GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, IT’S PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE; ARGUING WITH EVIDENCE IN REAL WORLD

Profile of the author : Antish Rathore is a third year student of B.A. LL. B. (Hons.) from Alliance University, Bengaluru. Her areas of interest include Public Administration and International Law.

“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.”[1] Gun violence is a major threat to both the health and safety of people of any nation. In the United States the gun violence has always been a topic of debate, discussion and of question for almost every political debate. The apparent reason for that is the increase in the rate of deaths resulted from gun violence. The increase in numbers of guns on the street. It is not the only nation which allows its citizens to carry weapons. Such other nations are Australia, Switzerland, and New Zealand. This paper tries to do a study on gun violence in the USA since the Columbine High school shooting famously known as Columbine High School Massacre happened in 1999. Since then the only thing that seems to pass is time as all the other things remain constant. As there not much of a change happened in Gun control or Gun violence.

“It was the morning of April 20th, 1999, and it was pretty much like any other morning in America. The farmer did his chores, the milkman did his deliveries, the president bombed another country whose name we couldn’t pronounce…and out in a little town in Colorado, two boys went bowling at six in the morning. Yes, it was a typical day in the United States." 'It was a typical day in America’ the day when such an incident happened. Was the whole point of the documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ is to convince its viewers of how terrifying the large number of guns available nationwide in states are? Or was it all pointed towards the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.

It is not only in America that it is an issue open for discussion as gun violence disproportionately affects every community of color, women and different groups in any society. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution has both the collective and individual right aspects and is still open for interpretation in the Supreme Court of the nation.

Gun violence is on daily basis effect a lot of people’s life not only of victim or the accused but also their family, society, witness of such violence as it can leave a lot of after-effects on people psychologically, mentally, emotionally and this problem is spread all over the world not congested to one part of one nation. With firearms violence there are more than 500 people die every day.

Citizens can legally carry concealed guns in public space in every state of the country. However, there is a lack of nationwide uniformity in legal framework regarding the carrying of firearms in public, and to the extent in some of the states there are no laws at all. Twelve states allow people to carry concealed weapons in public without carrying any sort of license or permit and thirty states allow the open carrying of a handgun in public without any license or permit by any authority.

Mass shootings are where there are four or more victims killed in the shooting. In USA between 2009 and 2016[2]:

• 156 mass shootings
• with a total of 848 people killed and
• 339 injured

However such shootings have very profound psychological and emotional effect on from survivors, families as well as communities. These shootings have created such an environment which resulted in people feeling insecure in common public places whether it is cinema hall, concert venue, church or even schools.

The second amendment provides U.S citizens the Right to Bear Arms. Ratifies in December 1791, the amendment says-

“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”[3]

Proposed by James Madison the 2nd amendment not long after the Constitution was officially ratified, it was considered as a move to provide more power to the state militias of today's National Guard. It was considered as a compromise between Federalists, those who are in favor of giving the Constitution upper hand and Anti- Federalist as the name suggests were in favor of giving states more power.

This move was intended to give citizens of the nation to fight back against an oppressive federal government. The major problem later was with the interpretation as there are two sides one which interpret the amendment as a means to provide collective right, whereas the other side which put forth the argument that it provides individual rights.

According to those in favor, the collective rights thinks that amendment provides the state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection and relief against a tyrannical federal government. They extended their argument by stating that “well regulated militia” clauses clearly indicate the right to bear arms should only be provided to these organized groups. They also believed that legally only those who are in official militia can carry guns, and that the federal government cannot scrap these state militias.

On the other hand the opposite side favoring individual rights believes that this amendment is for every citizen the right to own firearms, apart from federal regulation, for their own protection in the wake of danger. They believed that ‘militia’s’ clause never meant to strip citizen’s right to bear arms.

Both of these arguments have lent hand in shaping the country’s ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

The term gun violence, however, can be misused and misrepresentative. People often think of events where one person intentionally shoots another without considering the other forms that gun violence may take. But About 60% of gun deaths are suicides, 37% are homicides, and the rest, *3%, are attributed to accidents or other circumstances[4]. An estimated 4.5 million women in the United States report having been threatened by an intimate partner with a firearm[5]. Most of the incidents involving gun violence are not even reported in the evening news, leaving the U.S’s people with a skewed understanding of what gun violence is and who is affected.

Guns don't kill people but people kill people. Gunshot injuries are often life-changing and have an indelible impact on the victims’ long-term mental and physical health. Some need permanent, lifelong care, and many others lose their ability to work, particularly in physically demanding jobs. There is although a little doubt, however, that the gun debate will continue to be hotly contested, despite the growing body of evidence in the subject literature, because the issue remains highly politicized one of the fact that will always add fuel to fire that how one tipi toe around this subject can help a person be in power or vice versa.

[1] The Second Amendment of the US Constitution

[2]

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/ accessed on 12 November 2020

[3] The Second Amendment of the US Constitution

[4] Gramlich J. (2019). What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. In: Pew Research Centre

[5] Sorenson SB, Schut RA. (2018). Nonfatal gun use in intimate partner violence: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma Violence Abuse. 19, 431–442

Disclaimer : This article is an original submission of the author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of the article. Kindly refer to our terms of use or write to us in case of concerns.