second Amendment and the conversation around gun rights remain major talking points in national debates. Proponents of gun control argue that the dangers posed by firearms outweigh any benefits from the right to bear arms, while opponents maintain the importance of self-defense and their uninfringeable rights.
We will examine the merits and flaws of three common arguments regarding gun control: the use of firearms for defense, the historical importance of the right to bear arms, and the economic impact of gun control.
DANG: Though relatively moderate solutions have been proposed, the right to legally own firearms should not be infringed.
GRAYKEN: Enhanced gun control presents a solution to the increasing tragedy and loss that firearms have inflicted.
Capacity to Defend
DANG: A firearm can be used in many ways to defend the owner. The most obvious way is in cases of self-defense. Though law enforcement is to manage “public safety,” it is impossible for officers to prevent every single altercation. Allowing citizens to defend themselves both prevents and deters crime, since criminals may avoid targeting individuals that they believe to be armed.
Furthermore, surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the late 90s, when extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole, imply that defensive uses of guns were far more prevalent than offensive uses. The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey estimates about 100,000 defensive uses annually, though it’s important to note that the survey first asks whether the respondent was a victim of a crime. In 17 other studies from the late 90s, that estimate jumped to about 760,000 defensive uses. More importantly, in about 95% of these instances, the respondent simply showed their weapon, causing the attacker to back off.
Firearms can also be seen as the “great equalizer,” allowing those who may be physically overpowered the ability to defend themselves. A 2018 study found that 81% of women and 43% of men nationwide reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment and/or assault in their lifetime. And the CDC in 2000 estimated that 17.7 million women and 2.78 million men had been the victims of attempted or completed rape. Furthermore, a 2007 study concluded that 40% of women carried pepper spray or a noise maker. While both firearms and mace have pros and cons, many argue that private ownership allows the user a better chance to defend themself.
GRAYKEN: Proponents of individual gun ownership seem to continually emphasize their necessity in acts of self-defense. However, the reality is that firearms are rarely used in such situations. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, only 1.1% of all the self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of violent crime involved the use or threat of a firearm, making it the least-employed method of self-defense in America. These statistics starkly contrast with the perception, often held by pro-gun lobbyists, that guns are necessary in America as self-protective measures.
Rather than helping in these supposed acts of self-defense, handgun ownership in America has instead been attributed to a substantially heightened risk factor for suicide, such that 54% of gun-related deaths in 2021 were suicides. More civilians in the United States own firearms than in any other country, and this access to such dangerous weapons has meant that handguns are used in 75% of all suicides. It therefore seems obvious that decreasing the number of guns in circulation in America is essential to ensure the safety of its citizens.
Additionally, the idea that firearms are useful to women in cases of gender-based violence is often overstated. While theoretically, access to guns could help mitigate the anatomical disadvantages women face in physical altercations with men, particularly in cases of domestic abuse, the reality is quite different. The presence of a firearm in a household increases the likelihood of domestic disputes turning fatal. Of all women killed by intimate partners in the U.S., 55% are killed with guns, and the presence of a firearm in situations of domestic violence actually increases the risk of a fatality by 500%.
Historical Significance
DANG: Traditionally, proponents of the Second Amendment argue it defends against governmental tyranny. The American Revolutionary War could not have succeeded had the patriots not been in possession of their own firearms. Though, in a modern era of tanks and fighter jets, would private ownership of firearms even stand a chance?
The Afghan mujahideen were able to withstand the superior-armed Soviet Union’s involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War. Using guerrilla tactics, the Viet Cong outlasted U.S. forces in the Vietnam War. Even a militia outnumbered and outgunned can emerge victorious. Private ownership also acts as a deterrent discouraging any attempts at governmental tyranny.
The current legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is worth noting. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court made a key distinction when reading the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms is protected regardless of affiliation to state militia. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) further applied this judgment to all states.
Proponents of gun control claim that modern firearms misrepresent the intentions of the Founding Fathers. While muskets and single-shot firearms were primarily used when the Bill of Rights was written, the technology for self-loading systems (offering faster output) had already been developed. Given the rapid development of firearms during this period, it is clear that the Founding Fathers could predict, to an extent, the power that firearms might hold.
Gun control also presents a threat to all rights. Ratifying, altering, or repealing an amendment not only requires two-thirds approval from the House and Senate but also the approval of three quarters of the states. Meanwhile, passing a federal act requires only a majority of the House and Senate and presidential approval. Gun control laws can therefore be seen as a threat to individual rights, as they could be enacted without the broad consensus needed to amend the Constitution.
Naturally, the Supreme Court was established to prevent the legislative branch from overstepping its abilities, but that has not prevented legislation that has restricted the right to bear arms. If more restrictions are permitted, we might establish a precedent of slowly constricting different rights. Where is the line drawn between what the government can and cannot limit?
GRAYKEN: It is undeniable that the historical context of the Second Amendment has made contemporary gun ownership in the United States particularly contentious. However, the original context in which this Amendment was ratified is arguably not applicable today. In fact, current American firearm laws are based on ‘‘interpretations’’ of the Second Amendment—in a modern context, what’s to say these aren’t misinterpretations?
Furthermore, in its original context, the Second Amendment was intended to safeguard the right of militias to bear arms rather than to protect the rights of individuals to own guns. As evidence, in District of Columbia v. Heller, former Justice John Paul Stevens indicated in his dissent that “nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia.” Therefore, it would seem that in America as we know it today, where the army has taken the place of militias in ensuring national security, the circulation of guns for private ownership is not necessary.
Additionally, even if the Second Amendment was indubitably clear about personal gun ownership in today’s America, it was written at a time when a typical musket used in the American Revolution could fire three rounds per minute. Compare this to a modern AR-15, which fires 45 rounds per minute with higher accuracy and greater range. It’s hard to imagine that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment in 1791, they could have foreseen the potential mass destruction that modern firearms would bring.
Economic Considerations
DANG: Finally, the economic effects of gun control must be acknowledged. Guns are a booming industry, totaling around 340,000 jobs. Manufacturing, distribution, and retailing are all jobs created by the demand for firearms.
Beyond the number of jobs that would be lost, gun control ignores the benefits of hunting. Hunters assist in environmental control, ensuring that certain populations of wildlife do not degrade forests. Further, hunting enables some people to feed their families and help combat food insecurities. Economically, hunters are required to obtain a license, which generates revenue on the state or local level.
Not only does gun control present a cut to these benefits, but it also introduces costs in implementing buyback programs and policing the trafficking of firearms. It would cost $7.6 billion USD to reduce the total number of handguns by 10% through buybacks. This amount does not even account for the labor costs of law enforcement or other government personnel. Furthermore, buyback programs are voluntary, and stricter gun control measures may require further costs in seizing firearms from those unwilling to return their guns.
Additionally, illegal trafficking of firearms already exists, with 230,000 firearms trafficked from 2017 to 2021. In nations with firearms bans, there is still illicit trade of guns into the country. A federal ban on firearms in the U.S. would surely present the same trend, thereby increasing the number of firearms illegally trafficked both into the country and across state lines, and any attempts to curtail this trade would require increased use of taxpayer dollars.
GRAYKEN: On average, firearms kill 120 and wound an additional 200 daily in the United States. In addition to the irreparable emotional damage this inflicts on the victim’s families and loved ones, these losses are also devastating from an economic point of view. It has been estimated that the cost of gun violence in America is up to $557 billion dollars per year. These expenditures can be attributed to ambulance rides, inpatient care, physical and mental therapy for victims traumatized by gun-related violence, and mental health disorders as a result of these traumas. As an example of this, studies have shown that victims who have sustained injuries from firearms are more likely to develop substance abuse or psychiatric disorders, which in turn places a further economic strain on the healthcare system.
In addition to the tangible monetary costs of gun violence in America, it also has an impact on the future productivity of its victims. From a practical point of view, those who have been involved in nonfatal firearm altercations are often unable to work for some period of time, which in certain cases is lifelong. For a more tangible estimation, a 2022 study found that the U.S. economy lost out on 53.77 billion dollars in wages due to gun violence.
The issue of guns in America is often centered around the issue of school shootings. In addition to the undeniable tragedy of these events, mass shootings in schools also carry a significant, often overlooked economic cost. The trauma a survivor of a school shooting undergoes cannot be underestimated: such tragedies have been linked to the reduction in the likelihood of graduating high school by 4% and college by 15%, which in turn decreases future earnings and employment rates. Finally, it has been estimated that the security enhancements schools have had to make in response to the increasing prevalence of mass shootings have cost over 150 million dollars since 2018 alone. It’s clear that the impact of school shootings and gun violence extends beyond the emotional trauma inflicted upon its victims; it also carries substantial economic burdens.
Conclusion
DANG: While there certainly are issues regarding the private ownership of firearms, the right to bear arms should not be infringed. This right provides citizens with the ability to defend themselves or their loved ones and deters further crime. Private ownership provides certain populations the ability to “equalize” the playing field in defending themselves. Furthermore, the right to own firearms holds significant historical importance. Maintaining this right defends both against potential tyranny and further restrictions of other rights. As gun control increases, how can we be sure that other rights will not also be constricted? Finally, the economic implications of gun control introduce drawbacks that could harm more than just gun owners. With the benefits of private ownership in mind, gun control should not be expanded.
GRAYKEN: While uninfringed gun ownership in America may present some benefits, they are largely outweighed by the destruction that firearms cause yearly. Guns significantly increase the risk of suicide and domestic violence in the United States, and therefore their self-defense value is negligible. Furthermore, the original meaning of the Second Amendment, aimed at protecting militias, has been misinterpreted in a modern context to justify widespread individual ownership, despite the profound differences in weaponry between the 18th century and today. Additionally, the economic toll of gun violence-related healthcare costs, lost productivity, and the cost of school shootings underscores the urgent need for stricter gun control to promote public safety. In light of the devastating human and economic costs of gun violence in America, it has become a moral imperative that we address it.
Tyler Dang ’28 (tylerdang@college.harvard.edu) has not yet shot his eye out.Will Grayken ’28 (wgrayken@college.harvard.edu) is a Brit confused by the prevalence of guns in America.