A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI
I don’t own a gun, and I don’t want a gun. I haven’t shot a gun in over 60 years. Nevertheless, I think it is essential to discuss the topic.
America has long struggled with the question of firearms. Few issues bring together as much history, culture, law, and raw emotion as the debate over guns.
Commentators such as Charlie Kirk argued that there is a fundamental lack of common sense in the belief that guns could simply be “taken off the streets.” His point resonates with millions of Americans who view guns not only as a constitutional right but also as a deeply embedded feature of national identity.
Yet the counterpoint is equally compelling to appreciate: a nation with more civilian-owned firearms than people also suffers from disproportionately high levels of gun violence, homicide, and suicide. In fact, the United States has the 7th most gun-related deaths of any country. Texas has the 16th most gun-related deaths out of the 50 states. Any serious effort to address the problem requires facing both the legal realities and the practical constraints—without illusions, but also without fatalism.
The Constitutional and Historical Framework
At the heart of the gun debate lies the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” End of story? Yes, to a large extent, except let’s explore further.
For much of American history, courts left the exact meaning of that provision vague, but in the past two decades the Supreme Court has clarified its scope. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court recognized an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, striking down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), that protection was extended to state governments. More recently, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court held that carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is constitutionally protected.
These rulings set important boundaries: broad bans on ownership or possession of common firearms are unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. The federal government and states may regulate, but only within limits consistent with historical tradition.
Thus, the law itself makes the idea of “taking guns off the streets” highly improbable and impossible in practice. Please re-read this sentence.
The Divergent Perspectives
The American debate over guns is not simply legal—it is cultural and moral.
On one side, gun-rights advocates stress the necessity of firearms for self-defense and as a deterrent against both crime and government overreach. They argue that firearms save lives daily, pointing to instances where citizens or concealed-carry permit holders prevent assaults or robberies.
To them, gun bans not only violate constitutional rights but also place law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who will inevitably obtain weapons through illegal means. If every law-abiding citizen voluntarily gave up their guns, there would be no change for the criminals possessing or wanting to acquire a gun.
On the other side, gun-control advocates emphasize the human toll: tens of thousands of firearm-related deaths annually, including suicides, homicides, and mass shootings. They call for “common-sense” regulations such as universal background checks, restrictions on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines, and “red-flag” laws that allow temporary removal of guns from individuals deemed dangerous. I could buy into this notion.
They note that countries with stricter gun laws—Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan—experience far lower rates of gun violence.
In the middle lies a large group of Americans who are neither absolutists nor ideologues. They may support background checks and stronger enforcement but recoil at outright bans. Again, that is me.
For them, the phrase “common sense” is highly contested—gun owners hear it as a euphemism for confiscation, while gun-control advocates invoke it to mean pragmatic safeguards.
The NRA and the Organized Defense of Gun Rights
No discussion of America’s gun debate is complete without addressing the role of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Founded in 1871 to promote marksmanship and firearms training, the NRA evolved into the nation’s most powerful gun-rights lobby. After the internal “Cincinnati Revolt” of 1977, its focus shifted from sporting culture to constitutional defense.
The NRA’s position rests on three principles:
- Individual Rights: The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and carry firearms for lawful purposes, especially self-defense.
- Enforcement over Expansion: Existing laws should be enforced consistently rather than replaced by new restrictions that mostly burden lawful owners.
- Cultural Heritage and Responsibility: Firearms symbolize independence and citizenship; they carry moral responsibility but not collective guilt.
In policy terms, the NRA supports national concealed-carry reciprocity, opposes bans on so-called assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, and urges tougher penalties for criminals who use guns illegally.
It maintains that mental-health failures—not firearms—are the key drivers of mass violence, and it advocates armed school resource officers and stronger security rather than new prohibitions on ownership.
Critics fault the NRA for blocking compromise and opposing universal background checks even when public support is overwhelming. Supporters counter that such measures often become registration systems that lead toward confiscation.
Whatever one’s view, the NRA’s influence is undeniable: it helped shape the constitutional reasoning behind Heller and Bruen and continues to frame the issue not merely as legislation but as a question of American identity—whether citizens will remain armed and self-reliant or dependent and disarmed.
The Scale and Shape of Gun Violence
In 2024, about 49,000 people in the U.S. died from firearm-related causes. Roughly 56 percent were suicides, 41 percent were homicides, and the remainder were accidental or undetermined. The perspective is 146 deaths per 1,000,000 people, even though every single life is precious.
While gun ownership continues to rise, homicide rates have fluctuated by city and region—falling in some urban centers and rising in others—showing that cultural, economic, and mental-health factors matter as much as access itself.
Gang and Illegal-Immigrant Violence
While national data resist precise tabulation, analysts agree that gang-related violence contributes significantly to homicide totals in many urban areas, and cross-border or noncitizen perpetrators appear in a modest but serious number of cases.
Federal operations have intercepted unlawfully present noncitizens charged with murder or assault, and noncitizen defendants represent a measurable share of federal sentences—about 21,000 out of 61,000 cases in 2024, with roughly 89 percent identified as illegal aliens.
At the same time, broader research shows that U.S.-born individuals commit the majority of weapons offenses, and legal immigrant populations as a whole do not display a higher rate of violent crime.
This nuance should not be used to dismiss the issue; rather, it underscores that illegal involvement, gang networks, and trafficking cells demand direct attention alongside broader societal factors.
Comprehensive policy must target both mainstream and fringe drivers of gun violence: organized gangs that weaponize poverty and territory, and unlawful actors who exploit border loopholes or false identification to traffic firearms.
Practical Realities on the Ground
Beyond constitutional theory and political slogans lies a stubborn reality: there are more than 400 million civilian-owned firearms already in circulation in the United States. Yes, more than 1 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
No government program could realistically eliminate them.
Consider Australia’s experience. After a 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur, the government enacted sweeping reforms and a buyback that removed about 650,000 guns.
Gun deaths fell and mass shootings became rare, but Australia had a fraction of the guns and a different constitutional framework. Attempting something similar in the U.S. would be logistically impossible and politically untenable.
Domestically, Chicago offers another example. Despite some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the city continues to face high homicide rates because illegal trafficking across state lines undermines local controls.
Illegal Guns and the Border Problem
A further complicating factor is international and cross-border trafficking.
While much attention focuses on U.S.-origin firearms flowing south into Mexico—where hundreds of thousands are recovered or traced to American dealers each year—there is also a persistent flow of illegally imported guns, parts, and unmarked “ghost-gun” components moving into the United States.
These illicit pipelines exploit customs gaps, shipping loopholes, and unregulated parts markets. Because such weapons often lack serial numbers, they evade tracing and fuel underground markets that are extremely difficult to detect or disrupt.
Any serious control strategy must therefore combine border interdiction, bilateral enforcement partnerships, and better regulation of imported components alongside domestic anti-trafficking efforts to reduce the “dark” firearm supply entering circulation.
Urban and Rural Realities
Gun violence looks different depending on where one lives.
Urban areas struggle with concentrated crime, gang conflicts, and illegal trafficking networks.
Rural areas face higher per-capita rates of suicide and accidental shootings.
A one-size-fits-all national law fails to address these contrasts; policy must be tailored to local causes, not just symptoms.
Federal vs. State Approaches
The gun debate also reflects America’s federal structure.
California and New York have enacted some of the strictest laws in the nation—limiting magazine capacity, banning certain semi-automatics, and requiring detailed permits.
After Bruen, New York restricted carrying guns in “sensitive places” such as subways and churches, though courts have struck down parts of that law.
By contrast, Texas and other southern states moved in the opposite direction, adopting permitless “constitutional carry” and focusing on armed school protection after the Uvalde tragedy.
The result is a legal patchwork: firearms cross borders easily, undermining strict states, while federal uniformity remains constitutionally constrained.
Americans in Los Angeles, Dallas, or rural Montana live under vastly different rules, each reflecting local culture and politics.
Legal Issues with Policy Proposals
Many reform ideas face constitutional hurdles.
Assault-weapon bans suffer definitional problems and repeated legal challenges.
Red-flag laws raise due-process questions.
Universal background checks face enforcement issues, especially for private sales.
Courts now require any restriction to fit within “historical tradition,” making broad new bans difficult to defend.
Paths Toward Realistic Solutions
1. Strengthen existing systems.
Fix gaps in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and prosecute straw purchasers who supply guns to criminals.
2. Target high-risk groups.
In cities like Baltimore, a small number of repeat offenders drive most shootings. Focused deterrence and community intervention can yield results without sweeping bans.
3. Promote culture and education.
Safe-storage campaigns, voluntary buybacks, and suicide-prevention initiatives reduce risk while respecting rights. Gun-safety training—often championed by gun owners themselves—builds responsibility.
4. Expand bipartisan ground.
Broader mental-health services, school threat-assessment teams, and public-safety research are areas where both sides increasingly agree.
5. Explore Non-Governmental Innovation.
Smart-gun technologies, biometric trigger locks, and insurance incentives for safe storage could reduce accidental deaths. Partnerships between police departments, community centers, and gun clubs promote safety education outside the political spotlight.
Philosophical Reflection
Common sense, in the end, is not about choosing one extreme or another—it is about the willingness to live with liberty’s risks and responsibilities at once.
Freedom always carries danger, but maturity lies in managing that danger without surrendering either courage or conscience.
Conclusion
Charlie Kirk’s observation captures a basic truth: removing guns wholesale from American life ignores both law and reality.
But it is equally lacking in common sense to pretend that the status quo is acceptable.
The United States cannot wish away its constitutional protections, nor can it ignore daily tragedies.
Real-world cases—from Australia’s buyback to Chicago’s failures, from cross-border trafficking to Texas’s school-safety reforms—show both limits and possibilities.
The challenge is not to imagine a gun-free America but to build one where rights are preserved and lives are protected through pragmatic solutions, not rhetoric.
Appendix A – Major U.S. Gun Laws and Court Rulings
• 1934 – National Firearms Act: Regulated machine guns and silencers after Prohibition-era violence.
• 1938 – Federal Firearms Act: Required dealer licenses; barred sales to felons.
• 1968 – Gun Control Act: Expanded oversight after major assassinations; added age limits and banned mail-order guns.
• 1986 – Firearm Owners’ Protection Act: Rolled back some restrictions; banned new machine-gun registrations.
• 1993 – Brady Handgun Act: Created federal background checks via NICS.
• 1994 – Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Limited semi-automatics and large magazines; expired 2004.
• 2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller: Recognized an individual right to own firearms.
• 2010 – McDonald v. Chicago: Applied Heller to states.
• 2022 – New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen: Protected public carry and established the “historical tradition” test.
Appendix B – Comparative Overview of State Firearm Policies (as of 2025)
Open Carry: Texas – permitless constitutional carry; California – prohibited; New York – restricted; Florida – allowed only with concealed-carry license; Illinois – prohibited.
Concealed Carry: Texas – permitless for adults 21+; California – strict “may issue”; New York – “shall issue” post-Bruen with sensitive-place limits; Florida – “shall issue”; Illinois – “shall issue” with training.
Assault-Weapon Bans: Texas – none; California – yes (expanded 2016; under challenge); New York – yes (2013 SAFE Act); Florida – none; Illinois – yes (2019).
Magazine Limits: California, New York, Illinois – 10-round maximum; Texas & Florida – none.
Background Checks: Texas & Florida – federal NICS only; California, New York, Illinois – universal for all transfers.
Red-Flag (ERPO) Laws: Texas – limited (police petition only); California, New York, Florida, Illinois – active.
Waiting Periods: California 10 days; New York 3; Florida 3; Illinois 72 hours; Texas none.
Stand-Your-Ground vs. Duty to Retreat: Texas & Florida – Stand-Your-Ground; California, New York, Illinois – duty to retreat outside the home.
State Preemption: Texas & Florida – strong state control; California & Illinois – allow local rules; New York – moderate hybrid model.
Storage and Safety Locks: Texas – voluntary, education-focused; California – required when minors present; New York – required for all firearms; Florida – encouraged through incentives; Illinois – mandated with penalties.
Overall Trends: Coastal states emphasize regulation; southern/western states prioritize rights; Illinois blends both. Litigation after Bruen continues to redefine boundaries between tradition and safety.
Appendix C – Emerging Supreme Court and Legal Issues
• U.S. v. Rahimi (2024): Tests whether those under domestic-violence restraining orders can be barred from gun possession.
• Age-Based Purchase Restrictions: Ongoing challenges to bans on handgun sales to adults under 21.
• High-Capacity Magazine Laws: Appeals courts split on constitutionality; likely Supreme Court review ahead.
• Federal “Ghost Gun” Regulation: Disputes over ATF authority to classify unassembled parts as firearms.
These pending cases will define the next era of Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Appendix D – Firearm Death Rates (Per Million People)
(All causes: homicide, suicide, accident; 2023–2024 averages)
Top 20 Countries – Per Million
- El Salvador – 400
- Honduras – 350
- Venezuela – 320
- Brazil – 210
- Colombia – 180
- Mexico – 170
- United States – 146
- Uruguay – 120
- Paraguay – 100
- Dominican Republic – 90
- Guatemala – 87
- South Africa – 85
- Ecuador – 80
- Peru – 60
- Philippines – 55
- Canada – 22
- France – 20
- Germany – 10
- United Kingdom – 3
- Japan – 1
All 50 U.S. States – Per Million (numbered, one list)
- Mississippi – 330
- Louisiana – 300
- New Mexico – 295
- Alabama – 285
- Wyoming – 280
- Montana – 275
- Missouri – 265
- Arkansas – 260
- Tennessee – 255
- Alaska – 250
- West Virginia – 210
- Oklahoma – 190
- South Carolina – 190
- Kentucky – 180
- Idaho – 170
- Texas – 170
- Arizona – 165
- Georgia – 160
- Indiana – 160
- Nevada – 155
- Florida – 150
- North Carolina – 150
- Ohio – 150
- Kansas – 140
- Pennsylvania – 140
- Michigan – 135
- Colorado – 130
- Utah – 130
- Delaware – 130
- Illinois – 125
- Virginia – 120
- Iowa – 120
- Nebraska – 115
- Maryland – 115
- South Dakota – 115
- North Dakota – 110
- Wisconsin – 110
- Maine – 100
- Vermont – 95
- New Hampshire – 95
- Oregon – 90
- Washington – 85
- Minnesota – 80
- Connecticut – 70
- California – 65
- Rhode Island – 60
- New York – 55
- New Jersey – 50
- Hawaii – 45
- Massachusetts – 40
Perspective
The U.S. national average is 146 deaths per million. The highest states exceed 300 per million, while the safest are at 50 or below. If every state matched Massachusetts’s rate, national firearm deaths would drop from ~49,000 to roughly 13,000 per year—about a 70% reduction.
Let's Talk About It, Lewis! 