Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Right to bear arms
Section G. Crime and punishment

The continued and rising death toll from gun crime in the USA often makes it seem baffling that that country has stuck so closely to the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment to its Constitution, but there is still strong public support for it. The most high-profile incidents tend to occur in schools and universities (Columbine High,Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook), but gun crime clearly in fact kills far more people as a result of gang violence and other more run-of-the-mill crime. This debate requires the Proposition team to take a strong, principled stance on self-defence, but even so, they cannot ignore practical consequences.

Pros

[1] Ownership of guns must be allowed because it is necessary to vindicate the basic human right to self-defence. We acknowledge that the state cannot be everywhere at all times for us, and in those instances, we need the ability to defend ourselves. Given that criminals will always have guns, individual citizens must be able to protect themselves against them in a similarly effective manner.

[2] Tragedies involving the use of handguns by criminals and by psychopaths and other unbalanced individuals will always occur. Such people will not be deterred by legislation any more than they are by reason, humanity or conscience. The incidence of such tragedies will not be affected by banning handguns.

[3] Ownership of guns actually reduces aggregate crime, because it makes criminals less willing to start criminal activities because of the fear of armed retaliation. Finland, Israel and Switzerland all have very low rates of crime and allow people to own guns and carry them in public; if they see an attack beginning, they are able to intervene and end it instantaneously.

Cons

[1] Self-defence is, of course, important, but handguns are not the answer. When an assailant or intruder is armed with a gun, pulling a gun oneself is merely dangerous and inflammatory, greatly increasing the chance that one or both parties will be injured or killed. Allowing the ownership of handguns (rather than teaching unarmed forms of self-defence) will engender a mentality of vigilantism, encouraged further by rhetoric about ’criminals getting the upper hand’. It is the job of the police, not of private citizens, to be armed and capable of tackling armed criminals.

[2] Tragedies such as the massacre at Sandy Hook in November 2012 are the indirect result of the ownership of handguns. The Columbine High School shooter (2004) had been able to own guns in advance of his shooting and practise his actions; if that had not been allowed, he would not have been able to use a gun and the tragedy would most likely not have occurred. Banning handguns would not eliminate such tragedies altogether, but would significantly reduce their incidence. There would simply be fewer guns in circulation and fewer people capable of using them.

[3] The correlation between gun ownership and higher death rates is not a perfect one; there are some outliers, like the countries mentioned by the Proposition team, but all of them have compulsory national service, and so anyone using a gun is trained. By contrast, in the USA, where the users of guns are untrained, they are highly dangerous; they may misfire, or not be able to defend themselves in time to prevent their attacker also opening fire. Overall, citizen gun ownership creates an ’arms race’ with criminals, making them more likely to use offensive weapons in their crimes.

Possible motions

This House believes that the right to bear arms is dependent on the existence of a ’well- regulated militia’.

This House would legalise handguns.

Related topics

Police, arming of the