This year’s legislature clearly focused on issues of general agreement that should help Virginians, as evidenced by the many bills that passed with bipartisan support (including some that were passed unanimously!). Of course, that does not mean that issues were ignored for which strong cultural differences made agreement especially difficult. One of the most difficult issues is if we can reduce gun violence by controlling gun acquisition.
Of course, many in our community oppose restrictions on guns – typically citing a constitutional right to have guns. Our governor regularly mentions that she used to carry a gun every day as part of her job. Perhaps important in discussing this right is to know the precise reading of the Constitution’s Second Amendment “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.” Often debated is what exactly does it mean that the right to have “Arms” is linked to a “Militia.” Important to note is that this amendment does not deal at all with any right to have guns for such activities as hunting. Of course, much of the debate surrounds a right to have guns for self-defense, a right not obvious from a reading of the Second Amendment. Recent Supreme Court decisions have provided some clarification, for example affirming the right to keep firearms for self-defense at home.
As for any part of the Constitution, there are some limitations to this right – the same as for all of our rights (for one too often used example, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede in not protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech.) No one is calling for an individual to be allowed to have their own tactical nuclear weapon – that’s clearly ridiculous. Few would support an individual having their own military tank, or surface to air missile. So where should the limit be? Automatic or semi-automatic weapons seems to be the place where controversy starts – with many saying they are needed for personal protection while opponents say they clearly are intended for military use or mass killings.
So, if (almost) everyone agrees that we should be allowed to have a pistol at home for personal protection, but not allowed to have a weapon of mass destruction, where is the middle ground? Looking at gun violence statistics may provide some help- but not provide a clear answer. For example, in 2023 there were 730 suicides using guns in Virginia, including 58 children and teens. Another 475 people died by homicides using guns, meaning on average a gun death every seven hours in the Commonwealth. That’s a lot – and probably almost everyone agrees that’s too much. But what to do about it has little agreement.
There is no easy way to know if owning a gun acts as an effective deterrent to crime, or as meaningful self-protection. Of course, many people do feel safer having a gun. Others feel less safe knowing there are guns in the community. Well known is that the United States has both the highest rate of civilian gun ownership and the highest rate of gun-related deaths among developed nations. Thus, there is rationale for wanting to limit the availability of guns – particularly those that are military style (e.g. semi-automatic). Of course, many people feel personally safer by having a gun. Perhaps it all boils down to people prioritizing their own feeling of safety by having a gun, as opposed to their community being safer by controlling the availability of guns. Legislation limiting the availability of semi-automatic weapons would surely make our state a safer place, but also surely have many people regret their personal limit of firepower.
