This past summer, in what history will remember as a watershed case, the US Supreme court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of individual gun ownership rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller, security guard Dick Heller contested Washington DC’s strict handgun ban. The 28-year ban stemmed from the potential danger of handgun ownership in densely urban environments. Heller, not content to own a shotgun or a rifle, considered the ban a serious infringement upon Second Amendment rights.
When the Supreme Court examined the case on March 18, the Justices mirrored this disconnect as the debate focused on individual rights versus state militia rights. The Second Amendment may read multiple ways, stating; “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.” In his Majority opinion, Justice Scalia interpreted the amendment as “the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Justice Stevens disagreed, stating that the amendment “protects the right of the people of each of the several states to maintain a well-regulated militia” and thus permits federal gun regulations on private citizens.
However, Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion shifted the debate from lexical intent to social cost. How, he asked, should the Court interpret the amendment considering that handguns are “a very popular weapon among criminals” and “are involved in a majority of firearms deaths and injuries in the United States?” The Supreme Court won’t excise an amendment from the Bill of rights based on negative sociological trends, but Breyer’s opinion represents the latest in a long tradition of utilitarian considerations within jurisprudence.
If the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear “arms,” why can’t a private citizen protect his house with a .50 caliber machine gun by the front door, anti-personnel landmines embedded in the lawn, Rocket-propÃ¥elled grenades on the fence posts, and an AH-64 Apache helicopter hovering over the roof? The answer is that government and society apply a utilitarian calculus to interpret and even limit the power of the Second amendment.
Legislation in the past century established the Bill of Rights as rights under law and not free from it. For example, responding to the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy, Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act restricting interstate handgun sales, toughening licensing laws, and disallowing firearm ownership by convicted felons, the mentally incompetent, drug addicts, etc. Additionally, the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act restricted the sale and ownership of machine guns by private citizens. Finally, in 1994, after studies showed a 500 percent increase in violent crime over a 30-year period, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Included in the legislation was a federal ban on the manufacture, transfer, and possession of assault weapons. These laws show us that, while the constitution assures U.S. citizens a set of “inalienable” rights, government has the authority, by principle and precedent, to regulate those rights. In each of these cases, lawmakers plugged concerns weighing strict constitutionalism against social cost into the utilitarian calculus: in each case, the latter prevailed.
Historically, government has outlawed certain firearms based on their high social cost. Now let us consider what that same utilitarian calculus has to say about handguns. The Department of Justice reports that handguns are the most frequently used firearms in homicide. Their report shows that in 2005, 14,965 murders involved firearms, 7,565 of them by handguns. In 2006, out of 15,087 firearm murders, 7,836 involved handguns. In 2007, the number dropped slightly to 7,361 handgun murders out of 14,831 total. In contrast, the number of “justifiable” homicides by handguns: “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen”: numbers 123, 154 and 159 in 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively. Aside from the human cost, a study by Cook on gun violence in America calculates “direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.”
Gun rights activists persistently claim that the handgun is a “functional” weapon needed for the protection of life and property. Yet, statistics show that the real “function” of handguns is overwhelmingly crime and violence. Why can’t the law-abiding citizen suffice with a shotgun or a rifle for home protection? Does private protection require an easily concealable, highly portable, multiple round-discharging firearm? The handgun is America’s weapon of mass destruction and a serious threat to public safety.
It is the government’s role to delineate the manner in which we are free to exercise our second amendment rights. Congress has already deemed machine guns and assault weapons as too dangerous; it’s time our representatives added handguns to that list. Unfortunately, on the marble steps of the Supreme Court last June, the utilitarian calculus lost.
Withheld • Nov 11, 2008 at 1:13 am
The authors have done us all a great service. Thank you for keeping these hooligans distracted with writing perturbed margin comments instead of whatever hooting savagery they surely would otherwise have been pursuing.
Sam • Oct 29, 2008 at 7:50 am
“It is the government’s role to delineate the manner in which we are free to exercise our second amendment rights.”
You guys seriously need a civics class as you have demonstrated by this statement you do not have an even basic understanding of our rights. Rights are not granted by government, rights are supposed to be acknowledged and protected by government. Rights are inherent to being alive.
In the US the individual is sovereign and as long as they do not harm another person or property they are free to do as they wish. Clearly we have drifted very far away from this concept and need to return to it.
Your lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights and its historical context as demonstrated through this article is disconcerting.
joe2171 • Oct 28, 2008 at 7:52 am
Why is it that the authors of this article didn’t follow even the most basic requirements of research before making their outrageous claims? I would think that since the authors are actually writing for a College Paper, that they would be able to at least put forth all the information available before making their idiotic statements, that way we would at least be able to see that they were ignoring the facts, so as not to have to infer it for ourselves!
Jeremy C • Oct 23, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Wow, the comments section wins by a landslide in this argument. I recommend the writers take a handgun safety class to learn how to safely handle and shoot a handgun. I guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this topic afterward. Consider it research.
T Wizneski • Oct 23, 2008 at 9:33 am
1. Why do all the shootings seem to be at schools and such, where guns are prohibited – and not at guns shows where the damn things are all over the place?
2. Are you aware that the courts have determined that the police do not hold a responsibility to protect an individual from harm?
Bill B • Oct 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Drugs (cocaine, heroin, crack etc) have been made illegal- That sure has solved the drug problem in this country, hasn’t it?
You need to get out from behind the walls of college and spend some time in the real world.
John N • Oct 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Societal Cost of guns? What about the societal cost of not having guns? Have not seen anyone take a crack at these numbers so here are the assumptions to be used.
• FBI Violent Crime Data from 1960 to2007
• Cook & Ludwig’s cost statements from 2000 for total cost of gun injuries and indirect cost per gun injury at $100 Billion per year.
• CDC Data on severe injury and injury by gun from 1992 -1998 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ivc98.pdf
Note: included unreported data so adjusted by ratio compared to 1995 FBI data of actual violent crimes reported, data in CDC report was averaged over 7 years.
• Adjusted Dr. Gary Kleck’s 2.5 million uses of a gun in self defense by the ratios of population variance for each year (e.g. 1960 =1,675,060 self defense and 1997 = 2,500,000 self defense)
•Assumed that additional Violent crimes rates would mirror those reported
•Used each years Violent crime rate as base value and severe/gun injury numbers to calculate # of severe injury and gun injury that would occur from 2.5 million additional violent crimes if guns were not allowed for self defense.
What I see is a total from 1960-2007 of severe injuries from violent crimes at approximately 7,394,586 and of these severe injury by gun at approximately 573,303.
If guns were not allowed, the additional 2.5 million self-defense would become reported violent crimes using a gun would result in an additional 13,976,451 severe injuries of which 1,083,596 would be by guns.
If one does a simple comparison, this is 70% more injuries on the average that would occur each year. Using the Cooks sum total of $100 Billion times 170% = an additional $170 Billion dollars per year.
So to all the gun control people, this is what the cost of not having guns would be on a yearly basis. See how that works, a side by side comparison using your experts $ amounts as a base variable, then using the data and sound assumptions above, calculated the numbers using a study that has not been dis-proven by any factual rebuttal since it was published prior to 1997 on the number of self defense uses of a gun on a yearly basis.
Care to prove me wrong, have at it otherwise you must admit there is a cost to not having a gun for self-defense. Care to convince people to write that $170 Billion a year check in year 2000 dollars which would be $204 billion in 2007 Dollars?
Jack Burton • Oct 20, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Answers for those who think that “‘gun control” is the best for America
http://hubpages.com/hub/Answers-for-those-who-think-that-gun-control-is-the-best-for-America
Ride Fast • Oct 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm
A .50 caliber machine gun by the front door. Perfectly legal in many states.
Anti-personnel landmines embedded in the lawn. Those are guns, you’re silly.
Rocket-propÃ¥elled grenades on the fence posts. Again, those aren’t guns but I can have rockets and I can make grenades.
An AH-64 Apache helicopter hovering over the roof? Sure, your not afraid of helicopters, are you?
If criminals are the problem why are you advocating disarming law abiding citizens?
fsilber • Oct 20, 2008 at 9:44 am
If you want to balance need and rights against social cost, a good rule of thumb is to allow private citizens any kind of weapon that the government is permitted to use for domestic law enforcement. That would rule out terrible weapons of mass destruction, but would include any weapon that can legitimately be used in defense from violent criminals. It is also consistent with the ideal of equality under the law (rather than a more medieval knights versus serfs) — with police viewed as servants of the people rather than servants of the people’s masters.
David • Oct 20, 2008 at 8:41 am
If handguns have no lawful use, as the author argues, does that mean that the police should not have handguns too?
MIcheal • Oct 20, 2008 at 7:33 am
It is just shows the sad state of our high education system. For I, who’s highest level of education was government high-school, has a better understanding of the Constitution that you.
The 2nd Amendment proscribes that I, given by my Creator has the Right to carry and own weapons(arms). That this right “shall not be infringed”, meaning it shall not be diluted by laws,limited by laws, or restricted by laws.
All of which has been done on the local,state, and federal levels. Where it be California’s ban on assault weapons, or Wisconsin’s ban on carrying firearms. These are all un-Constitutional infringements.
Fred Potter • Oct 20, 2008 at 6:12 am
Others have discussed this quite nicely – addressing the true societal benefits.
1. The framers of the Constitution intended that “arms” (as noted in the Second Amendment) were to be those in common personal use in the military at the time – read the Federalist Papers (and other historical documents) to see the background. It’s typical of the gun-grabbers (or those wanting “common-sense” gun control) to preach about nuclear weapons, snipers using .50 cal BMG rifles, etc… etc… However, you need to look at the facts.
2. Nearly ALL law enforcement officers are in FAVOR of armed citizens – as opposed to disarming them (by law). I’d rather know that most people are legally armed than NOT know who the criminal is. About the only LE officers that ARE in favor of more gun control are chiefs of agencies who are beholden to their employers – city councils, etc.. They MUST toe the line in order to stay employed. Unfortunately, those chiefs “represent” the department, so it gives the illusion of the entire department favoring more control. When guns are banned – who will continue to have guns? Drugs are banned – yet look who has the drugs. When Prohibition took place in the 20th century, who had alcohol?
Lastly – the “societal” or utilitarian calculus addressed in the article is nothing more than the Brady Campaign’s comments repackaged. Remember that math is the only exact science – using that as justification to support an agenda without supporting documentation underscores the writers’ lack of factual knowledge.
I’d highly recommend looking at the FACTS as produced by the independent agencies – those with NO ax to grind….
Fred Potter
California law enforcement officer for 19 years (and with a pretty substantial background in math and statistics).
Richard • Oct 20, 2008 at 5:05 am
Using this kind of ‘logic’, automobiles should be OUTLAWED as too dangerous for us regular people to drive. They should be restricted to the Police, the Military, Politicians and Emergency Responders only. Especially considering that there are NO Amendments in our Constitution calling for We, The People to be able to drive, anywhere.
wayne french • Oct 19, 2008 at 6:26 am
I was so steamed after reading this, that I went to the comment section to write a rebuttal. But others seem to have covered all the relevant points rather nicely. I’d reiterate Gregory’s suggestion, though: As college writers, you should feel obligated to do research, not just enumerate your (liberal) opinions.
fsilber • Oct 18, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“Why can’t the law-abiding citizen suffice with a shotgun or a rifle for home protection?”
Because a long-gun is too unwieldy when going from room to room. Because it’s too heavy to hold on a criminal as you call the police. Because it gives the criminal too much leverage for snatching it away. Because it doesn’t have the drop safeties that prevent quality handguns from firing if dropped. Because when the doorbell rings at 1am and you have no idea who it is, and it could be a home invader and it could be a cop on the beat — you neither want to answer the door unarmed nor do you want to be holding an obvious weapon in plain sight.
“Does private protection require an easily concealable, highly portable, multiple round-discharging firearm?” Yes, that’s why cops carry them. If we didn’t need guns like that, we’d have no reason to pay cops to carry them. We’re not always in our homes when robbers confront us, nor are cops always around to do the killing for us.
“The handgun is America’s weapon of mass destruction and a serious threat to public safety.” So are heroin and cocaine. How do you plan on keeping heroin and cocaine out of the reach of dangerous criminals? As with heroin and cocaine, gang members are going to have guns one way or another — even if they have to assassinate cops to get them. Besides, our right not to be robbed is more important than the lives of gang members and their close relatives.
Snowflake • Oct 18, 2008 at 10:20 am
First, it is a Bill of Rights, not a bill of social calculus or a bill of needs. Each of the articles of the Bill of Rights establishes limits on government authority. The intention of these amendments was to protect rights that pre-existed the current central government.
The proscription in the Second Amendment is the strongest of all the articles. “Shall not be infringed” is a much stronger restriction than “Congress shall make no law” or “No person shall be held to answer”.
It is clear from the other writings of those who crafted the Second Amendment that they intended for the real power of deadly force to be with “the people” and not with the government or the states.
Ben Miner • Oct 18, 2008 at 9:35 am
So banning handguns would mean they wouldn’t be available to criminals? Since when has that EVER worked with ANY banned object?
Jay Brassine • Oct 18, 2008 at 8:47 am
If fully automatic weapons were still available without license we would see THEM as the #1 gun used by criminals. If we outlawed handguns and only allowed shotguns and rifles as the author suggests, we would see THEM used in crime.
The moral being that criminals will always use the most deadly weapon available to them. Ban all guns and they will be roaming the streets, or riding busses, with knives.
The second lesson is to answer the question: at what point do weapons become equalizers? At what point do they put an old lady on equal ground with a thug? I belive the answer to this question is at the level we see most popular: Guns.
Now if we have the right to protect ourselves in our home why should that right end at the doorstep?
Can someone please answer that for me?
Marty • Oct 18, 2008 at 8:18 am
Stephan and Leor, now I understand!!
‘Social Calculus’ is a method of doing a ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis’ without considering ‘Benefits’.
It’s no wonder that your results are so far removed from Reality…
Doug Huffman • Oct 18, 2008 at 4:00 am
HO Ho ho. Stupid enough to be a gun grabber but so smart as to do ‘calculus’. Try applying an established risk calculus to defensive weapons use. For y’all innumerate, it’s in More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA osculate my fundament.
Matt • Oct 17, 2008 at 4:12 pm
This opinion has many fallacies. First the limit of the second amendment is more a kin to the limit of the first amendment; which are things that would reasonably cause harm to others. The social cost does not and should not play any part in the limits of peoples rights.
Also a privet citizen can protect his house with a 50 caliber machine gun and what ever else they want but most people would not think of the cost of such armaments to be worth while for such a task.
Your lack of restraint and judgment when proposing taking peoples liberties disturbs me.
Gregory Morris • Oct 17, 2008 at 3:37 pm
“Yet, statistics show that the real “function†of handguns is overwhelmingly crime and violence.”
Unfortunately you are wrong on that point. The fact that you offer no actual statistics to back the statement up proves that you are working on an assumption. In this case, that assumption is false. The VAST majority of handguns owned in the United States are never used in any crime. On the other hand, studies actually have shown that handguns have been used to prevent MORE violent crimes than they have been used to perpetrate it.
In addition, your suggestion that a rifle is a sufficient firearm for home protection belies your lack of knowledge on the subject. Rifle rounds are so powerful, they will go through multiple walls. In a densely populated urban area, a handgun loaded with controlled-expansion or frangible rounds will stop an assailant, without passing through walls and potentially harming innocents.
You continue to suggest that since Congress deemed so-called “assault weapons” as dangerous, it is morally right to outlaw them. This is a poor argument, given the fact that the “assault weapons” ban actually failed to have any affect on either crime or on what types of weapons were sold. The fact is, Congress titled weapons with certain cosmetic features “assault weapons”. The ban was a feel-good measure that did nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.
Please, do some actual research before making statements about which of our rights are OK for the government to regulate into oblivion.
karlthomas • Oct 17, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Quite true….do not shape this country at a whim with your proposed brilliance by questioning the foresight of our forefathers and the concrete document they laid out for America. If you choose to disagree with the document(a document with only one rendition of the 2nd amendment, as only one document exists, though you give several variations for some reason)then I suggest either dealing with the document, leaving the country, or revolting to get it changed. Though I warn against the latter, as you will not have a handgun to revolt and us firearm owners are likely to stand our ground for the constitution.
DDS -- NRA Life Member • Oct 17, 2008 at 1:07 pm
An old argument rephrased. The writers would have you to believe that there is no positive social use for handgun ownership other than killing criminals and that the sole measure of positive utilization is a dead burglar lying in someone’s bedroom. In fact there is a large body of evidence that many crimes are prevented by handgun owners without ever firing a shot, and more prevented by criminals avoiding certain classed of crime because of the perception that target just might be armed.
In addition many handguns are used for hunting and target shooting. But the writers evidently would suggest that those sports do not justify the dangers of allowing such dangerous weapons in civilian hands, and would prefer to live in a society where government allows civilians to own only those things that others feel they need. I would encourage the writers to find such a society and move there.