Gun Control — Progressive Left vs. Conservative

Understanding the Two Sides and Where to go from Here

Gun control is a heated topic in American politics, there are many sides and points of view that are included in the political sphere today. This essay will be focusing on the Progressive, more left-wing view of guns and gun control, and the right-leaning Conservative take, which acts usually as an opposition or counter to what progressive policy advocates are pushing for. A quick survey on the view of gun control in America, according to Politico, shows two in three Americans, roughly 68 percent are in favor of stricter gun laws.[1] This does not come as a shock, this heated topic of course has areas of improvement to be made, but with polls like this being so ambiguous, it does not usually lead to policy ramifications because when brought into more specifics on the types of restrictions being proposed, more Americans become skeptical. The best way to come at this issue in the political sphere is from a bipartisan standpoint, where demonization (which is especially prevalent on both sides of the argument) can be left out and real policy corrections can be made. To do this, one must have at least an idea of where each side is coming from, or at least a better understanding of the other side’s viewpoint. When boiling down these two differing sides, the biggest disagreement is one that stems to multiple areas of disagreement between these two realms of political thought, whether or not government legislature will be the best fix to the issue. Progressives tend to think yes, while conservatives are more skeptical.

When looking at gun control from a progressive stand point, they are looking at the stats around guns in America that are not looking the best. On average, Americans are ten times more likely to die from gun violence than citizens from other developed countries.[2] Over 15,000 people (excluding most suicides) died from gun violence in 2017, according to the Gun Violence Archive (GVA).[3] American gun murder rates are 25 times higher than other developed countries. From this perspective, knowing these statistics, it seems almost mandatory for major reforms for the treatment of guns in the country, this is where some progressive opinions begin to diverge into different forms of policy ramifications. The best way to see the progressive view, is to investigate the movements they have started in the name of progressive government policy they would like to see.

Recently, after a shooting that left 17 high school students dead a Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a progressive movement aimed at getting new laws passed to keep children safe in schools from gun violence was created by some of the students from the Parkland Highschool. They put together an event they called “March for our Lives”. This movement had 5 tenants of government policy they would like to see pursued. They involved: “Universal, comprehensive back ground checks, bringing the ATF into the 21st century with a digitized searchable database (a better gun registry for those who own firearms), funds for the Center for Disease Control to research the gun violence epidemic in America, high-capacity magazine ban, and assault weapons ban.[4] These proposals represent a large portion of progressive opinions around gun control in America today, and all of these stem from looking at gun control policy in other countries in the world and attempting to bring what success they bring in their countries into America.

The New York Times has an article called: “How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths? Experts Rank Gun Laws”, the article takes the opinions of the American population gathered through polls, and weighs the different policies with gun violence researchers and from this, gather the data that shows what policies are popular in America, and which ones are most effective.[5] The first policy proposed by March For Our Lives, comprehensive background checks, is one that has solid support from the American population, and is recommended by gun violence researchers for being effective in reducing gun violence, 89% of Americans polled were in favor of better, more comprehensive background checks. This expanding of background checks could also expand to include barring sales to anyone convicted of a violent crime or those deemed mentally unfit to own firearms, which also have broad support from the American public. The second policy proposed, bringing the ATF into the 21st century with a digitized searchable database, is a policy that is welcomed from most progressives and a broad swath of the public that was polled, but finds much resentment and skepticism from conservatives and advocates of the second amendment. The effectiveness of this policy is ranked lower than comprehensive background checks but is ranked high enough to still prove useful if enacted. California, which is known for its strict gun control policies, is one of the only states that requires all firearm purchases to be registered into a database. This policy is one that is common in most other developed countries, The United Kingdoms, Australia, Japan, and Germany, all have laws requiring guns registered into a database when purchased.[6] This is compared to the United States, where a majority of firearms that are purchased are not registered into system, this can be treacherous because it allows for the selling between two parties that doesn’t involve any sort of comprehensive background check, and without a proper database to keep track of where guns are in American it allows for criminals to have an easier time in obtaining firearms.

The third policy, funds for the Center for Disease Control to research the gun violence epidemic in America, is aimed more specifically at the NRA (National Rifle Association) and their involvement in gun research prevention through the 1996 “Dickey Amendment”. In recent years, the number of gun issues that are researched has dropped considerably, from 1993 to 1999 32 gun-related studies were conducted, but from 2009 to 2012, zero were conducted.[7] This stems from the passing of the Dickey Amendment in the 1996 omnibus bill that was put forth as a compromise between the opposing views on gun control. It mandated: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”[8] The bill was lobbied for by the NRA, and eventually led to the CDC’s budget for this type of research to be cut by 2.5 million dollars. The NRA claimed that the CDC through its research, was advocating for gun control. This was met with blowback and the Dickey Amendment was passed and has been passed in every omnibus bill since. The fourth policy advocated for by March For Our Lives, high-capacity magazine ban, is already in place in nine U.S. states and Washington D.C.[9] It has favorability with 62 percent of Americans polled, and is ranked high among gun researchers as an effective way for deterring mass shooting.[10] A common aspect of mass shootings in America is they occur with the use of these high-capacity magazines, the ability to fire a large amount of bullets without the need for reloading makes it harder for people to flee to safety, and gives less time for law enforcement to react and attempt to subdue the shooter. Recent examples of mass shootings with these magazines involved are the Aurora movie theatre shooting, where 12 people were killed and over seventy were injured, the Las Vegas concert shooting which ended with 58 people dead and over 800 injured, and the Orlando night club shooting where 49 people were killed and 58 were injured. Though the advocates of this policy issue are skeptical it will stop mass shootings, as we have seen many occur without the use of these magazines or high-powered rifles, they view it as a possible deterrent of potential mass shooters and a way to potentially lessen the amount of damage they do.[11] This policy also plays directly into the fifth policy that March For Our Lives advocates for, assault weapons ban. This is potentially the most heated area of debate among progressives and conservatives, mainly from the vocabulary used. “assault weapon” does not have a set definition, some say this includes all semi-automatic rifles, while others claim it is all semi-automatic weapons in general and this uncertainty makes some people skeptical and worried about potential over reach from government policy. Gun researchers view this as one of the most effective ways of preventing mass shooting, the public support is around 67% of those polled by New York Times.[12] Assault weapons are one of the most common components of mass shootings, all of the shooting mentioned above, Aurora, Las Vegas, and Orlando, all were done with an “assault weapon” most commonly being the AR-15 which is a very moldable gun and has the capacity to be modified much easier than most other rifles. The Las Vegas shooting for example, an AR-15 was used and was accompanied with a bump-stock, which allows the shooter to more easily harness a technique involving using the recoil of the weapon when fired to pull the trigger and allows the user to fire the weapon at a faster rate.

Some of these proposals have been made laws in multiple states and have stayed in place, but some were enacted only to be knocked down by the supreme court for infringing on the second amendment. The interpretation of the second amendment has been treacherous since the founding of the country and when it started developing. The most recent case was DC vs. Heller in 2008. The District of Columbia instituted a law that banned handgun possession, made it a crime to own an unregistered gun, and anyone in possession of a handgun was required to keep it unloaded and disassembled. This law was fought by a police officer from the area who filed to get a registered gun for his home and was denied, the law was eventually struck down as being a violation of the second amendment. This court case also made clear that the second amendment was not unlimited, coming from the phrase in the second amendments writings: “A well-regulated militia” and concluded that though the ban on handguns violated the amendment, there are restrictions and regulations that can be put into law that would not be in violation. The two opposing view points on this issue are well represented in this case, progressives tend to refer to the case as a precondition for allowing restrictions, while conservatives point to the case to show the limits of the regulations that can be introduced, and the line being drawn at outright bans of types of weapons.

The types of laws that progressives support vary around this subject, where some view the need for a gun to defend themselves and their families as important, major restrictions should be put in place limiting the easy access that seems to be rampant in America today, especially when compared to other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom. But there are others progressive opinions, most of which I would argue are more on the fringes of progressive ideology, see the entire concept of the second amendment as “outdated” and even barbaric. They interpret the wording of the second amendment to be specifically related to regulated militias being the early American version of a substitute to a standing army. With this you seem some calls to repeal the second amendment entirely, the New York Times recently had an opinion piece calling for exactly this. Written by former supreme court justice John Paul Stevens, he argues that gun control did not face much opposition until recent years and the decision in DC vs. Heller was wrong, him being one of the justices in dissent on the case.[13] Repealing the second amendment would be nearly impossible to implement due to the steps needed to repeal an amendment from the Constitution being incredibly stringent, requiring the passing of another amendment to end the amendment in question. This would require two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as three-fourths of the states needing to ratify it to fully make the amendment. The chances of 38 states, 66 senate members, and 290 House members voting for an amendment to get rid of the second amendment would be incredibly small, public opinion does not reflect wanting this radical switch to our founding document. Only about 20% of Americans today according to polls are in favor or a full repeal of the second amendment.[14] The advocation for this would only prove to further polarize the public debates that go into gun control because the majority of American conservatives would never be in support of it and would only confirm their fear of the progressives wanting to “take their guns away”.

As mentioned before, the conservative views on gun control are mainly counter points to the progressive claims that government policy would be a good diminisher of overall gun violence, but their beliefs are also based in wanting to preserve the intentions that they see the founding fathers of having when drafting the amendment and the constitution, as well as more communal fixes to the gun control debate. Most conservative commentaries involving gun control are usually in response to progressive proposals. Conservatives are among the first to point out the fallacy at hand when comparing gun laws in other countries and trying to replicate the same results here in the United States, where the culture around guns has been more around preserving the right to own guns, where as most other countries are involved with limiting access entirely. The National Review, which is a big proponent of conservative ideas has an article written to counter the notion of adopting laws similar to Australia’s 1996 mandatory gun buy back, which was proposed by former president Barack Obama in 2013. The Australian legislature was made just 12 days after a mass shooting in Port Arthur, the measures were a mandatory gun buyback which brought in about 650,000 guns (one-sixth of guns in circulation in the country) from the public. It also required citizens to have to demonstrate a need for a gun before being able to obtain one. The main claim made from progressive circles is that the gun buyback in Australia was effective in reducing gun deaths and it could work here in the U.S., the author of this article, Mark Antonio Wright, aims to disprove this notion. He cites multiple investigations that came with the conclusion that the gun buy back has no substantial proof of having any effect on gun related violence in Australia.[15] The rate of gun deaths in Australia had already been in decline before the passing of the buyback program, he quotes a 2007 study into the effects the legislature had: “Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.” Wright then tries to hypothetically replicate the policy in American political terms. America has far more guns in it than most other nations in the world totally at around 310 million, a buyback that achieved the same numbers as the Australia one did would require the buying back of over 105 million guns. Wright ends the article with this: “There is no other way around it: The mandatory confiscation of the American citizenry’s guns would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand of millions of Americans that they surrender their guns.”[16] This being a key point he tries to make clear and most conservatives do when debating over this policy issue, the buyback in Australia was mandatory, meaning all citizens where suppose to turn over the firearms they all owned that were now deemed illegal by the state, boiling this down would mean forcing millions of Americans “at gun point” to turn over their weapons. This article is a good demonstration of the skepticism that most conservatives share about government and the infringement on our rights through government tyranny.

Conservatives look to the founding fathers and not just their writing in the constitution, but also their writings in other supporting documents likes “The Federalist Papers” as a way of interpreting the need and intent of the second amendment. The basis in their belief that the right to bear arms is for if the government becomes tyrannical and begins to infringe on the natural rights of its citizens. This belief stems from the founding fathers and their close following the philosophy of John Locke when drafting the constitution. Locke wrote about the importance of natural “inalienable” rights that each human being was given by God when we are created, and how these rights need to be enshrined. Locke also talked about the importance of self-preservation, Andrew Costly with The Constitutional Rights Foundation sums up this belief well: “Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives”.[17] It is this line of thinking that most conservatives align themselves with and shows how much they value individualism when trying to decide policy ramifications for areas like gun control. You see this reflected in the policies they propose, David French, a veteran and constitutional law attorney who writes for National Review writes an article demonstrating this. The article: “A Gun-Control Measure Conservatives Should Consider”, lays out a plan that he refers to as a “gun-violence restraining order (GVRO)”.[18] The plan would allow for family members or close, verified people in a person’s life, to bring evidence to a court that shows that a person is a potential danger to themselves and others, and if verified by the court, and after the person has contested the claims, it calls for the temporary removal of weapons from the person in question. The focus on GVRO is based in due process and on the individual and aims to not punish law-abiding Americans for the acts of certain individuals, but also lays out a plan to help prevent potential shooters from having access to guns. Most conservatives value the right to own arms and self-defense as much as they value the need for freedom of expression, this is what causes skepticism when broad-ranging, gun control policies are proposed, it also stems from their skepticism of the effectiveness of government. As French demonstrates, a common conservative way of approaching gun control is ensuring rights and due process and placing the burden on the communities we live in, and on individuals. In another article he writes, French makes the claim that new gun control policies will not stop mass shootings, but the individuals and community can.[19] The common theme in French’s articles is that mass shooters exhibit signs that show they are a potential danger to themselves or others. Most mass shootings also show signs of being premeditated with their plans to commit shootings and most of the time are on government radars but pass through anyway. The shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was wearing a gas mask, had a backpack filled with smoke grenades, and even had a plan of action where he pulling the fire alarm so kids would pour out into the hallways, making them easy targets and then after he was done with his shooting, he brought a change of clothes and escaped under the guise of a frantic student trying to escape a mass murderer. Omar Mateen, who committed the mass shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida had been investigated by the FBI twice before this shooting and he even made claims to be in line with terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Most mass shooters show signs that they are a potential danger yet are missed by our governmental agencies and French points to individuals as the solution, “We’re still the first line of defense in our own communities”.[20] French advocates for the “see something, say something” policy where suspicious behavior should be reported to the authorities so that they have a better chance of preventing these shootings from occurring.

When looking at the policies proposed by the March For Our Lives organization, conservatives are quick to point out that most of what they propose is aimed towards ending mass shootings but forgets about how little mass shootings contribute to the total number of gun deaths in America, the vast majority of which are committed by handguns, not rifles.[21] There is a video of conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro, arguing with Piers Morgan, a British journalist about gun control on Pier’s show at the time on CNN, this interview taking place shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting. Ben Shapiro makes this exact point, he says: “All I’m asking you is for you to be philosophically consistent. If what you’re worried about is the removal of killing machines, from the hands of deranged young people, then maybe we should talk about a blanket gun ban, and let’s get to what the left really wants here. And you know, you say that you’re for the Second Amendment… I think the reason that it’s about left and right here is because fundamentally, the right believes that the basis for the Second Amendment, and they believe in the Second Amendment. The basis for the Second Amendment is not really about self-defense and it’s not about hunting. It is about resistance to government tyranny. That’s what the founder said and that’s what the right believes in this country. I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising in this country in the next 50 to 100 years. Let me tell you something, Piers. The fact that my grandparents and great grandparents in Europe didn’t fear that is why they’re now ashes in Europe. So this kind of leftist revisionist history where there’s never any fear of democracy going usurpatious or tyrannical is just that. It’s fictitious”[22] Ben illustrates the perfect model of where most conservatives align themselves regarding the second amendment.

The key difference between conservatives and progressives on the issue of gun control is where they put the focus and blame with gun violence. Progressives tend to focus on the accessibility to firearms and restricting or regulating this through government action to keep guns out of the hands of bad and potentially dangerous people, as you see with the calls for high-capacity magazine bans, and assault weapons bans. Whereas conservatives tend to focus on the individual as part of the community and how to stop shootings from happening by keeping mentality unfit people from getting access to guns, while also trying to ensure the rights of others are not quashed in doing this, as you see through the advocation of “see something, say something.”, and the GVRO proposed by David French. There is solid amount of common ground between these two positions, and this is where you see good policy ramifications come from. Where the problem lies in passing gun control policy is the conservatives fear of overreaching government and the fear of the left “coming for their guns”, and the progressive view that not supporting their policies makes them think that conservatives are in favor of mass shootings, just as long as they get to keep their guns. Gun control will always be a heated topic in the United States, more than any other country, because of the enshrinement of the “right to bear arms” in our constitution. This means that best way to find solutions will be in finding common ground between these two sides and more attempts to not demonize opposition, which only serves to further polarize people on an already polarizing public policy issue.

[1] Shepard, Steven, Elana Schor, Corey Brettschneider, Jack Shafer, Jennifer Palmieri, and Gil Troy. “Gun Control Support Surges in Polls.” (POLITICO.) February 28, 2018. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099.

[2] Preidt, Robert. “How U.S. Gun Deaths Compare to Other Countries.” (CBS News). February 03, 2016 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/.

[3] “Gun Deaths Increased in 2017, Gun Violence Archive Data Show.” The Trace. https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-deaths-increase-2017/.

[4] “Our Mission to End School Shootings | March For Our Lives — March 24, 2018.” (March For Our Lives). https://marchforourlives.com/mission-statement/.

[5] Sanger-katz, Margot, and Quoctrung Bui. “How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths? Experts Rank Gun Laws.” (The New York Times). October 05, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html.

[6] Fisher, Max. “A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths.” (The Atlantic). July 23, 2012. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/.

[7] Raphelson, Samantha. “How The NRA Worked To Stifle Gun Violence Research.” (NPR). April 05, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research.

[8] “Dickey Amendment.” (Wikipedia). April 12, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment.

[9] “High-capacity Magazine Ban.” Wikipedia. April 17, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban.

[10] Sanger-katz, Margot, and Quoctrung Bui. “How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths? Experts Rank Gun Laws”. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html.

[11] “Mass Shootings Data Shows Need for Federal Ban on High-Capacity Magazines.” (U.S. News & World Report). https://www.usnews.com/opinion/civil-wars/articles/2017-11-30/mass-shootings-data-shows-need-for-federal-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines.

[12] Sanger-katz, Margot, and Quoctrung Bui. “How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths? Experts Rank Gun Laws.” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html.

[13] Stevens, John Paul. “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment.” (The New York Times). March 27, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html.

[14] Ingraham, Christopher. “Analysis | One in Five Americans Wants the Second Amendment to Be Repealed, National Survey Finds.” (The Washington Post). March 27, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.a5d974a15e02.

[15] Wright, Mark Antonio. “Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work — And It Wouldn’t Work in America.” (National Review). October 13, 2016. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america.

[16] Wright, Mark Antonio. “Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work — And It Wouldn’t Work in America.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america/.

[17] Costly, Andrew. “The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights.” (Natural Rights — Constitutional Rights Foundation). http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html.

[18] French, David. “A Gun-Control Measure Conservatives Should Consider.” (National Review). February 19, 2018. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/.

[19] French, David. “New Gun Policies Won’t Stop Mass Shootings, but People Can.” (National Review). February 21, 2018. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/new-gun-policies-wont-stop-mass-shootings-but-people-can/.

[20] French, David. “New Gun Policies Won’t Stop Mass Shootings, but People Can.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/new-gun-policies-wont-stop-mass-shootings-but-people-can/.

[21] “FACT CHECK: Are Most Gun Crimes Committed With Handguns? |.” (Daily Caller News Foundation). http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2018/02/20/fact-check-are-most-gun-crimes-committed-with-handguns/.

[22] (CNN). http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/10/pmt.01.html.