In Defense of Gun Prohibition

Gun violence is a horrific problem plaguing American society, especially with the
increase in mass shootings over the past few years. Almost anyone can easily access a gun, and
with few laws detailing limitations on gun use, there are millions of guns in this country, some in
the hands of the mentally unstable or homicidal. Furthermore, while the U.S. does not have the
highest gun homicide rate in the world, certain cities have comparable gun death rates to some of
the deadliest countries in the world. Take for example Detroit, which according to a 2013
compilation of data by Zara Matheson from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Gun, and more sources gathered by The Guardian
(Florida Gun Violence in U.S. Cities Compared to the Deadliest Nations in the World) has a
comparable gun death rate to El Salvador; El Salvadors rate is 39.9 firearm homicides per
100,000 people while Detroit follows close behind with 35.9 deaths per 100,000. Other cities
fare just as bad; Honduras has a rate of 68.4 deaths, ranking it the country with the highest gun
homicide rate as of 2014, while New Orleans is at 62.1 (Florida). Countries such as El Salvador
and Honduras do have higher populations than Detroit and New Orleans, but in the end, the fact
still remains that the U.S. gun death rate is amplified in certain areas that make it comparable to
deadlier countries. Guns are an evident threat to U.S. citizens, but our nation is divided on how
the issue should be tackled. This paper will argue that with the exception of shooting ranges and
hunting grounds, private gun ownership should be nationally prohibited in order to minimize gun
violence and secure citizens' safety.
Firstly, clarification is needed on the three general positions people typically align with
when talking about combating gun violence: gun advocacy, gun prohibition, and gun control.
Gun advocacy is a heated stance endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that proposes
that answer to gun violence is in fact, more guns. Specifically, gun advocates push for armed
guards in areas such as schools and universities, places usually targeted in mass shootings, in
hopes that the guards can intercept a shooter before any carnage begins. The polar opposite of
advocacy is gun prohibition, which pushes for a ban on private gun ownership nationwide. Like
all of these viewpoints, however, there is a wide spectrum of opinions on what exactly
prohibition entails; some call for a ban of private ownership, others will concede hunting arms,
and others yet want all guns taken away entirely. Then there is the middle ground between
advocacy and prohibition, that being control. Gun control is an enticing viewpoint to many, as it

incorporates the ideologies from both advocacy and prohibition. Citizens, in theory, are still
allowed to own guns but must follow strict laws and guidelines about what kinds of firearms they
can buy, how many they can own, and how to acquire the necessary certification, background
checks, and training before purchasing guns.
Two authors works will primarily be referenced in this paper, the first being Jeff
McMahans essay Why Gun Control Is Not Enough, initially published in the NY Times
philosophical forum called The Stone. McMahan early on states his thesis that gun prohibition is
necessary to combat gun violence. One premise supporting this conclusion is that with more
armed civilians, the safety of unarmed civilians is compromised since they might be caught in
additional crossfire. Furthermore, the authenticity of the police decreases when law enforcement
shifts from them to a vigilante civilian populace, and so societys self-defense will increasingly
be privatized and not be defended by a government institution. As such, this becomes an arms
race, and the chance for gun violence increases. Prohibition, while difficult to accomplish, is the
only way for reduced gun violence (McMahan Why Gun Control Is Not Enough).
The second author is Sam Harris and his work The Riddle of the Gun, published on his
personal blog. Harris view supports the rights of sane, law-abiding to own firearms, but still
takes into stride the positive impact stricter gun laws would have upon the country. He frequently
brings up the point that even if guns did not exist, there still would be criminals with murderous
intentions, and the problem exists not with the method they kill but by the publics response to a
life-threatening situation. In a shootout, a well-trained gun-wielder in the long run would be
preferable to a civilian with no guns and no effective method of self-defense. Thus, there should
be stricter access to guns but still the possibility for qualified individuals to have the right to selfdefense via firearm possession (Harris The Riddle of the Gun).
The purpose of a gun is, at its core, to kill or harm. Whether it is a person, an animal, or
something else entirely, guns were created to incapacitate if not mortally wound another being.
Of course, over the years that definition has evolved. People partake in recreational shooting at
ranges, treating target shooting as a sport, and many more collect guns like one would trading
cards. Many Americans would not glance twice if they visited a friends house and saw a gun
rack. And yet, despite the peaceful intentions of some, the U.S. experiences thousands of gun
deaths annually. Just in 2010, 19,392 people committed suicide via firearms while 11,078 were
gun homicides (U.S. Center for Disease Control 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age
Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States 2010). The truly startling

statistic is the number of mass shootings that have occurred since January 1st, 2013. Mass
shootings, as defined by four or more people being shot in one incident, are not the bulk of gunrelated deaths in the United States, but they are tremendously shocking and impressionable on
the public. Since January 1st, 2013, there have been approximately 1,052 mass shootings within
1,066 days. That is practically a shooting every day. Of those victims, 1,347 were killed and
3,817 wounded.
With these statistics in mind, by allowing private gun ownership in this country, we are
telling people that they cannot rely on the government and police to protect them. A persons
right for life is always at risk because of the misconstrued perceptions of the Second Amendment
stating we have a right to self defense. With this interpretation, the very basis of our Constitution
and moral foundation is at odds with one another, and so we as a people lose trust in its validity.
Are we allowed freedom? Are we allowed to defend ourselves? We possess both of these rights
only when we acknowledge that certain limitations, such as prohibition on private gun
ownership, are necessary in order to protect the well-being of the nation with the least number of
losses. The Second Amendment never explicitly allows us the right to bear firearms just the
right of self-defense, for which there are preferable alternatives to than guns. Violence will never
go away; neither will acts such as murder or rape when the probability of an unstable person
acting out is possible. In order to find the best solution, which as of yet no one has discovered,
we need to begin by eliminating opportunities and ways violence can escalate. While some gun
prohibitionists will disagree with this point, armed police guards should be allowed in public
areas such as schools and metropolitan districts to act as a trained and qualified buffer against
possible shootings. This combined with a ban on guns allows trained police officers to handle
our domestic security effectively versus letting individuals rely on the goodwill of others, which
as we all should realize is not always present. Additionally, everyones safety overall will
increase when there is less of a probability of someone shooting and killing someone.
Police do not have a monopoly on domestic security when citizens decide to take selfdefense, and oftentimes others defense, into their own hands. Gun control supporters drive home
the objection that having an armed and trained civilian around in the event of a shooting
increases everyones chance of surviving; similarly, gun advocates believe everyone will be
better off being armed. But when even police accidently shoot civilians, letting untrained
(untrained meaning not trained on how to act during dangerous situations like the police are)
people take charge of their safety with lethal weapons sows the seeds of chaos. Take for example

the 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, CO where James Holmes entered a theater, set off
tear gas grenades, and proceeded to shoot into the audience, killing 12 people and injuring 70
others. Many gun advocacy and control supporters emphasize that if all or some of the audience
members had guns, they would have been able to stall Holmes or possibly even kill him before
he hurt anyone. Harris himself supports this idea that there is a possibility that a well-trained
armed civilian might have left everyone better off defense-wise. This is a dangerous thing to
claim. Scared, reckless civilians shooting in the dark at an attacker leaves everyone more
vulnerable, and there is always the possibility that some of the civilians will run and save
themselves rather than protect their fellow audience members. However, if a trained security
police guard had been in the vicinity, it would be their professional and moral duty to protect
people no matter the cost. Many are opposed to having police stationed in public areas, but this
opposition stems from the fear that the police themselves cannot be trusted; which, in their
current state, they cannot. Even a trained officer can be frightened when faced with an attacker
wielding a gun. If we systematically take away guns from civilians and tax the gun lobbyists, not
only will police have the upper hand overall, but more money can be poured into improving and
expanding the national security industry so that the U.S. has an organized, government force
protecting us.
Going back to the Aurora shooting, though, a dark and crowded movie theater is an
entirely different scenario from a school classroom. The 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School where 20 children and 6 adults were shot by Adam Lanza still haunts the U.S.
today. Here, the suggested armed civilian proposed by Harris and others might have helped much
more than in a dark theater. When we compare an armed civilian to a trained police officer
stationed at that school, few would pick the civilian over the guard in a shootout. Stationing
guards in such locations is not a foolproof solution but it is the best one if we ban private
ownership of guns nationally and wish to provide a buffer of defense between the unarmed and
an attacker. The NRA themselves has pushed for arming more people to protect places like
schools but they lose touch with reality when they assume armed teachers and civilians would be
more effective than a trained security force such as the police.
Allowing citizens to own guns as a means of self-defense does nothing to decrease gun
violence; if anything, it only amplifies the chance of harm or death for everyone. Jeff McMahan
discusses this in his article Why Gun Control Is Not Enough. McMahan states: When most
citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesnt cease. Instead, criminals work to

be better armed, more efficient in their use of guns (quicker on the draw), and readier to use
them. When this happens, those who get guns may be safer than they would be without them, but
those without them become progressively more vulnerable. We as a nation cannot allow select
individuals to own guns for self-defense while at the same time there are others who cannot or
refuse to own guns. With this, a significant disparity is created between how safe each individual
is. Gun advocates solution to this adds more fuel to the fire: let everyone have access to
defensive firearms. This is asking for chaos. Even well-trained soldiers in the U.S. military make
mistakes whilst bearing a firearm; allowing all citizens the option to wield guns could end up
with them shooting someone on accident or severely harming themselves. McMahan mentions
that this is similar to a nuclear arms race, where when one person gets a gun, hence increasing
their defense, others get guns too so they are not threatened, and so on until everyone is armed
(McMahan). Furthermore, when civilians are armed, the criminals/shooters will likely get more
reckless when they realize their own life is in jeopardy, thus increasing their hostility.
While McMahan makes many provocative points for this argument, a failing in his stance
is that he never explicitly provides a better alternative to combating a shooter or attacker than
using guns. Gun control supporters and gun advocates may also reply with the point that yes,
shooters will work harder to have better guns and be more agitated if guns are not banned. But
shooters will also come up with new and more efficient ways to kill if guns are banned, whether
that is homemade bombs, knives, or other such ways. The root issue is that people who are
homicidal, mentally unstable, untrained, or any combination of those have access to guns in the
first place; adding more guns into the equation is not the answer. Guns are fatalistic, but they are
efficient at protection if used properly, which they oftentimes are not. This is where armed
guards come into the equation.
If we allow armed police guards in schools, universities, public access areas, and other
locations prone for shooting attacks, not only will shooters be more frightened of being
intercepted quicker, but people will not have to rely on other civilians untrained goodwill to
protect them. The guards will have arms since they are qualified to use them and understand the
various circumstances and situations in which they may have to respond should the worst
happen. So even if a shooter has several guns in their arsenal or if they use bombs or knives to
launch an attack, a stationed armed guard (or several) could confront them rather than waiting for
the police to arrive. Note that this does not solve gun violence in private areas such as homes or
personal businesses. Violence itself is a near impossible if not impossible thing to eliminate, but

the first step in preventing it from occurring is by banning guns, which out of all the accessible
weapons is the most efficient and lethal.
The more people who own guns, the more probable it is for gun violence to occur, and so
the natural answer to this issue is to prohibit guns so that the chance of gun violence occurring
decreases exponentially. In Sam Harris essay, he writes that 30% of urban households have at
least one firearm, 42% in suburban areas, and 60% in the countryside. The claim he insinuates
here is that the presence of more gun owners does not result in more violence and that the answer
for what the relationship is between gun ownership and violence is not straightforward.
However, this logic is faulty. Using the U.S. Census of Urban, Urbanized Area, Urban Cluster,
and Rural Population (2010) data and Harris data, 30% of urban households owning at least one
firearm (Harris) equals out to approximately 74,775,982 gun owners since urban areas accounted
for 80.7% of the national population (US Census Bureau). Contrarily, rural areas only accounted
for 19.3% of the population, and so 60% of that number of people comes out to be 35,695,361
gun owners. Naturally there will be more gun violence in urban areas when statistically there are
more guns around. The fallacy of Harris argument is that he claims that in areas with a higher
ratio of gun owners there is less violence, and while this may be true, it does not support his
claim. Numerically speaking, the presence of more guns in urban areas is what sparks more
violence and in the rural areas there is less due to the absence of as many guns; the ratio of guns
owners to urban versus rural areas is not relevant since the two populations are not equal and
cannot be compared equivalently. More guns sufficiently allows from more gun violence to
occur. Criminals will undoubtedly illegally acquire guns by buying them internationally; this is
an inevitable fact Americans must live with. However, many potential shooters will be deterred
from purchasing guns if they cannot buy overseas. If we as a society close our borders to gun
imports, ban guns domestically, and increase government security checks of our belongings
whilst travelling, people will have a harder time acquiring firearms.
Gun advocates will still fight this by saying that banning guns in the U.S. is not feasible.
Our culture is too saturated with a love for guns, but what for? Some will claim it within their
right to own a firearm, hinting back to the flawed understanding of the now obsolete Second
Amendment, which as mentioned before says nothing about allowing firearm ownership as a
right; others simply like the idea of owning a gun; and others yet are convinced that they need a
gun in case of a nationwide insurrection. McMahan and Harris both agree on this point: a
handgun or hunting rifle is useless against the United States Military. Any thought a person has

of pushing back against the government via guns is entirely unrealistic. Many factors stop us
from banning guns: gun lobbyists, the publics taken offense of having their rights infringed
upon, and a nationwide abhorrence to the idea of being without guns, among countless other
roadblocks. Getting people to give up their guns is even harder, but if we has a nation start to
collectively hold ourselves accountable for the risks we bring by owning guns, regardless of our
peaceful intentions, gun prohibition will begin to look more and more appealing. Much like any
other revolution in this country (i.e. minority rights and ending slavery), a shift in public opinion
comes from people shedding their ignorance and thoughtfully considering what is best for
everyone. Guns are hurting the U.S. and the best way to counteract gun violence is to eliminate
gun ownership and sales in order to lessen the probability of an attack of any type occurring.
Enacting a gun prohibition on private ownership would not mean people could not use
guns. As mentioned previously in this essay, shooting ranges can still be kept open for
recreational use; albeit all ranges need to be heavily updated to make sure they meet national
security standards. Designated, publicly funded areas for hunting can also be allowed for those
who wish to hunt; with a gun prohibition, no one would be able to hunt using guns unless they
are in one of these areas. Undoubtedly, hunters will object to this, but their objections only stem
from wanting freedom to hunt, which they are allowed to do in certain areas using borrowed
weapons. There is even room up for debate of having hunters buy rights to a gun at a shooting or
hunting range and have the gun licensed to them in name, furthermore requiring them to store it
and only use it in designated areas, not at their homes. The bottom line is that America has been a
gun nation for too long, and for that, we have paid the ultimate sacrifice: the unjust deaths of
thousands of Americans due to gun violence. The safety of the nation takes precedence over an
individuals desire to hunt.
Preventing gun violence via gun prohibition is neither something that can be
accomplished in a short period of time nor something that just concerns taking away peoples
personal firearms. It will take months if not years of strenuous and determined action to change
every individuals opinion and allow the U.S. to heal from all the horror gun violence has caused.
Works Cited

Florida, Richard. Gun Violence in U.S. Cities Compared to the Deadliest Nations in the
World, published in Citylab, a subset of The Atlantic. January 22 nd, 2013.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest

nations-world/4412/
Guardian, The. 1,052 mass shootings in 1,066 days: this is what America's gun crisis
looks like, published in The Guardian using information from ShootingTracker.com, a
crowd-sourced website. December 3rd, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-

interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence
Harris, Sam. The Riddle of the Gun, published on his personal blog. January 2 nd, 2013.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun.
McMahan, Jeff. Why Gun Control Is Not Enough, published in The Stone, a subset of
the

NY

Times.

12th,

December

2012.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/?_r=2
U.S. Census of Urban, Urbanized Area, Urban Cluster, and Rural Population data table.

2010. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html
U.S. Center for Disease Control 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age Group
Highlighting

Violence-Related

Injury

Deaths,

United

States.

2010.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010a.pdf