Why not American gun?

 

Wang Jianxun (Associate Professor of China University of Political Science and Law)

 

(Note: the "Oriental Morning Post" published in2012Years7Month27Daily, published entitled "gun frequently the case, why couldn't American individual gun", and a slightly abridged. Here is the full text.)

 

 

The Aurora shootings shocked American, shocked the world. A lot of people in the condemned murderer at the same time, also ask a repeatedly mentioned problems: why not USA gun? The harm is so obvious, why so many Americans oppose gun?

Some people say, they are poikilotherm, turned a blind eye to the continuous shooting. Also someone says, they are the arms group bought, only for personal gain to a. Some people said, they are full of partisan, succumbing to his ideology. However, is this really the case? They stubbornly oppose gun is this?

In fact, a lot of gun is not lack of compassion, not received arms dealer Penny benefits, even Republican supporters. They opposed the gun is out of love for the rights and freedoms, weigh the advantages and disadvantages of gain and loss is the result of. In their view, holding the gun is one of the basic human rights should not be deprived, by the fundamental law -- the Constitution -- protection, the government has no right to forbid. Otherwise, the founding fathers would write the second amendment -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association in the first amendment?

In the opinion of the eighteenth Century ancestors, gun rights for self defense and resist tyranny crucial. Therefore, the "father of the constitution" Madison put it into the "bill of rights" second. After more than a century of history, America people and not too many objections to the gun rights, even think that it is a self-evident problems. However, in the second half of the twentieth Century, along with the media and the shooting of the exposure, some people doubt and shake on gun rights, even launched a gun's call, leading to intense debate between the two factions.

Coincidentally, and expression of second language of the amendment is to this debate foreshadows. It said: "the militia bundle goodness necessary to free are to safeguard state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms inviolate." The two sides around the meaning and interpretation of the debate, which is reflected in the two important decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years made in. In an "almost all political issues into judicial problems"
(Tocqueville.) in the country, this seems to be the logical thing.

In the2008Years of "Heller case", the core of the justices argued that, whether the second amendment gives individual gun rights, and the rights, whether related to join the militia. Supporters say, it gives the person and the right to bear arms, and, this right and citizen is to join the militia organizations, individuals have the right to hold and carry a gun self-defense reasons. But opponents claim, the second amendment is only gives people holding and carrying guns before joining the militia of the right -- the right of a collective, individual has no right to self-defense, gun. In general, the former view called "individual gun rights", the latter view called "collective gun rights". The decision is the result of individual gun rights, a victory, a gun that was found unconstitutional in Washington d.c.. This is the Federal Supreme Court200First clarify the meaning of the second amendment years history, the first confirmed for self-defense purposes have individual gun rights. It is considered a milepost type judgment.2010Years of "Macdonald case" the decision result applies to state, to prevent some states to ban guns efforts.

Although the justices will the gun rights substantive differences in certain extent into the technical analysis, but the analysis behind their values and political judgment. In the view of Pro gun, gun rights is the individual right of self-defense extension or derivatives, and the right of self-defense is one of the oldest natural rights. In order to achieve the purpose of self preservation, to allow individuals to hold weapons is necessary, otherwise it is difficult to fight against the offender or the tyrant, especially in the other armed case. In the Anglo American Law "Castle" principle -- home a person is he (she) castle, which allows citizens against violations of violence in their home, including the use of deadly weapons.

Historically, the right to bear arms goes back at least to the middle ages, some city charter was confirmed the citizens the right to bear arms. Just imagine, if the nobles of England cannot hold and carry weapons, how they forced king John signed the "Great Charter"? In fact, in the early English history, possession of weapons is not a right, but an obligation. Possession of weapons requirements is not only to protect themselves, family and community, but also to help maintain order and peace in the kingdom. Later, it gradually evolved into a kind of right, and be written1689The "bill of rights". This right is highly appreciated by the common law giant Blackstone. He thinks, the people have the gun rights place, autocratic difficult to root. British historian and statesman Mccauley (Thomas Macaulay) even said, from the ultimate sense, the British security not expect "Great Charter", also do not expect the parliament, gun rights but rather on people.

The importance American founders knew this power, and use it to beat the British Empire, gained independence and freedom. Founding president Washington said, the importance of gun rights to the. Justice Storrie (Joseph Story) it is more representative: "citizens to hold and carry gun rights, it is a Republic of the guardians of our liberty, because it provides a powerful moral restraint mechanism, prevent the ruler usurped and abuse of power and abuse of power, even if these attempts at first to succeed, gun rights can also make people successful boycott and to overcome them."

Without a doubt, gun rights supporters of course know gun potential risk -- the killing of the innocent, but they think, the right value remains larger than without it, not because of the risk of gun rights will lead to the killing of innocent people is deprived of this right, as can't because the freedom of speech will lead to some people make impertinent remarks or slander lying is deprived of it. In order to reduce the security risk, to buying a gun background investigation, on the gun type and use regulations, even the purchase registration etc.. But with the comprehensive gun ban the practice is different, the latter directly to deprive the rights of the individual, equal to give up eating for fear of choking.

Perhaps some people will say that, even if the gun rights in18The importance of American century -- that is one with much land and few people and highly dependent on farming community in self-defense21Century, in the dense population and the security forces everywhere in the city society, its value has all gone; moreover, the face of modern government possession of nuclear weapons, and attempted to use the gun against the regime, it is indulge in the wildest fantasy.

This view looks quite reasonable, but can not withstand scrutiny. First of all, even in modern urban society, the importance of individual has not changed. Just imagine, if someone is late night encounter the burglary, he (she) how to protect the safety and life of yourself and your family? I'm afraid not alarm, bare-handed struggle may be fraught with grim possibilities, if he (she) have guns, are likely to deter or by our success. In many cases, gun let the parties and gangsters in the position be well-matched in strength, especially in the victim for women.

Secondly, resist and resist tyranny, gun rights can not be the same in today's neglected. Although modern governments have shells and even atomic bomb, but officials in law enforcement activities daily generally does not use these weapons, not carrying the atomic bomb to units or taxation, ordinary guns to deal with violent law enforcement. Even if the government would have to use weapons of mass destruction, if everyone has a gun, also can form a force to be reckoned with resistance forces, at least, they more easily than those barehanded people against tyranny. Some people think, today's USA unlikely metamorphoses into a monarchy, the gun rights lost target. In fact, this is a naive view, freedom is never put things right once and for all, defend freedom efforts must be continuous, never cease.

The most powerful reason to oppose gun rights is, it leads to more and more people died in the shooting, resulting in violent crime is more and more high rate of crime. Around this issue, both sides in the dispute of a large number of empirical studies, the results are not divided into upper and lower, who can't convince each other. One reason is that, most of their study is using the statistical method, the relationship between the two can be proved, the causal relationship between the two can not prove. For example, a social crime rate depends on many factors, except to exclude other factors, it is difficult to prove the gun rights leads to higher crime rate. In fact, have rate is very high in some countries such as Switzerland -- guns, there has no standing army, the crime rate is not high. For instance, American per capita guns have the world's highest rate -- close to90%, there are about two hundred and seventy million guns, almost everyone has a gun, but the mortality rate is lower than that of South Africa, Brazil, Mexico and other countries.

The shooting happened American let people make the mistake of thinking, only it and very few countries allow citizens to own a gun, actually otherwise, dozens or even hundreds of countries allow citizens armed, but each state control of guns is different. In some countries, such as Serbia, Finland, USA, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, access to guns is easy, while in France, Germany, Canada, Italy and other countries, buy a gun is difficult. Even in those limiting gun more stringent state, the general also allows citizens to hold certain types of firearms for hunting purposes. Contrary to popular belief, completely ban private gun not many countries.

The gun has a higher rate of American or Switzerland is not as people imagine so insecure, especially in small and medium-sized city wide. I have been living in gun control loose Indiana Bloomington for six years, but also to some big city travel, never seen people to carry or use a gun. In fact, a lot of gun owners have put it at home, to prepare for emergency defense purposes, isn't going to pull out a gun kill. In Switzerland, I saw young men armed with rifles on the train, but did not feel dangerous, passengers can keep cool. It was a gun has a high rate of society, but also a peaceful society.

In fact, terrible is not holding the gun, but the gunman could use it in reason, because killing "weapon" is not only a gun. No doubt, the gun is more powerful than a kitchen knife and so on, but the most lethal than any weapon, but the owner of the mental and psychological. If the gunman personality, mental health, he (she) will only use guns when necessary, and will not pose a threat to the security of society. Therefore, people should call not the gun ban, but pay attention to the spiritual and mental health of the crowd around them, and even the society as a whole health. This is perhaps the common lessons a year ago the Norway shootings and the Colorado shootings.

With the gun ban, as the cultivation of sound personality. The former is lazy politics, which is the road to freedom.