The Thinking ‘Kat: Guns & Gun Control
You may be wondering why a British meerkat might have an opinion on guns and gun control, particularly since this discussion usually relates to situations in the USA. Indeed, in the past people have misguidedly chastised me for speaking about US politics, seeing as I’m not from the USA and do not live there. Leaving aside that particular issue (all I will say for now is that some of these people are quite hypocritical in their stance), I reserve the right to write about any topic, and am not under any requirement to justify myself to anyone else.
With that out of the way, why might I be writing about guns and gun control? Simply put, I am routinely and often sadly baffled by the defence of firearms, and the reasons given to defend them, considering they are responsible for a great many senseless deaths. I can already hear someone saying ‘guns don’t kill people, people do’. Sure, but guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people, as borne out by the available facts.
The History
If you are at all familiar with the history of the USA, you should be aware of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.
It’s worth noting that this was ratified back in 1791, shortly after the Revolutionary War. At this point in time, there were several precursors that offer some interesting thoughts behind how the 2nd Amendment developed. The following is from the State of Virginia, in 1776:
A Declaration of Rights. Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Emphasis mine. See that? ‘trained to arms’. Remember that. It also worth noting that the notion of standing armies was deemed inappropriate, even dangerous.
From the State of Pennsylvania, a few months later:
Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
From New York, in 1777:
And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.
Once again, emphasis mine.
By the time the Constitution became a recognised, national document, these ideas had effectively been merged, to grant us the Constitution we know today. It is worth noting that the Constitution, as already quoted, references a ‘well regulated militia’.
Another element to consider within all this is the type of weapons that were routinely available, to soldier and civilian alike. The battlefields of the Revolutionary War featured muskets, rifles, and pistols. None of them were remotely as sophisticated as today’s weaponry, with slow rates of fire and problems with accuracy.
It seems, based upon the wording of the 2nd Amendment’s precursors, and even of the 2nd Amendment itself, that the fledging US government expected the average American citizen to be prepared to fight on the country’s behalf. The militia was expected to fulfil the role of the army in most circumstances. In the 18th and 19th centuries this could be considered quite normal, as it was in the centuries before, but it would not remain the case. This is also important when considering what is going on in the 21st Century.
Divergence
Somewhere along the line, attitudes towards militias started to change. The US – and a lot of nations – determined that it was not practical to expect the average civilian to jump from whatever they normally did for a living into military service. Armies were formed out of recruits, given robust training, and equipped with increasingly advanced weaponry. Eventually the practice of raising militias disappeared (among the reasons were a failure to raise militias in times of strife, such as the Whiskey Rebellion). Militaries were now professional organisations. However, the 2nd Amendment remained very-much in place, and citizens of the United States could continue to purchase guns.
It is not clear to me how and when it transpired, but at some stage in the USA’s history, guns shifted from a right, to an object of near-worship, and there became an association with fear-mongering. The late 20th and early 21st centuries have seen an explosion in arguments about opposing tyranny via the right to bear arms, and guns can be found absolutely everywhere. They are embedded in US society in a manner that, to me, seems at odds with the purpose and intentions of the 2nd Amendment. What has also changed is the sophistication and design of guns. Whilst some might argue that the idea of rapid-fire repeating guns would have been considered in developing and writing the 2nd Amendment, there really is no basis to believe this. The Founding Fathers lived in a time where the average rate of fire of the best weapons (such as the French Charleville musket) was two or three shots per minute, and an effective range of 100 yards.
Contrast this with the AR-15 rifle, one of the most popular weapons available to US citizens today.
If we take a look at one particular AR-15, the Bushmaster XM-15, we see a weapon that has a semi-automatic rate of fire, can hold considerably more ammunition than the weapons available to the Revolutionary forces, and is far more accurate. The effective range of the XM-15 is 600 yards, and it can potentially hit targets at a range of 3,865 yards. This weapon is quite easily available to US citizens. Co-incidentally, AR-15s have been the weapon of choice in numerous deadly mass shootings.
What we have here is a scenario where the development of weapons that are readily available to civilians has seen some powerful hardware on US streets. Some of these weapons, whilst not of military grade, begin to approach something that a soldier might carry. The individuals who purchase these weapons lack anything remotely like military training. There has been a divergence along the line, between the sort of weapons anyone can potentially buy, and the respect and training that goes with owning them.
There is another element to all this. Whilst rifles have become far more powerful, other forms of gun have become more easily concealed. Whilst modern pistols do not even have the effective range of the Charleville musket, they do carry magazines that store more rounds, and those magazines are often easily changed for fresh ones. They are less cumbersome than the pistols of the Revolutionary War, with much faster rates of fire. Again, would a modern pistol be something the Founding Fathers could have contemplated?
Whilst much discussion around gun control in the US centres on semi-automatic rifles and mass shootings (to be fair, not without good reason, for this is a uniquely and tragic American problem), the majority of US murders involve some of handgun. With that in mind, it is time to consider some raw, hard numbers.
The Stats
In 2021, 81 percent of all US murders involved some form of firearm. To look it at another way, 6.7 per 100,000 people were murdered by someone using a firearm. The year before, 59 percent of gun murders involved a handgun. The USA’s total murder rate per 100,000 people in 2021 was 8.05 (let’s be generous and round it down to 8). Historically, going back to at least 2015 (via the FBI’s site) guns have made up the murder weapon in a clear majority of cases, and handguns have accounted for a majority of those. Considering the popular argument that guns help to ensure safety and help to protect property, it would appear the evidence does not bear this out.
There are broader comparisons. Another popular argument is the US states with stricter gun regulations suffer more gun crime than states with weaker regulations. The truth is that there is an inconsistent picture, and this is brought about by inconsistent laws. Some US states with tighter gun laws do experience higher rates of gun violence, but some US states with weak gun laws also experience higher rates of gun violence. Equally, some US states with weak gun laws experience low rates of gun crime, but the same can be said for states with stricter gun regulations. The answer to this particular set of circumstances lies with a mish-mash of different approaches between states, and sometimes even different rules within states. This hugely erratic set of laws creates confusion, and I for one believe it has contributed to the USA’s serious problem with guns.
It should be granted that the USA is not the only country to face gun violence, however among developed nations, the USA is an outlier. Consider the data available via the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Please note that this information is from 2020, unless otherwise stated, and all data works off the notion of a murder rate per 100,000 people. Let us compare countries that are broadly similar in terms of economic, political and social status. The USA, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Australia and Japan will be the focus.
In 2020, the US gun murder rate was 4.054, and the USA ranked 21st in the world for gun murders. Canada placed 34th, with a rate of 0.736. Australia was 55th, with a rate of 0.078. Germany was 58th, with a rate of 0.065. There is no data for Japan in 2020, but in 2019 Japan’s gun murder rate was 0.003, and Japan ranked 82nd. Data for the UK and France is not available (somewhat frustratingly), however in 2021 the UK had a gun murder rate of 0.047, and the most recent data from France (which goes back to 2017) reveals a gun murder rate of 0.1.
You may suggest ‘perhaps these other countries experience much higher rates of murder via other means, making them as dangerous as the USA’. A fair question, so let’s take a look. There is some inconsistency here, due to when these reports were generated:
The USA’s total homicide rate (bearing in mind this data comes from 2022, which will slightly skew the position) was 6.383. Canada’s was 2.273 in the same year. Australia’s was 0.833, also in 2022. Once again from 2022, we have Germany, with a rate of 0.823. Japan’s data, once more from 2022, reveals a homicide rate of 0.233. The UK had a rate of 1.148, though this information is from 2021. France had a homicide rate of 1.560, based on 2023 data.
What does this information tell us?
Well, it seems that the widespread presence of guns in the USA does not contribute to safety. The notion of ‘an armed society is a polite society’ is not borne out of the available information. In fact, one of the consistently safest countries on earth – Japan – has virtually no guns.
Does this mean to say that it is impossible to be safe where guns are prevalent?
Solutions
I am by no means an expert in the matters of guns, US society and political machinations, and I do not pretend to be. Solving the problem of gun violence in the US is not something that I can do, least of all with a blog post! However, it is worth pointing out a few details. Firstly, guns are available in the UK, Canada, Germany and France. There are strict rules around the types of gun, the number of firearms people can buy, and the vetting processes surrounding them. There are also consistent national-reaching laws in those countries. Whilst it would be naïve to think the sole reason these countries tend to be safer is down to gun laws, the link between easy access to efficiently designed weapons, and higher murder rates, is plain for all to see, and Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, the UK and France (among other countries) have all taken steps to address this problem.
‘What of my 2nd Amendment Rights?’
A fair question. The 2nd Amendment is enshrined in US law and US culture. As much as it baffles outsiders, the 2nd Amendment is not going away. The Constitution is not going away. Determining how to address the problem of gun violence whilst somehow honouring the terms of the 2nd Amendment has been a legal nightmare for anyone attempting to address the gun problem.
It could be argued that interpretations of the 2nd Amendment have drastically moved on from when it was first written. With this can come the argument as to whether it is fit for purpose. So much has changed, both in the USA, and globally. Weapons have evolved. Populations, once largely rural, have not only grown, but now live in urbanised environments. The need for a standing militia has been replaced by organised, well-trained militaries. Despite these changes, or perhaps because of them, the 2nd Amendment has been clung to as an inalienable right. There are long-standing arguments about self-defence, and wider arguments about the need to take up arms against tyrannical regimes (a throwback to the Revolutionary War itself). The question is whether or not the 2nd Amendment can co-exist with tighter regulations. Pro-gun activists would suggest that guns are already among the most regulated items in the USA. Anti-gun activists would argue the existing regulations do not go nearly far enough.
At any rate, an attempt to completely ban guns would be met with fierce resistance. Guns are as much as a cultural symbol as anything else. To this meerkat, treating a deadly weapon as a symbol of freedom strikes me as somewhat sad, but that is the reality. In my view, it will take a cultural shift – as opposed to a legal one – to challenge the 2nd Amendment, and people’s attitudes towards it and guns. As to whether this will happen… well, successive mass shootings, including school shootings, have so far not led to a widespread change in gun culture. If these tragedies cannot change someone’s perspective, it is hard to say what can.
