Many years ago, I was taught about the Bill of Rights in school. Among the ten amendments was the right to bear arms just in case the people of America needed to fight back. Growing up in a no-gun household, I never understood the need to have guns, let alone AKs and shotguns. However, the following research will aim to open a new perspective to the idea of lessening gun control in the states. Although pro-gun enthusiasts are generally painted as trigger-happy, gun-ho individuals, their feelings stem further than just their love for guns. Most pro-gun ideas derive from early America’s strong sense of individualism and community, and the right to a firearm is a way for them to protect themselves and others in order to create a safer environment.
My high school teaching of early America helped me conclude it was built on revolution and guns to gain its freedom from Great Britain. Even after their emancipation, Americans continued to keep their guns as a safeguard in case the government was to again behave in a way that infringed on their rights. In Celinska’s article about the connection of guns to individualism and collectivism, she stated that “research suggests that majority of firearms are owned for recreational sports” such as hunting. Furthermore, they were owned for defensive purposes because citizens didn’t believe the government could protect them well enough (Celinska, 232-233). Through using guns for aspects of daily life, it becomes part of American culture and, thus, collectivism.
Similarly, as time has passed, the American lifestyle and goals have changed into a more capitalist and individualistic structure. This means that people are no longer following a more community, group-think type of living; they have opted to live in a way that benefits them. As a result, gun ownership becomes more of a personal choice that represents a person’s distinctive lifestyle. To support this, the author suggested that those who are anti-gun control could actually “seek to protect their own self-interest, that of their families, and the interests of those with whom they closely affiliate, associate, or identify” (Celinska, 233). Consequently, to insist on taking their firearms is similar to taking part in someone’s culture. Though understanding the situations that make people call for gun restrictions, such as shootings or other tragedies, true gun enthusiasts understand that they are not those criminals. Owning a gun doesn’t mean they support what is going on, but it also doesn’t mean that their right to the Second Amendment should be taken.
Also disturbed by the mass tragedies involving guns, conservative pro-gun groups have coined the term 'good guy with a gun' in order to prove that armed citizens could help prevent more casualties. The expression implies that if more citizens had firearms of their own, mass shooters would be stopped before they could terrorize a group of people. Using this thinking, in a room of 10 innocent citizens and one shooter, two citizens having a gun would be much better than none of them having weapons to protect themselves. David French, a writer from the National Review, agrees that armed citizens are more helpful than opposers may believe, even if the defender does not hit the shooter. In fact, he pointed out that FBI data states individuals “can stop a shooting even if [they] miss, or even if [they] just hold a person at gunpoint” (French, 1). People who take pride in owning firearms generally take care of their weapons and understand their use. They are not likely to spray and pray, which would put more innocent lives at risk. With that knowledge of guns, they could be beneficial to officers since they generally can only get to the scene within one to two minutes of the initial shooting. In most cases, a victim has already been shot within that short amount of time.
There are many right-wing politicians who have made their stance on gun control very open and loud for all of the country to hear. Though they generally support their reasoning with a fiery speech against their liberal opposers, some have provided a deeper insight into why they feel a need for firearms. In a blog post about Mark Levin, the radio show host, Michael Morris quotes the conservative on his stance about Trump’s constant mentioning of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Levin passionately asserts that the gun control issue has nothing to do with the NRA, age restrictions, or mental illness. To him, gun control is about understanding what rights people have through the Bill of Rights and 'individual liberty'. Individualism is now part of American culture. Levin argues that people who decide to take the step and become murderers are not a specific age or look, so there is no way to create a policy or law to permanently stop them. Even deeming mass shooters as people with mental illnesses doesn’t solve the issue, since not everyone with mental issues is likely to be a murderer. Instead of chasing after arguments that we cannot solve, it would make more sense to just focus on the rights of the guns themselves before thinking about the people.
In conclusion, gun ownership is an aspect of American culture that has been instilled for decades. Citizens have developed a sense of individualism that calls for deference for their right to their Second Amendment. In addition, gun enthusiasts hate mass shooters just as much as pro-gun restriction activists, and they aim to prove there could be many 'good guys with a gun' in those types of situations.