Risk, fear and security are keywords in the election campaign for the White House. And the possession of firearms is an issue that can influence the voting decisions of many Americans.
After the umpteenth episodes of violence, President Barack Obama has publicly called for greater control over the spread of weapons. To secure the support of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), Donald Trump has appealed to gun owners - using an ambiguous and unfortunate expression - to "stop" Hillary Clinton. The candidate confirmed that there are as many as 30 homicides a year in the United States.
Even limiting ourselves to official US government data, the statistics are staggering. In 2014, crimes committed with firearms were 11.299: 32 per day or 5,2 per 100.000 population (5 times the level in developed countries). There are over 300 million weapons in circulation in the hands of about 80 million citizens. How did this situation come about? And why is it so difficult to reverse the trend?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT TO OWN WEAPONS
The gun culture in the United States has deep roots. It is above all linked to history and tradition. In the mythical conquest of the West, the cowboy had to defend his life and property with weapons.
There is more. In addition to hunting, sporting and collecting weapons, the license to carry firearms is considered an extension of individual freedom. And the US liberal tradition aggressively defends individual freedoms. These cultural and historical aspects make any attempt at gun control in the United States very difficult.
In Europe it is widely accepted by individuals to entrust their security to a common force constituted by the state. Generally, private citizens do not use violence to take justice into their own hands and, when they do, they assume the resulting risks.
Even the United States theoretically entrusts security to the State, but public opinion tends to support the right of the individual to defend himself. The individual right therefore prevails over the collective one and is protected by the Constitution.
The second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own and bear arms (“to keep and bear arms”). The Supreme Court has clearly confirmed this right, specifying however that it is not unlimited and does not prevent there being regulations and limitations on the possession and use of firearms.
Nonetheless, the literal interpretation of the second amendment is a very strong argument for gun advocates. Even some anarchists interpret it as a right of citizens to defend themselves from the state itself and from the risk that this degenerates into a dictatorship.
ARMING THE GOOD TO STOP THE BAD
A sense of fear and insecurity has been growing in the United States for some time. There are several reasons. In fact, starting from 11 September 2001, the risk of terrorism has become very concrete also on American soil. In addition, shootings and massacres continue throughout the country in shopping centres, parking lots, public places and schools. Paradoxically, this favors the front of those who do not want to increase control over the circulation of weapons.
An argument used maintains that, faced with the improper use of firearms by insane people, it is necessary to allow honest citizens to defend themselves. In short: we need to arm the good guys to stop the bad guys. The reasoning is simplistic, but widespread.
Some statistics seem to confirm its validity, others do not. The case of Chicago is interesting, where a law was introduced in 2012 authorizing citizens to carry concealed weapons. At first the crime rate was down, but then it surged back up. Between January and February 2016 there were 2,902 homicides.
NRA, A HEAVY LOBBY
Beyond history, culture, legislation and a sense of fear, it is important to remember the great economic and political weight that firearms manufacturers have in the United States. The NRA has 5 million members and a thriving lobbying capacity. More than 40% of Americans would support his action and, according to some analysts, candidates' stance on guns would shift the vote between 2% and 5% in local and national elections. These are decisive numbers in run-off or close-racing situations.
The shocking statistics on the number of homicides and the news of the continuous massacres often lead Europeans to the easy conclusion that the United States should severely limit the circulation of firearms and the diffusion of firearms licences. However, Americans' relationship with guns is complex. There are certainly no easy solutions to the problem. Added to this is the impossibility of formulating realistic and effective proposals if one does not analyze and understand the various issues – cultural, legal, economic, social and political – which have determined and sustain the current diffusion of firearms in the United States.
