The U.S Gun Debate: Discourses of Fear, Security, and the false illusion of Liberty

Above: Family shoppers in a U.S Target with exposed rifles for sale

After the terrifying attacks by ISIS extremists in Paris that left over 123 people dead on November 13th, 2015, Republican presidential candidate and arrogant political provocateur Donald Trump responded by reinforcing his gun-abiding rhetoric, stating “[…] if they had guns, if our people were allowed to carry – it would’ve been a much, much different situation”[CNN]. In fact, the argument for increased citizen access to firearms has been Trump’s – and almost every other Republican conservative candidate- go-to response to mass shootings. After a shooting at Umpqua Community College in which ten people (including the gunman) lost their lives, Trump told his audiences that “if you had a couple of the teachers or somebody with guns in that room you would have been a hell of a lot better off”[source]. The same idea of armed educators was also proposed by Ben Carson after the Oregon attacks, who went so far to propose the idea even for kindergarten school teachers [source].Somehow the instant conservative solution to gun-related mass murders seems always to be “more guns”, but is this really how to resolve the issue ?

According to a 2010 NRA study, between 40-45% of U.S Households have a gun, with 67% of owners stating ‘protection against crime’ as the reason for firearm ownership [source]. But is the conservative discourse of “more guns, less crime” really a reality or is it rather a convenient ideal utilised for anti-gun regulation propaganda? The NRA often cites a 1998 study of ‘concealed cary’ laws and crime rates entitled ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ by John Lott as evidence for their pro-gun arguments – numerous studies published since then have disproved and argued against this original hypothesis. In fact, a 2015 Harvard University study seems to illustrate that the exact opposite is true, with findings proving that increased gun ownership preceded the increased crime rate and that states with highest number of gun owners had 6.8 times more firearms assaults compared to states with the lowest number of gun owners. The argument was also disproved by cross-cultural examples of gun control regulations; after the Port Arthur massacre in Australia that left 35 people dead, Australia implemented a series of gun control initiatives, including a gun-buy back scheme in which nearly a million firearms were purchased and destroyed by the state. Overall, studies on both a national and international scale seem to demonstrate that the stricter the regulations on firearm ownership in place, the lower the likelihood of gun-induced incidents. Yet how is it, despite this evidence, that in the U.S, after a horrific mass shooting occurs, gun shops across the country report an increase in sales? What makes American citizens feel that the very weapons used to attack them are the ones that will be used to protect them in the future?

Conservatives would argue that it is not only about increased firearms, but also making sure that each gun-owner is given the adequate training to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation using his/her firearm. Yet even those in the U.S that should be the most in key with situation-diffusion and firearm responsibility seem to only to be demonstrating how firearms can make situations more deadly than they need to be. The unrequited shooting of numerous young black men by police officers in the past few year has shaken up America and become symbolic for the country’s racially-induced police brutality. Tamir Rice, 12, was shot twice by police officers for playing outdoors with a toy-pellet gun. Michael Brown, 18, was killed by over 12 bullets from officer Wilson’s gun despite being unarmed. Laquan McDonald, 17, was shot 16 times in under 15 second by Chicago PD officer Van Dyke and the list only continues… Whilst each of these cases requires a more in-depth separate investigation, the fact remains that each of these police officers had training in incident-diffusion that they chose to ignore, instead seeing the weapon they bear to ‘serve and protect’ as the instant impulsive solution to the situation at hand. These were the people that meant to prove to us that bearing a weapon can be used to reduce or de-escalate a potential threat to safety and that indeed the Republican motto of “more guns, less crimes” was true. Instead, each of these men’s decisions to shoot innocent civilians – many claiming they felt threatened or under attack by the unarmed black men – only emphasizes the point that having a gun in a chaotic or fearful situation can cause more bloodshed than prevent it.

It seems that the United States issue with guns is not necessarily the amount of guns available – other countries around the world have similar gun-ownership rates and far lower gun-crimes (such as Switzerland for example). It seems rather that the U.S gun issue lies in the level and efficiency of their regulation. A New York Times article from December of 2015 analysed the guns used in 15 recent mass shootings and discovered that at least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems yet still managed to pass background checks and purchase firearms legally and without much difficulty. Dylan Roof, who killed 9 people at a bible study at Emanuel A.M.E Church with a .45 caliber Glock, had previously been charged with a misdemeanor for drug possession . This criminal charge should have barred Roof from buying the pistol in a South Carolina store but the examiner failed to obtain the police report. Wade M. Page who opened fire in the lobby of a Sikh temple in Wisconsin killing six people, had previously been charged with a criminal mischief whilst enlisted at the army and had come to the attention of authorities for being affiliated with a white-supremacy band. Page bought the semiautomatic handgun used in the attack legally, passing a background check and paying 650$ for the firearm. It seems that despite what conservatives would like us to believe, the regulation of gun-ownership in the U.S is not as intricate and flawless as presented.

Seeing the tense political climate that seems to arise as soon as gun regulation becomes a subject of debate, it definitely won’t be easy to find an adequate solution to the U.S’ firearm-related homicide rate (as we lead to the end of 2015, the country has seen over 353 mass shootings just this year with over 60% of all homicides being committed by firearm). Conservatives will call upon their Second Amendment right for the American citizen to ‘bear arms’, dismissing any proposition for increased regulation as an infringement by the government on their rights and liberty. Yet as much as conservatives would like to deny it, the U.S is facing a clear issue in its gun policy and action is becoming more and more of a necessity. Whether the solution is the removal of guns from civilian household like the Australian 1996 buy-back or the enforcement of stricter background checks and harder access to weaponry and ammunition, as is the case in Switzerland, still remains to be evaluated. Most importantly, American citizens need to move beyond the Republican-endorsed concept that guns provide safety and become acutely aware of the risks and issues involved with such a discourse. Unlike Trump’s response to mass shootings attempts to persuade, the solution to U.S gun issue is definitely not arming more and more civilians.

#politics #us #guncontrol #gundebate #trump #tamirrice #trayvonmartin #massshooting #umpquashooting #parisattacks