The Second Amendment Should Be A Liberal Ideology
The 2nd Amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in our constitution today. There are two big reasons for this current controversy. One is number of gun deaths per capita per year. Typically compared to other countries. Two is the interpretation of the amendment itself.
Understanding these two reasons and how guns change the culture in United States will lead us down a path that makes sense but doesn’t match reality. That is that Liberals should be supporting guns and not against them. I use liberal here in terms of modern liberal where the average person who identifies as such is against guns in some capacity. Either entirely banning them or wants more restrictions or anything in between.
Gun Violence
In 2021 the United States saw the largest number of gun deaths than in any point in history at ~48,000. This is according to Pew Research Center. But a better statistic to look at is gun deaths per capita. This is because the United States has consistently been growing in population, so it would make sense nominal gun deaths would increase as well.
When looking at per capita statistics the death rate is around 14.6 per 100,000 people in 2021. This is on the high side but not at our peak. The United States per capita death rate peak was in 1974 at 16.3 per 100,000 people.
These numbers are good reasons for banning or restricting guns. Depending on how strict you are with the regulations you could theoretically get that number to zero. Many countries have achieved this feat. But is that what we want?
Defense
The most recent survey of gun owners and their use of their firearms occurred in 2021. In this research study they concluded that:
“The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.”
Many have misunderstood what this statistic means. Many have thought to mean that guns save 1.67 million lives a year. But we cannot conclude that from this study. All we know is that guns were used defend the owner or their property from a potential threat 1.67 million times. We don’t know what percent of those instances we life-threating.
When it comes to gun violence too many people focus strictly on the deaths. But what we should be looking at is the cost-benefit analysis on guns. The costs are clearly the unwanted gun deaths, while the benefits are the insentiences in which guns protected the owner and their property. So the question becomes: Is 1.6 million instances of defense worth the 48,000 deaths a year?
Interpretation
The Second Amendment – The Right to Bear Arms
“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.”
The interpretation of the Second Amendment is crucial in understanding gun rights. What we need to do is define terms. What is tricky about this two people can define the same word in two different ways.
Gun proponents always reference the “shall not be infringed” part of the amendment. Implying that nothing else matters since any restrictions or regulations is infringing on the right to bear arms. While gun reform activists focus a lot on the “a well regulated militia” part of the amendment. Meaning unless you are a part of the a regulated group (i.e. military or police) you are not allowed to own a gun because you are not a militia.
The reason it is difficult to interpret is because what was actually meant is unknown. A militia can be the military or it can also be a single person. Does a magazine limit infringe on the right to bear arms? What did the foundering father mean when they wrote this amendment?
They couldn’t possibly know we would have automatic weapons, so should those be banned? Or is that infringing on your rights? Or maybe the founding fathers knew of the possible technological growth of weapons. So to ensure the people could always protect themselves from a tyrannical government they put the “shall not be infringed” clause.
Consequences of Guns
Okay so how does this all relate to liberals supporting guns? It’s simple really, we need to answer this question. What are the consequences of people being allowed to own guns? It decreases the violence gap. Similar to the gender wage gap (which is a lie by the way). But instead of income it is violence or potential to harm.
Liberals proclaim to increase equality and decrease the gaps between genders and races in society. Yet when it comes to violence or the potential to harm they want to remove the item that decreases that gap. When each person has a gun the potential for harm is equal. There is no gap in the potential violence that can occur for each person in the encounter. While if we remove all guns, even from the bad guys, now the potential for harm and violence is in the favor of whoever is bigger, stronger, knows how to fight.
Guns decrease the violence gap between two people in an encounter. This creates a level playing field, while no guns creates inequality. If liberals claim they promote equality they in theory should support gun rights since guns promotes equality in potential violence.