Freedom and independence versus community safety

Understanding the gun debate in the US begins with recognising the central role that guns have come to play in defining American identity.

Americans make up about 4.4 per cent of the global population, yet they own 42 per cent of the world’s guns. That’s an estimated 120.5 guns for every 100 US citizens, more than double that of the next country (Yemen, with 52.8 guns per 100 citizens).

Dr Suzanna Fay, from UQ’s School of Social Science, said guns were inextricably tied to the American narrative of freedom, which was fought – and won – with guns through the American War of Independence.

“The United States’ relationship with firearms is linked to their independence, and that’s not something other countries, like Australia, have experienced in the same way,” Dr Fay said.

“American history is based on this idea of independence and the individual. That can be great, but it can also be at the expense of the collective, and this is where people can have trouble understanding the US gun debate.

Dr Adam Hannah, from UQ’s School of Political Science and International Studies, similarly points to the central role guns play in the nation’s imagination of what it means to be American.

“One of the reasons why guns are so culturally embedded in the US is the importance of the ‘American Frontier’ in American culture,” Dr Hannah said.

It’s important to caveat that any discussion of American identity should recognise that this identity isn’t uniform, and within the US, separate ethnic and racial identities and experiences impact attitudes towards gun violence.

A Pew Research Centre survey in 2021 found that 81 per cent of Black or African American adults see gun violence as a ‘very big problem’, versus 58 per cent of Hispanic or Latino American adults and just 39 per cent of White American adults.

With 61.6 per cent of Americans identifying as White alone (according to the 2020 census), it’s important to consider how this might be affecting the conversation.

Beyond American identity, firearms have also earned a constitutionally enshrined place in the US through the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which is often raised in arguments against gun regulation:

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.

However, Dr Hannah points to how society has changed since the Second Amendment was created.

“The Second Amendment wasn’t seen as one of the critical amendments at the time,” he said.

“It was created in the context of debates over whether national and state governments would be able to maintain militias. There wasn’t a standing army at the time, or organised police forces like we have today.

“Technology was rudimentary. The idea of gun violence being a pressing public safety issue wasn’t on the table because you didn’t have the capacity to commit mass murder in the way you do today.

“The debate at the time was just a totally, totally different context.”

^{A supporter of the Second Amendment protests at the inauguration of US President Joe Biden in 2021. Image: Megan Varner/Getty Images}

It worked in Australia, why can’t it work in the US?

Australia is often used as a leading example of gun regulation done right.

Following the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, which left 35 people dead, stricter gun regulations were implemented swiftly across the country.

The National Firearms Agreement banned semi-automatic weapons, pump-action rifles and shotguns, and more than 650,000 guns were bought back alongside tightened restrictions for licensing, registration and safe firearm storage.

There have been three mass shootings in Australia since.

Dr Fay credits a combination of factors for Australia’s success, including a conservative government willing to step up and respond immediately. However, she said it won’t be as straightforward in the US.

“There are far more guns in the US than we’ve had here in Australia,” Dr Fay said.

“I also think gun-owning Australians are more invested in community safety. We saw it more broadly in Australian culture during the pandemic, where the vast majority of Australians were willing to change their behaviour to protect the more vulnerable.

“Similarly, policies like universal healthcare, the welfare system – which would be termed in the US as socialist policies and are very hotly debated – have been part of Australian culture and policy for a very long time.

“We’re socialised to believe that the welfare net is really important for taking care of everyone. A similar mentality is applied to gun ownership.”

Is there a path forward?

While UQ experts suggest a range of potential steps forward – such as improved healthcare funding, increasing regulation on ammunition, interventions in gun purchasing during mental health crises – the general feeling is that progress will be difficult and slow.

“There seems to be a real stalemate in terms of the institutions and the politics,” Dr Hannah said.

“The last time there was any real prospect of federal legislation passing was the assault weapon ban for in the 1990s, but that’s lapsed.

“Every time I teach this, I update the number of mass shootings, and there’s always another huge list.

“I think these sorts of events are just considered part of the cost that people are willing to bear.”

Dr Fay believes the key to any tangible movement in the debate will come from making sure everyone feels they have a seat at the table.

“The dialogue needs to shift to empower the gun-owning community to be part of the conversation, rather than feel like outsiders,” Dr Fay said.

“That’s not to say the NRA hasn’t contributed, but it’s important to remember that they don’t necessarily reflect the views of the broader US gun-owning community.

“Something I’ve learned in my research is that members of the gun-owning community have really good ideas about how gun control could be done better.

“However, I think the discussion is very difficult when you have this animosity and tension sitting in the middle.”

Professor Haslam believes it will take something drastic to bridge the animosity that persists between Americans on many controversial issues, including the gun debate. 

“The pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the gun killings themselves: it’s reasonable to think that these events might have served to unify people and trigger de-escalation in the broader polarisation we see in American politics, including in the gun control debate. But they haven’t,” Professor Haslam said.

“So, it’s going to require something more extreme on the event scale and on the leadership scale. Those two prospects in themselves are pretty frightening.”

US Journalist Dan Hodges tweeted in 2015, “In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

Dr Fay said this – ultimately – is what makes the debate so confronting.

“In my field of criminology, we expected to see more movement after Sandy Hook: we didn’t. After the Marjory Douglas Stoneman high school shooting: we didn’t.

“I think the difficult part to think about is that if not, in these instances when small children are dying, then when?

^{An anti-gun activist protests in Denver, Colorado. Image: Marc Piscotty/Getty Images}