Gun Culture in the United States.
A national and international comparison.
These famous words stem from a time when a newly founded nation tried to protect its liberty against tyrannous forces. A seemingly fragile independence, which was painstakingly acquired during the Revolutionary War against the British colonial rulers. Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers, called a well-regulated militia “the most natural defense of a free country”. Thus, the second amendment to the US Constitution, was not particularly concerned with individual’s rights to bear arms, but rather with the organization of a militia. Only people participating in a fighting organization, who sought to protect the nation’s freedom, were supposed to be able to bear firearms.
More than two centuries later, this particular right, was entirely reinterpreted. In 2008, the supreme court ruled, that the second amendment guaranteed an individual right to possess firearms, even without the premise of serving in a militia (Duignan 2010). It was a landmark decision, which has stigmatized the USA as a “Gun Utopia”, which is the title of Janet Rosenbaum’s study on firearm access and ownership. This stereotype could be supported by the profound numbers of guns among US American citizens. According to a world spanning research project, conducted by the “Small Arms Survey”, the United Stated has (by far) the highest rate of civilian firearm holdings, which was found out to be 120.5 per 100 residents. Thus, the internationally held stereotype of a nation obsessed with guns, could easily be verified by these overwhelming numbers.
A divided Country
Nonetheless, these aspects are solely concerned with the USA as a whole and do not take the individual states into consideration. In order to assess the situation entirely, we have to delve deeper into the legality issues at hand. Irrefutably, the constitution still establishes “the supreme source of law in the American legal system”, as Isabela Krasnicka concludes in her paper on specifics of the language of the Second Amendment. However, according to Michael A. Foster, a legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service, the regulation of firearms is a shared authority among federal, state and local governments. Thus, there is a disparate range of laws, as the individual states are allowed to impose additional restrictions, which must not clash with federal law. Due to this process, the USA could be described as a divided country, when it comes to the lawful possession of handguns. There are two reappearing arguments, each side uses to underpin their respective attitude towards gun control. Advocates of stricter gun laws argue that limiting access to firearms will reduce gun related crime and thus save lives. Proponents of even more lenient gun laws object that more stringent regulations would also prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against armed criminals (Duignan 2010).
California vs. Texas
Hence, this seemingly distinct stereotype cannot be declared true without looking at two states with different attitudes towards gun control. For this matter I chose California, as a state with decidedly strict gun laws and Texas as an example for rather lenient gun control in place.
The most stunning difference between these two western states, is the sheer number of regulations, which are concerned with gun policy. According to a research, conducted by fellows of the Boston University School of Public Health in 2016, California had 104 specific firearm laws, while Texas only had 18. No other state outnumbers the regulations, California imposes in order to restrict the manner and space in which firearms can be used. Among these are the so-called “red-flag laws”.
"Red-Flag-laws"
These enable a judge to issue a special type of protection order. Thus, the police are allowed to confiscate weapons from people who conceivably pose a danger to themselves or others. Most of the times, these requests come from considerate friends or relatives of gun owners, who expressed suicidal thoughts or spoke out on killing people. Timothy Williams ranks California among the states with the most elaborate red flag laws in his article on gun control, which was published in the New York Times. Additionally, the Golden State is one of the first to allow relatives to petition the courts directly to confiscate weapons from family members. Quite on the contrary, Texas could possibly be on the verge of prohibiting red-flag laws altogether. In November 2020 Briscoe Cain pre-filed the House Bill 336, which seeks to ban red-flag gun confiscation at both the state and local level.
Background Checks and the "GUN show Loophole"
Another area of concern appears to be the implementation of background checks before a firearm can be sold. In 1993 the so-called Brady Bill was passed, which required an interim five days waiting period for the purchase of handguns from federally licensed dealers. However, this bill was overthrown and replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in 1998 (Duignan 2010). Thus, background checks are still mandatory for every licensed dealer in the entirety of the USA, which denies certain people from purchasing firearms. In Texas, this premise does not apply to people making occasional sales or selling all or part of a personal collection. Hence, private or non-commercial vendors are not required to run a background check before selling a firearm. This exclusion has led to the widely known “Gun Show Loophole”. Gun shows are comparable to flea markets, where also unlicensed sellers are allowed to advertise guns and ammunition. As it is quite vaguely defined, who only “occasionally” sells firearms, many gun-show vendors without a federal license, buy and handle large numbers of guns without the requirement of running background checks. This alarming case was brought to attention by Andrew Goddard, who took a “View through the Gun Show Loophole”. In California, there are federal background checks effective, which have the purpose of eradicating these legal incertitudes. No gun immediately leaves a gun show in the Golden State. There is a mandatory waiting period of ten days, in which the purchaser is object to thorough background checks. Additionally, the state prohibits undocumented private party gun sales (Wintemute 2007: 150).
Mass Shootings and their Effect on Gun Policy
One of the epitomes of the US American obsession with guns is the apparent multitude of weapon varieties, citizens are allowed to possess. However, this phenomenon is not applicable everywhere in the USA. The state of California has developed an expansive list of weapons, which are deemed illegal with only limited exceptions. Among these weapons are assault rifles. The California Penal Code defines these firearms as weapons, which are used for offensive rather than defensive shooting purposes. In their ruling, the legislature of California argued that assault weapons have such a high rate of fire and capacity, that there is a substantial threat to the security of human beings, which clearly outweighs their purpose as “legitimate sports or recreational firearms”. These restrictions can be seen as a reaction to the San Bernadino attack in 2015. According to FBI investigations, the perpetrators used assault rifles of the type AR-15, which they legally possessed. This Californian terror attack was the deadliest mass shooting since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. Around the same time, Texas Governor Abbott signed the Senate Bill 11, which provides that license holders may carry a concealed handgun throughout university campuses. The reasoning behind this legislation is similar to the arguments of gun advocates all over the USA (see above). As Abbott explains: “On a college campus like here in Texas, people will think twice before waging an attack […] knowing that they could be gunned down immediately.”
This particular example underlines that tragic events such as mass shootings fuel both sides of the spectrum. On the one hand, gun advocates argue that firearms provide protection and the possibility to avert dangerous situations, while proponents of stricter gun laws contend that limiting firearm access is the only way to prevent such terrible incidents in the first place. Due to these opposing views, the government has shied away from enacting federal regulations since 2007, when the NICS was revised. As Reported by fellows of Boston University, regulations have only been made on state level ever since.
Changing Attitudes?
Thus, Texas and California can be seen as representatives of two different attitudes towards gun control in the USA. There is a multitude of areas, in which the individual states are allowed to restrict firearm access. Currently however, California appears to be among a clear minority in the implementation of stricter gun control. According to the State Firearms Database, California (as of 2018) imposes roughly 90 more laws that regulate firearm use, ownership or transactions, than the state median. Therefore, the conclusion of this paper can only support the persistent stereotype of the USA as a “gun utopia”.
However, there is a current trend, which could possibly lead the USA towards stricter gun control. As reported by the Pew Research Center, the share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017. While in earlier polls, 52% of the surveyed favored more rigorous gun control, this share developed to 60% in 2019. Whether the share of proponents of stricter regulations will rise is almost impossible to answer, however, almost certainly the “right to bear arms” will for a long time be a topic where opinions continue to differ sharply.
Swiss Gun culture
Switzerland is an interesting case in terms of gun ownership and gun rights, particularly when compared to its other European neighbours. The country is widely seen as a place where very liberal gun laws and low violent crime rates can coexist. In the U.S. this view of Switzerland is often presented by pro-gun advocates to support liberal gun laws in the United States. The NRA for example, wrote on their website “Americas First Freedom” about Switzerland Switzerland: “Although Switzerland’s gun ownership rate is exceeded only by the United States and Yemen, violent crime remains low in the country, which has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.” Crime can indeed be considered rare in Switzerland, at least violent crimes. Figures, from the Swiss Federal Office for Statistics, show that at least for the last decade violent crime has been dwarfed by other crimes, such as break-ins and that violent crime in general has been on the decrease.
Gun Ownership in Switzerland
A european perspective
With violent crime in fact comparatively seldom in Switzerland, this leaves the issue of gun ownership to be discussed. A 2017 survey conducted by the group “Small Arms Survey” estimated 2,332,000 firearms in civilian hands. At face value these numbers appear low - compared to the 15,822,000 firearms that are in civilian hands in Germany for example, or the more than 12 million firearms that French civilians are estimated to have in the same survey. However, these numbers have to be put in perspective. When put in relation to the population numbers these estimates point towards Switzerland having one of the highest, if not the highest gun ownership rate in Europe: according to the study Germany and France both have per capita gun ownership of around 20 percent. Switzerland’s southern neighbour Italy scores even lower on the scale with 14.4 percent. On this scale Switzerland leaves these European neighbours comfortably behind with 27.6 guns per 100 civilians. The estimates may vary in different studies and depending on when the study was conducted, of course. A 2007 study cited by Rosenbaum for example, found the Swiss owning between 31-60 firearms per 100 inhabitants while another study by the “Small Arms Survey” from 2011 ranked Switzerland 3rd place with 46 guns per 100 residents. But despite the disparity in estimates in various studies, Switzerland can be assumed to out-rank most if not all of its European Neighbours when it comes to civilian gun ownership.
The statement from the NRA website, quoted in the introduction, must be assessed as correct: Switzerland does have a comparatively large number of guns in civilian hands per capita, as proven by statistical data. It does in fact, also have a low rate of violent crime, as is evident from Swiss statistics. In comparison to the US, Switzerland also has hardly any mass shootings - the last reported one took place in 2001. In fact, Oliver Mark describes in his article that gun crimes are viewed as so uncommon in Switzerland, that politicians often don’t have police protection details
Difference in Gun Laws
This contrast between the United States and Switzerland makes it apparent that there must be some difference or differences between the two when it comes to guns. Given, that both have similar rates of gun ownership but vastly different outcomes in terms of gun violence two sources of explanation can be explored: gun laws and gun culture.
Laws are an interesting point of discussion as they can help explain the (high) numbers of weapons in the hands of Swiss civilians. Swiss law, despite what may be said about them are, rather rigid. According to the website of the Federal Office of Police prospective buyers have to meet a number of criteria before being able to acquire a gun: all firearms acquisitions must be documented with local authorities. This extends to most sports and recreational weapons. Gun buyers in Switzerland also need a permit for the purchase from the according authorities. These permits are required for purchases of different types of firearms, from pistols and revolver to autoloading rifles and shotguns. As the Swiss police also note “acquiring” in Switzerland extends to purchases but also to inheriting guns, renting or even borrowing them. This means that Switzerland may have a very large number of weapons in civilian hands, but these guns are well accounted for.
The Swiss "well regulated Militia"
Switzerland has another interesting piece of regulation concerning guns: as Tognina describes members of the military are allowed to keep their service-issued weapons at home and have the possibility to keep their weapon post-service. It is noteworthy however that these numbers have been in decline for some years. In 2004, 43% of discharged service-men decided to keep their weapons. Since then, number have been in decline, though this is also linked to reforms in the armed forces. According to Rosenbaum these guns account for roughly a quarter of the guns in Swiss homes, with less than 13 percent of Swiss households reporting ownership of a gun for non-military reasons.
This regulation speaks to an enormous cultural difference between the United States and Switzerland. Gun ownership in Switzerland is closely linked to military service. With Switzerland still retaining conscription for its adult male population, most adult males have served in Switzerland’s armed forces and have therefore received instruction and training in safe and responsible weapon handling. As shown above these trained and experienced gun owners make up a significant portion of Swiss gun owners. According to a 2007 by swissinfo.ch around 1.5 million former service rifles were in civilian hands.
Tognina also explains that Switzerland’s government passed new regulation for those taking their service rifles home after their discharge. In order to keep the guns, owners had to take part in periodic range training; a considered that is considered to be one of the reasons why fewer service-men elected to keep their guns.
This is due to the fact, that the government aims to keep its militia army ready to be mobilized at a moment’s notice. This is one of the reasons the government allowed soldiers to take their guns home. It was also the reason for a government programme that issued all soldiers who kept their guns at home with 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed can. As Neue Züricher Zeitung reported the programme was stopped and the ammunition returned after a change in policy in 2007.
The programme shows however, the main intend of gun ownership of many of the guns in Switzerland: national defence. Rosenbaum shows that in contrast, only 5 percent of households that owned guns reported having them for sporting reasons. Guns in Switzerland, in a large proportion of cases is therefore tightly connected with military service and national defence.
​
​This close tie to military has considerable cultural significance: it adds to the creation of a culture and mentality of professionalism and responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. Gun owners (at least the male ones) have mandatory conscription which means that most gun owners first come into contact with firearms in a military and therefore a professional context. This means that they learn handling and taking care of their firearms from military professionals. This in turn, is not only beneficial for their qualities as a marksman: it can also be assumed that it teaches them professionalism and responsibility in handling firearms and thereby gun ownership. These are the values of a gun culture that the soldiers carry over into their civilian gun ownership. Considering that a sizeable proportion of citizens in Switzerland go through conscription, it can also be assumed that the vast majority of male civilian gun owners are part of this gun culture.
Works Cited
The Federalist No. 29, [9 January 1788],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 4, January 1787 – May 1788, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962, pp. 443–449.]
Bundesamt für Statistik. Häufigkeitszahlen für Straftaten pro 1000 Einwohner/innen und Entwicklung, 2020, https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kriminalitaet-strafrecht/polizei/haeufigkeitszahlen.html. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Duignan, Brian. “Gun Control in the U.S.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010, www.britannica.com/story/gun-control-in-the-us.
Eisner, Alan. “California Assault Weapon Laws | Penal Code Section 30600.” Eisner Gorin, 10 Dec. 2018, www.egattorneys.com/blog/california-assault-weapon-laws-penal-code-30600.
​
Federal Office of Police (fedpol), Acquiring a weapon as a private individual, 01.10.2019, https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/waffenerwerb.html. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Federal Office of Police (fedpol), Weapons for which a permit is required, 31.8.2020, https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/bewilligungspflichtig.html. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Federal Office of Police (fedpol), Weapons that have to be declared, 31.8.2020, https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/meldepflichtig.html. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Forster, Michael A. Federal Firearms Laws: Overview and Selected Legal Issues for the 116th Congress. Congressional Research Service, 2019.
​
Goddard, Andrew. A View through the Gun Show Loophole, 12 Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int. 357, 2009, pp. 357-361.
Karp, Aaron, et al. Estimating Global Civilian-Held Firearms Numbers. Small Arms Survey, 2018.
​
KraÅ›nicka, Izabela. “Living or Dead? Specifics of the Language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, vol. 38, no. 1, 2014, pp. 123–36. Crossref, doi:10.2478/slgr-2014-0035.
​
McClenathan, Jane, and Molly Pahn. The Changing Landscape of U.S. Gun Policy. Boston University School of Public Health, 2016, statefirearmlaws.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/report_0.pdf.
​
McGaughy, Lauren. “Abbott Says Campus Carry Will Make Attackers ‘think Twice’ about Targeting Texas Schools.” Dallas News, 27 Aug. 2019, www.dallasnews.com/news/2016/11/29/abbott-says-campus-carry-will-make-attackers-think-twice-about-targeting-texas-schools.
​
Oliver, Mark. Swiss man kills 14 in crazed gun attack. The Guardian, 27 September 2001, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/27/markoliver. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Rosenbaum, Janet E. “Gun Utopias? Firearm Access and Ownership in Israel and Switzerland.” Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 33, no. 1, 2011, pp. 46–58. Crossref, doi:10.1057/jphp.2011.56.
​
Rosenbaum, Janet E. “Gun Utopias? Firearm Access and Ownership in Israel and Switzerland.” Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 33, no. 1, 2012, pp. 46–58. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41342708. Accessed 6 Jan. 2021.
​
Schaeffer, Katherine. “Share of Americans Who Favor Stricter Gun Laws Has Increased since 2017.” Pew Research Center, 16 Oct. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017.
​
Small Arms Survey, Civilian Firearms Holdings, 2017, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/Weapons_and_Markets/Tools/Firearms_holdings/SAS-BP-Civilian-held-firearms-annexe.pdf. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Small Arms Survey, Estimating Civilian Owned Firearms, September 2011. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf. Accessed 18 January 2021.
Soldiers can keep guns at home but not ammo, swissinfo.ch, 27 September 2007. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/soldiers-can-keep-guns-at-home-but-not-ammo/970614. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Switzerland Gun Sales Increase After Terror Attacks, Violent Crime Remains Low. America's 1st Freedom, 30 July 2016, https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/7/30/ftf/switzerland-gun-sales-increase-after-terror-attacks-violent-crime-remains-low/. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Taschenmunition fast vollständig eingezogen, Neue Züricher Zeitung, 2.5.2011, https://www.nzz.ch/taschenmunition_fast_vollstaendig_eingezogen-1.10450798, Accessed 18 January 2021.
Tognina, Andrea. Wie viele Waffen besitzen die Schweizer?, swissinfo.ch, 17.01.2019, https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/verschaerftes-waffengesetz_wie-viele-waffen-besitzen-die-schweizer--/44673604. Accessed 18 January 2021.
​
Williams, Timothy. “What Are ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws, and How Do They Work?” The New York Times, 8 Aug. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/us/red-flag-laws.html.
Wintemute, G. J. “Gun Shows across a Multistate American Gun Market: Observational Evidence of the Effects of Regulatory Policies.” Injury Prevention, vol. 13, no. 3, 2007, pp. 150–55. Crossref, doi:10.1136/ip.2007.016212.
“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.” (U.S Const. amend. II)
Readers of this article might also be interested in Civil War Re-enactments, a very specific example of one aspect of gun culture in the USA.