This House would ban handguns in Washington D.C.

Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has.

It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state.

In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked.

Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.²

The issue with Washington DC and certain states in the U.S. is that the police and the state are unable to protect people. The opposition believes that people who visit violence upon one another should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, within certain areas of DC, the state consistently fails to protect its citizens and enforce its monopoly of violence in a just and effective fashion.

In doing so the state is failing to uphold its part of its agreement with its citizens. Further, if police in these areas are corrupt in any way, then the state is actively visiting harm upon its citizens.

If the state is failing to maintain its monopoly on violence then the citizens of that area have to take over in order to provide for their own security. The citizens of DC have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves.

The failure is thus on the part of the state for deaths in DC. Citizens within the state should not have their rights curtailed for what is essentially a failing of the state.³

Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them.

Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients.

As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given  that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.⁴

Opposition agrees that handguns have unique advantages over other weapons; however, banning handguns in this area would lead to worse problems which are mentioned here as well as in the first point of opposition.

The biggest issue with banning handguns, especially in a city, is that handguns will still be available to criminal classes willing to simply import the weapons from elsewhere. Due to their concealable nature it is very easy for them to smuggle handguns into an area where a handgun ban has been imposed. This is problematic because law abiding citizens in this area will now not have guns to defend themselves with. As such an asymmetry of power has been created where the people who bear guns, mainly criminals have weapons which give them significantly more power than the citizens in that area.

Under the status quo, the legality of handguns means that although they are more dangerous than other weapons, their availability works in citizens’ favour. This is because the asymmetry of power mentioned above is then weighted in the other direction. If a large proportion of the population have handguns for self-defence then there will be a greater chance that criminals attempting to commit violent acts will encounter individuals carrying weapons, resulting in an equality of power between both attacking and defending parties. The asymmetry is then pushed towards the defensive parties because presumably there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. As such those who wish to use guns for defensive purposes outnumber those who want to use guns for criminal purposes, weighting power in favour of those defending themselves. This is verified by the incredibly common use of handguns in self-defence; roughly 80% of self-defence actions involve handguns.⁴

Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.⁵

It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can’t pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street.

Studies have been conducted on cities where a handgun ban has been implemented. It found that cities such as New York and DC continued to exhibit high rates of crime and proved to be some of the most dangerous cities in the world, regardless of the ban on guns.⁶

As mentioned, this is because criminal gangs and criminogenic neighbourhoods in these cities have become entrenched. Anyone desperate enough to seek out a handgun- either for use in a crime or as a means of defending themselves in a crime-ridden neighbourhood- is likely to be able to acquire one regardless of the legal control that city councils may attempt to put in place. In the case of stop and search laws, it proves that criminals are adaptable and change their methods based on this lower burden of proof. For example, many gangs opt to keep guns in armouries and only loan them out as and when they are necessary.

Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has.

It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state.

In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked.

Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.²

The issue with Washington DC and certain states in the U.S. is that the police and the state are unable to protect people. The opposition believes that people who visit violence upon one another should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, within certain areas of DC, the state consistently fails to protect its citizens and enforce its monopoly of violence in a just and effective fashion.

In doing so the state is failing to uphold its part of its agreement with its citizens. Further, if police in these areas are corrupt in any way, then the state is actively visiting harm upon its citizens.

If the state is failing to maintain its monopoly on violence then the citizens of that area have to take over in order to provide for their own security. The citizens of DC have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves.

The failure is thus on the part of the state for deaths in DC. Citizens within the state should not have their rights curtailed for what is essentially a failing of the state.³

Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them.

Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients.

As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given  that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.⁴

Opposition agrees that handguns have unique advantages over other weapons; however, banning handguns in this area would lead to worse problems which are mentioned here as well as in the first point of opposition.

The biggest issue with banning handguns, especially in a city, is that handguns will still be available to criminal classes willing to simply import the weapons from elsewhere. Due to their concealable nature it is very easy for them to smuggle handguns into an area where a handgun ban has been imposed. This is problematic because law abiding citizens in this area will now not have guns to defend themselves with. As such an asymmetry of power has been created where the people who bear guns, mainly criminals have weapons which give them significantly more power than the citizens in that area.

Under the status quo, the legality of handguns means that although they are more dangerous than other weapons, their availability works in citizens’ favour. This is because the asymmetry of power mentioned above is then weighted in the other direction. If a large proportion of the population have handguns for self-defence then there will be a greater chance that criminals attempting to commit violent acts will encounter individuals carrying weapons, resulting in an equality of power between both attacking and defending parties. The asymmetry is then pushed towards the defensive parties because presumably there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. As such those who wish to use guns for defensive purposes outnumber those who want to use guns for criminal purposes, weighting power in favour of those defending themselves. This is verified by the incredibly common use of handguns in self-defence; roughly 80% of self-defence actions involve handguns.⁴

Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.⁵

It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can’t pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street.

Studies have been conducted on cities where a handgun ban has been implemented. It found that cities such as New York and DC continued to exhibit high rates of crime and proved to be some of the most dangerous cities in the world, regardless of the ban on guns.⁶

As mentioned, this is because criminal gangs and criminogenic neighbourhoods in these cities have become entrenched. Anyone desperate enough to seek out a handgun- either for use in a crime or as a means of defending themselves in a crime-ridden neighbourhood- is likely to be able to acquire one regardless of the legal control that city councils may attempt to put in place. In the case of stop and search laws, it proves that criminals are adaptable and change their methods based on this lower burden of proof. For example, many gangs opt to keep guns in armouries and only loan them out as and when they are necessary.

Under the status quo handguns are legal. This means that should a criminal initially wish to consider mugging someone he has to consider the possibility that he might be shot should he choose to take this action. A visceral fear of death and injury means that a significant number of criminals will be deterred from engaging in burglaries, violent robberies or muggings if they suspect that they might face armed resistance. As such the presence of handguns within a community contributes to the general deterrence of crime within that community.⁷

Secondly, should someone try to attack someone else with a handgun, if the other person is armed then they are in a much better position to negotiate with their attacker and prevent harm to either party. Creating a public culture in which handguns are held and used sensibly, and in which firearms training is widely available, allows a parity of power to be created between ordinary citizens and criminals. However, this parity of power is changed in favour of the defender. This is because there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. If the mugger is caught by another citizen then it is possible that citizen will also have a handgun leading to a situation where the mugger will likely be arrested or risk death.⁸

Finally, the normalisation of handguns in society means that people are less likely to panic should they be attacked by a mugger who has one. Deaths from mugging can often be caused by the victim simply panicking in response to the mugger. Shots are often fired by desperate and unstable assailants who are unprepared for their victim’s reaction.  In a society acclimatised to handguns and aware of the risk they present, incidents of this type- fuelled by panic, uncertainty and fear- are much less likely to occur.

Firstly, the deterrence effect created by guns disappears if the use of guns is considered normal behaviour among the populace. Many violent and opportunistic crimes are committed out of necessity. They are not based on a rational calculus of the sort that side opposition discusses. In a society where gun use is normalised, criminals are more likely to view death as a hazard of their occupation, similar to arrest and imprisonment. In these circumstances, the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership will quickly abate, overridden by desperation. Further, if crimes are being committed by gangs then often, need for respect from the gangs or fear of reprisal will simply override any beliefs regarding deterrence. Finally, criminals are very careful to pick actors who aren’t likely to be well armed and to do so in secluded places. As such, it is incredibly unlikely that they will be deterred from crime.

Secondly, people are likely to have guns holstered. This means that should they be mugged by a criminal they will be unable to retrieve their weapons from their holsters because any movement toward the holster will likely result in them being shot. As such, any concept of a parity of power between actors simply does not exist under the status quo

Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”⁹ Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state.

In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another.

However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights.

The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.¹⁰

The right for Americans to bear arms used to be important for symbolic reasons. However, now such a symbol does not serve to act in the same way that it once did. It was once realistic that American citizens would be able to counteract the monopoly of violence that the state has. However, in this age of modern warfare, such power simply does not exist in any real form any more. Weapons as symbols in this way are just symbolic of the loss of power that the citizens of the U.S. have undergone over time and further are symbolic of a fruitless endeavour in resistance of the state through violent means. The fact that the citizens of America feel the need to resort to violence as a symbol for the ability to stand up to the state harms what the state stands up for now, which is change through peaceful and democratic protest.

Further, even if the right to bear arms was still symbolic in a positive way, the good feeling such a symbol gives simply does not compare to the number of lives lost to things such as gun violence year on year.¹¹

A change in legislation in DC that is markedly different from everywhere else in the U.S. is harmful. Whilst the constitution might be amended to give a specific change for DC, the rest of the U.S. will still be able to bear arms. The point of the American constitution is that it is meant to give an even field to all citizens under the law. Minor differences between people within different states is acceptable; owing to specific needs of specific states and all state legislation must be proved to be constitutional anyway. This difference is specifically problematic because of the nature of its interactions with both the constitution and the law.

This change is harmful because the state is dependent upon consistency within the law and perception of the law as being a fair mechanism for all people. Large inconsistencies within the law should not be tolerated as such inconsistencies often bring into debate the legitimacy of the state’s legal code. This is problematic as such debates and inconsistencies can lead to confusion about the reach of the law as well as doubt in the legitimacy of the law. The law is dependent upon citizens understanding and subscribing to the legal code, otherwise legal systems might suffer from problems such as people simply not reporting crime to the police owing to their doubt in the legal system and its ability to protect them, or otherwise law abiding citizens from other areas of the country inadvertently breaking the law by bringing guns into D.C.

Democracy is designed to be a flexible mechanism that can change based on different circumstances and at different times. The American constitution should provide a legal basis for all citizens of the U.S.

However, the reason such a legal basis exists is such that citizens in the U.S. are fairly treated under the law and thus benefit through the stability that such fairness creates.

However, it is also feasible that at certain points, part of the constitution could work out very badly for the state in some areas. This is why a system of amendments to the constitution exists.

As such, it is feasible that the constitution should also be able to deal with transitional periods where certain areas should be allowed different rights under the constitution because each area requires different laws in order to work properly that cannot be created on a state level.

Whilst this might cause some tension, most people in DC, particularly the non-criminals would probably understand the reasons behind a ban on handguns in their area, and indeed did when handguns were initially banned there.¹³