What's the story with guns?

So, there was another mass shooting in the United States.  I am sure I am not alone when my international friends and colleagues start asking me about guns in America.  "What do you think of them?"  "Is it true that every American has a gun?"

Let's start by answering that what I think doesn't really matter (more later).  And to quickly answer the second question, no... not everyone has a gun.

Guns in the US have a history as long as the country itself.  It may seem absurd to most Europeans, but the right to have guns (bear arms) is written in the US constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the document.  A little info: the constitution outlines the structure of the government, the amendments specify the rights of the people, like freedom of speech, voting, etc.

In other words, there is no state monopoly on violence in the United States like there is in Europe (and most other countries).  We have to remember that the constitution was written in 1787, shortly after the American revolution.  Perhaps armed citizenry was a method to prevent tyrannical government.  Perhaps it was self-defense.  Constitutional experts continue to debate.

The single sentence that is cause for all the trouble.

So, let's fast forward a few hundred years.  Like most of the Bill of Rights, the modern meaning of the right to bear arms is continuously debated in American politics and society.  Mass shootings emotionalize the issue, highlight the challenges of this right and trigger a new round of debate.  In the last decade, a series of these tragic events has meant that the discussion rarely stops for long.

The American population generally agrees that there is a problem.  No one wants to see events like Sandy Hook.  However, the opinions on how to solve the problem are greatly divided across a spectrum.  We can basically divide the proposed solutions into four main groups across this spectrum.

Group 1:  Arm Everyone to Protect Themselves

This group is on the far right of the spectrum and is best represented by the National Rifle Association (NRA).  This group advocates removing all restrictions on gun ownership (except suspected terrorists and convicted criminals).  They also advocate arming school teachers, judges, homeowners, etc.  There is some disagreement within the group about types of guns, but most favor zero-restrictions on assault rifles and military-grade equipment.  Additionally, this group favors laws which reduce permit requirements and 'carry' restrictions, such as 'concealed carry' meaning you carry your gun in public hidden under a jacket or in a purse.

The Arm Everyone group sees themselves as true patriots upholding the right written in the constitution.  They tend to speak in 'good guy' versus 'bad guy' terms and have popularized the term 'responsible gun-owners'.  They believe they protect the population by deterrent and claim there is a causal inverse relationship between gun-ownership rates and crime rates in certain areas.

Group 2:  Reasonable Gun Ownership

This group acknowledges the right to bear arms and continues to view it as a valuable protection of individual freedom.  They also agree with the first group that arms are a deterrent to crime.  However, they argue for restriction on type and access to weapons.  For example, they tend to favor background checks and controlled purchasing of guns.  They also tend to think that military-grade weapons should be restricted.  They agree with concealed carry but also agree with gun-free zones, like churches, schools and courts.  In general, they view gun crime as a failure to enforce current gun laws.  They don't disagree with the 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' theory, but they favor effective controls to ensure that 'bad guys' don't get access to weapons.  Like Group 1, people in this group  agree with the statement, "Gun don't kill people, people kill people."

Group 3:  Tighter Restrictions and Tracking

Whereas Group 2 believes that current laws are enough, but that enforcement is lacking, this group believes that current gun laws do not go far enough to ensure reasonable gun ownership.  Additionally, this group tends to favor national regulation and laws, compared to state and local level laws.  This group advocates a national gun registry, mandatory training, licensing, etc.  They also agree with tighter restrictions on types of weapons.  Compared with the previous two groups, this group does not see this as strictly a 'people problem' they also believe the amount and type of weapons in American society enables violence.

Group 4:  State Monopoly on Violence

Finally, we get to the left side of the spectrum.  This group thinks that the guns amendment of the constitution is outdated.  This group favors a more European-style approach with strict restrictions on gun sales, ownership, storage and type.  This group views gun crime and mass shootings as a 'gun problem' and that disarming America is the only guaranteed solution to reducing violence.

The debate...

Like most populations, most Americans would agree with one of the two groups in the middle.  But also like most populations, the extremes gain the most attention due to their passion and stance.  Because the issue has become so emotional, it is more difficult to find a balance.  The discussion tends to repeat itself.  The Arm Everyone Group believes that any gun regulation is part of an agenda by the State Monopoly Group to ban guns step-by-step.

But there are two other aspects which confuse the debate.  First is whether gun laws should be made at the national or state level.  Currently, gun laws are determined by the states and the trend is toward more relaxed purchasing and carry laws.  The result is a range of different state laws and licensing requirements.  Second is that the issue is a constitutional issue.  Remember, this right is in the Bill of Rights, next to freedom of religion, speech and proper trial.  Guns are now linked with individual freedom.

What will happen next?

In the near future nothing will change.  The debate is too polarized and no group controls enough popular opinion or political power to change anything.  Mass shootings will continue to be a regular occurrence in the United States as they have been since the late 1990s. 

Personally, I am in Group 4 after seeing the effect in Germany of a state monopoly on violence, balanced with sport and hobby interests.  I view the guns section of the constitution to be outdated, like sections that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation.  But I also believe that changing the right to bear arms amendment is impossible in my lifetime.

But change is always present in the US and gun control laws will probably change in the next decade or two.  I do not expect them to become more relaxed because they are already quite open.  I also feel that these mass shootings will slowly push people toward tighter restrictions despite the efforts of the Arm Everyone Group.  It will just take more time.  American opinion tends to swing like a pendulum, first one way a bit too far and then back the other way a bit too far.

So, like all issues in American society.  It is much more complex than it appears.