The concept of a “well-regulated militia” has been a cornerstone of American defense philosophy since the nation was founded. Alexander Hamilton gave meaning to this phrase that the founders intended in Federalist #29. For its complete meaning, one has to consider the setting of 1789 America, where the War of Independence was a recent memory and suspicion of standing armies as an instrument of tyranny ran deep. Amongst the grievances against King George III listed in the very Declaration of Independence are stationing a standing army amongst the people during peacetime and making civil power subordinate to military authority.
Checks and Balances: Fearing a standing army that could easily be used by future tyrants, the founders thus introduced a system of checks and balances. Well-regulated militias, their answer, were to be raised by state government power for service to the republic as defenders of one’s own family and home. These militias were subsequently to be trained to a federal standard to ensure they would serve in combined operations.
Contrary to the hallowed myth, the right to bear arms did not begin as a guarantee of individual gun ownership but only became that in the interpretation of the Supreme Court in a narrow 5-4 decision in 2008-219 years after the adoption of the Constitution. The founders thought of the militia as a counterbalancing power against federal authority, not as some kind of individual citizens fighting tyranny on their own.
The United States uniquely tolerates mass gun violence in any industrially advanced country in the world today, for the apparent neutrality of the law. Other countries, like the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, did not wait but moved swiftly to install strict gun control laws immediately after such mass violence took place on their territories. But the U.S., bound by shackles of political gridlock, stands immovable. This is not a function of constitutional or historical constraints; it’s Senate leadership that refuses to take up the crisis.
The scientific evidence for gun policies further complicates this debate. A comprehensive review by RAND identified 152 studies that met stringent inclusion criteria; these examined the effect of 18 different types of gun policies on various outcomes. The review found that only three policy prevention laws, concealed carry laws, and stand-your-ground laws had high-quality evidence supporting their impact on specific outcomes.
Child-access prevention laws decreased the rate of firearm self-injury, homicides, and unintentional injuries among youth. On the other hand, stand-your-ground laws and shall-issue concealed carry laws were associated with a rise in firearm homicides. The results suggested that policies affecting how current gun owners store, carry, or use their firearms have greater population-level effects than those that target new gun acquisitions or specific groups of gun owners.
Moderate evidence also indicated that the imposition of requirements for background checks and waiting periods would decrease firearm homicides and suicides. However, many policy effects remain inadequately researched, limiting policymakers’ ability to make fully informed decisions.
While many of the outcomes studied in this review involve only limited empirical research, even small reductions in gun violence can add up to considerable effects: a 1-percent reduction in homicides could equate to approximately 2,500 fewer deaths over a decade. Building consensus among facts and highlighting where further study is needed will, therefore, help work toward fair and effective gun policies that balance public safety interests with constitutional rights.