SOCIETIES, like the laws that govern them, necessarily change and evolve over time. In America at least, those changes have tended to be positive ones over the last two hundred years, as the onward march of Western liberal progressivism has abolished slavery and child labor, granted universal suffrage, extended civil rights to all racial groups and set up a welfare system to assist those in need. Some of these ideas had precedents in our nation's founding roots, and some did not. Just as the needs and constraints of a modern society have necessitated many new liberties, the natural progress of time has made some of our founders' other priorities obsolete -- for example, the right against the quartering of soldiersestablished in the Third Amendment, or the Seventh Amendment's limiting jury trials to matters exceeding $20. One such similar anachronism that hasn't been lain to rest yet is the right of Americans to own and "bear" firearms -- and considering the realities of today, it's high time we gave this dinosaur a burial.
The right of private citizens to own and bear guns does our society far more harm than it does good. As a nation, Americans have demonstratively shown that they are wholly incapable of handling firearms -- particularly handguns -- responsibly. According to the Violence Policy Center, in 1997 (the most recent year for which data is available) there were 89 firearm deaths per day, amounting to over 32,000 fatalities a year. Although many Americans would claim they own a gun purely for self-defense, research clearly indicates that having a gun in the home is far more dangerous than not. An eye-opener: data from the FBI indicates that only 2.3 percent of all handgun homicides are the result of justifiable self-defense. Moreover, a gun in the home is four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, seven times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and eleven times more likely to be used as a method for suicide than it ever is to be used successfully against an assailant. So much for the notion that Americans need guns to "protect themselves." For every person who can honestly attest that they might be dead today were it not for their trusty gun, there are many more deceased voices unable to argue to the contrary, that they might be alive had there not been a legally purchased and owned gun available.
There are a few other arguments for gun ownership, most even less compelling than "self-defense." Besides saving many lives from unintentional shootings, outlawing private ownership of firearms -- or even only handguns -- would necessarily make them harder for criminals to acquire. Of course, some would acquire them anyway -- but it would be easier for law enforcement to confiscate them and to prosecute, as there would be no question whether the gun owner had a permit or not (also erasing much of the bureaucratic hassle associated with registering and checking licenses today). We see two more rationales for continued gun ownership, both bordering on the ridiculous. While some may find hunting a fun pastime, it's safe to say that the savage thrill of killing defenseless animals is probably not worth the havoc that the widespread presence and availability of guns have on our society.
What's more, most guns aren't used for hunting anyway (who takes a handgun or assault rifle to go kill deer?) -- so the argument fails when applied to most classes of firearms. The last stand of justification for gun rights supporters is the ludicrous notion that Americans need guns to defend themselves from tyranny -- the precise reason the Second Amendment was included in the first place. If the strong state of our democracy despite the absence of a successful rebellion in the last two hundred some-odd years isn't enough to convince the skeptic that an armed populace isn't needed to maintain liberty, perhaps the overwhelming capability of the United States military, tanks, bombers, ballistic missiles and all, relative to private citizens brandishing pistols and 12-gauge shotguns would suffice as proof. No massive rebellion against our government today would ever be truly feasible, Second Amendment or none.
Guns are tools designed to kill, and they succeed aptly. Ideology aside, on a merely practical basis it makes no sense to continue to tolerate staggering losses of innocent human life for some vague, antiquated and romantic notion of "gun rights." Whether only by banning handguns, or preferably repealing the Second Amendment outright, America must come to terms with the changing of the times.
(Blair Reeves's column appears Mondays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at breeves@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
SHRAUGER: We must fight against transportation deregulation
By Alex Shrauger | 23 hours agoSpecifically, the reduction of funds in public transportation may leave University students stranded without convenient means of transport. But more broadly, the environmental impacts which deregulation may have are long-lasting.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
3 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
U.Va. Medical Students: Defend academic freedom
By U.Va. Medical Students | June 29, 2025To yield in the face of federal pressure does more than betray the University’s core values — it encourages future attacks on academia.
