Rylan Schaeffer

RST 10 Fall 2014

First Response Paper
When considering the pros and cons of gun control, I think it is important to pay close attention not just to
the publicly stated arguments, but to the characters of those making the arguments. Although liberals argue for
stricter regulations over gun ownership and use on the basis of public safety, it is the conservative argument that
deserves closer inspection; despite defending guns as a bolster to public safety and check on government tyranny,
the gun lobby is influenced substantially more by gun manufacturers and systemic racism in the United States than it
is by legitimate argument.
Finding evidence to support the liberal perspective is easy. As the Washington Post explains 1, the United
States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of
all developed countries. While guns are not the only lethal weapons, they make it far easier to substantially injure
or kill other people. Guns also raise the likelihood of escalation, making physical harm much more likely. In a
country where it is easy to obtain guns, often without comprehensive background checks, and then carry those guns
almost anywhere, mass shootings have become an almost predictable facet of life in America.
Conservatives respond with two arguments: deterrence and self-defense. These two are closely tied. The
idea is that people have a right to defend themselves, and that criminals (knowing the victim is armed) will be
deterred from acting in a criminal fashion. I couldnt find a transcendent study that proved or refuted this claim
once and for all, but a 2011 study in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 2 claimed that There is compelling
evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears
that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. An article
also stated, On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in
the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.
If we accept the conclusions of this study, it begs the question of why American has such a powerful gun
lobby and so many pro-gun laws. The answer can be found in both economics and sociology. On the economic
side, selling guns is good business. As the Violence Policy Centers report entitled Blood Money: How the Gun
Industry Bankrolls the NRA points out, The vast majority of funds74 percentcontributed to the NRA from
corporate partners are members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of
firearms or shooting-related products. Ensuring that guns can be easily obtained maximizes the profitability of
these corporations, and their donations reveal that they have clearly recognized this fact.
To understand the cultural aspects of guns requires a historical analysis of America, dating back all the way
to the start of our country. The claim to self-defense is not just a claim against individual aggressors, but also
against an oppressive government. Guns are necessary to prevent a dictatorship. As this article3 makes clear, gun
ownership is not protection against a supposedly tyrannical government. Rather, it is a continuation of the Souths
racially constructed hierarchy, and guns are an integral part of ensuring the Federal government never again tries
Reconstruction. As the author says, The Boston Tea Party protest was aimed at a Parliament where the colonists
had no representation, and at an appointed governor who did not have to answer to the people he ruled. Todays Tea
Party faces a completely different problem: how a shrinking conservative minority can keep change at bay in spite
of the democratic processes defined in the Constitution. Thats why they need guns. Guns are used by citizens and
officials of the law alike to command conformity with the law. The recent news coverage of police officers shooting
people of color reveals policies of oppression that are used to suppress minorities from even the most basic of
democratic actions (i.e. voting).
Despite my recognition of the South co-opting the self-defense argument to protect its racist system, I still
find myself agreeing with their conclusion. With the recent revelations released by Edward Snowden and Julian
Assange, I am terrified that my government has the power to create a dictatorial state. Although I acknowledge that
many innocents die every year, those deaths are a price I am willing to pay to live in a free society. The reason why
simple restrictions (i.e. more extensive background checks) are not a sufficient compromise is because there is no
brightline to determine what check is valid and what check is restrictive. In the same way we permit (almost) all
acts of free speech, without a clear way to determine a reasonable check versus a political action, we should permit
(almost) all acts of gun ownership. Arming citizens to the teeth is the only way I see to guarantee that 1984 never
arrives.
1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://sbcoalition.org/2011/08/guns-in-the-home-do-not-deter-crime/
3
http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/
2