The following was a course handout in Japan trying to explain American acceptance of gun ownership.

Some Comments on the Acceptance of Gun Ownership in the USA (2007)

First, it is important to know that gun laws in the United States are mainly state and local laws. There is a good summary of these laws, state by state, at: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

Many rural American states with little regulation of guns and with high levels of gun ownership have very little gun violence. Some states and cities with strict gun laws such as New York, Illinois, New York City, and Chicago have comparatively more gun violence.

Worldwide, there is also little correlation between gun violence and the strictness of laws regulating gun ownership. Michael Moore, in his film, Bowling For Columbine, notes that Canadians have an access to guns and a level of gun ownership equivalent to most American states and yet Canada enjoys a much lower level of gun violence. Switzerland encourages and in some cases requires citizens to own guns and yet has very low rates of gun violence.

The correct questions to ask about the United States are, first, why are the populations of some American states so violent compared to other American states and, second, why are so many Americans generally so accepting of the private ownership of guns.

The answer to the first question must be answered in detail state by state. States with a history of slavery or a long history of savage frontier warfare or both, as in the case of Texas, are more violent than states such as Vermont or Oregon. Some areas or states have stronger military traditions. Large urban areas with disadvantaged minority or immigrant or transient populations will be more violent than long-settled ethnically homogenous rural areas where people know one another.

The more difficult second question is: why are so many Americans so tolerant of gun ownership?

First, there have always been guns around the house in America. Because of America’s history as an expansive frontier society where millions of people hunted and still do hunt for food or sport, and because millions more have received military training, and because America has been continually at war throughout its history, guns are familiar objects. I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts. My high school in the 1950s in the New York City suburbs had a rifle team that competed against rifle teams from other high schools.

Second, unlike Japan or most European countries, the United States has never had a ruling elite or government that was strong enough to disarm the populace. Americans have never been subject to tyranny. Nor have we viewed government as some sort of benevolent parent that can be relied upon to take care of us and tell us what to do.

The American ideal is one of self-government. As individuals we govern ourselves. We take responsibility for our own lives. We associate with our fellow self-governing citizens to set up governmental institutions to run larger affairs for our mutual benefit (see the Preamble of the US Constitution for a list of the purposes of American government). The American system of government with its separation of powers and checks and balances at both the state and federal level reflects our fear that the people we elect to run government might get out of hand and threaten our liberties and our freedom to determine the course of our own lives as we see fit. Generally, we trust our fellow citizens more than we trust government.

Given the above, it is not surprising that we trust ourselves and our neighbors and fellow citizens with guns, with deadly force, as least as much as we trust the government with guns. A government that has a monopoly on deadly force is likely to be a threat to liberty. The Second Amendment to the Constitution specifically forbids the federal government from disarming the people. The Amendment reads, “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.” The constitutions of many of the fifty states have similar provisions.

Americans believe that it is the responsibility of each American to defend himself and his family and his community from evil people. We tax ourselves to pay the salaries of local police to help us when trouble comes but, in the last analysis, we expect to be able to defend ourselves. At present, 40 states allow ordinary citizens to get a license to carry a pistol. Very few states regulate in any way the purchase or possession of rifles or shotguns. Such regulation, when it occurs, is seen as an attempt by governing elites to treat people like children rather than as responsible self-governing citizens.

Third, Americans as a people place a higher value on freedom than do most other nations. Americans are more willing to accept a risk of violence in order to be more in control of their lives, to be self- governing. The motto of the State of New Hampshire is, “Live Free Or Die.” That motto appears on the license plate of every automobile registered in New Hampshire. It reflects the feelings of ten of millions of Americans.

There is nothing particularly right or wrong with this tolerance of guns. Preferring general gun ownership with its greater risks of injury and death is not like preferring something clearly immoral such as slavery. It is more like allowing higher speed limits on highways or allowing almost anyone to drive a car. At question is the balance between freedom and safety. Different American states strike this balance differently. Different nations also strike the balance differently. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. One of the best things about Japan is that people almost always do what is expected, making Japan a very safe society. On the other hand, one of the things I like least about Japan is the relative lack of personal freedom compared to the United States. I do not recommend that the Japanese permit general gun ownership, yet it is important for Japanese to understand why Americans can agree to trust themselves and their fellow citizens with guns.

Richard Barron Parker 4/2007
Professor of Law, Hiroshima Shudo University