29th June, 2022
Two days ago, a Subway employee was shot dead in Atlanta because she did not put enough mayonnaise in the shooter’s sandwich. There have been too many shootings, the most recent and devastating one in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and 2 teachers died. Gun violence is frighteningly frequent - the CDC reported that almost 53 people are killed every day by a firearm in the US. People are now facing incredible physical and emotional challenges. Is this a mental health problem, or a gun problem?
It is both, and more. American President Joe Biden recently signed into law a bipartisan bill to restrict the accessibility of firearms to younger people and those considered a threat. In addition, the bill makes room for millions of investments in the country’s mental health institutions, as well as school security.
It’s a step forward. While the Atlanta incident occurred a few days after the bill was signed into law, it is going to take time to see shifts. Nevertheless, looking at the origins of gun culture is essential for understanding the present. In revealing where this all started, and how that context starkly contrasts with the reality we live in today, we illustrate the urgent need for transformation.
Most scholars begin their work on the origins of gun culture in America by referring to the Second Amendment, entitled The Right to Bear Arms. It stipulates that “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 ”. Of course, there are a variety of interpretations. Some focus solely on the phrase "well-regulated", and some simply pretend it is not there altogether. Many believe the entire clause only really applies when the security of the state is in serious question, as it was during the American Revolution, whereas others see it as the status quo.
One of the key explanations as to why the Second Amendment was ratified in the first place in 1791 was to do with the fear of standing armies and a tyrannical centralised government. Late 18th century America needs to be understood in the context of post-colonial British rule. From the 17th century onwards, guns were the primary tools Americans used to stand up to the British army. There were intense fears about the ways in which government could take advantage of its citizens through an army, and that the federal government should only raise armies in the face of foreign threats. For everything else, local militias comprising of individual men from different localities were relied on.
As it turned out, when faced with the British during the American revolution, local militias were not enough. The presence of a unified American army began to grow. Those who opposed a central government, otherwise known as anti-federalists, were worried. They argued earlier drafts of the bill of rights did not protect independent militia rights. It would render them defenseless. Once again, there was fear that Congress would abuse its powers and citizens would be unable to protect themselves if need be. Evidently, fear and mistrust are also a part of the American Constitution. Furthermore, Thomas Hartmann in The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment explained that white supremacy was one of the main foundations of the country. He wrote, “America was birthed in slavery and genocide”. Guns were largely used to control and possess both people and land. White male Americans were the ones in possession of firearms.
Unfortunately, guns were also largely used in the South for oppression. Carol Anderson, author of The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, explained that a major concern was that federally owned militias would not be present or able to protect Southern slave owners from uprisings. They needed arms to have control over their slaves and plantations. To placate these fears, James Madison, at this time a member of the House of Representatives, proposed the Second Amendment in 1789. It appealed to George Mason and Patrick Henry, who were both influential anti-federalist politicians.
Michael Bellesiles, in Arming America, conducted a detailed study of historical documents regarding gun ownership. It turns out it was not as traditional as we have been led to believe. Private ownership only really increased as a result of the Civil War. During the War in 1861-1865, the Union received better guns such as the repeating rifle, which shot more bullets within a minute. Increased gun usage can also be attributed to Samuel Colt, an American inventor, who received a patent for a pistol with a rotating barrel and more chambers. He was able to mass-produce it, which meant that usage spread beyond the military. Other companies eventually followed suit. Once the war ended, business owners carried out marketing campaigns targeting ordinary civilians to get rid of surplus firearms stock. There was a need for regular Americans to possess guns whilst expanding into the Western frontier. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the land was rather unknown and untouched. Guns were a form of protection during exploration or hunting. In addition, the guns used then were very different from the destructively efficient guns today. One would believe this logic would be enough to convince people that as life and culture change, so must we. However, researchers from Northeastern and Harvard University estimated that as of 2017 there were approximately 265 million privately owned firearms. According to a study conducted by Pew Research in 2017, a major reason for why gun owners hold onto their firearms is their own sense of "personal freedom". It is also linked to their identification with the ways in which guns symbolise America's heritage and ancestry, apart from practical self-defense. This begs the question of whether we actually want a society based on this sort of "freedom". Using one interpretation of the Second Amendment as justification for individual desires and pride is an excuse. It is extremely unlikely people do not have the logic to realise the systems of the past may not completely fit into today's climate. Adaptation is required. If we interpreted and followed the modi operandi of our grandparents or great-grandparents verbatim, we would all be living inefficient and almost deranged lives. This is not the America the founding fathers envisioned.
We also do not believe the solution is to take away guns altogether. We are all responsible for asking - “How did we get here?” and “What can we do to move forward?”. When a right or privilege is abused, what is the logical response? The NRA (National Rifle Association) is an incredibly powerful institution that has the ability to explore and instigate change. Yet, many members rarely exercise that power for the greater good. They spend millions lobbying and supporting Republicans that uphold looser gun regulations. A number are angry at the new law, saying it restricts freedoms. Apparently, the death of thousands of children is only deserving of the brief and halfhearted reflection of staunch gun owners. It is unfortunate that so many tragedies had to occur for a bill and law to manifest. However, it is indeed finally a step toward change and quite a feat that both Republicans and Democrats came together. We hope this leads to a significant reduction, if not total eradication, of the harmful behaviour around guns in America.
Comments