Assault weapon bans are only justified if they outweigh the value of freedom – Orange County Register

The rifles are on display at Coastal Trading and Pawn, Monday, July 18, 2022, in Auburn, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, file)

Last week, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the Maryland Gun Safety Act of 2013. Maryland is one of ten states that have banned assault weapons, with California having some of the most restrictive gun laws in America. Most of these assault weapons bans tend to focus on semi-automatic rifle platforms like the AR-15, given that they are among the deadliest types of weapons available.

The justification for an assault weapons ban depends heavily on a society's values. Among the high-income countries of the Western world, America places particular importance on preserving as many freedoms as is reasonable. Many of our European cousins ​​object to such claims, but it's hard to resist the idea when you look at the type of legislation being passed in countries like the UK and France.

In the UK, you need a “special reason” to carry a chef's knife in your car and in France, children are banned from wearing religious symbols in schools, including the Christian cross and the hijab. Naturally, many European countries have implemented strict gun laws, prohibiting civilians from owning most types of firearms.

American resistance to the type of gun reform that has taken place in European countries is essentially a case where we have engaged in a trade-off between liberty and security.

Gun rights supporters might hesitate to declare that they choose greater freedom over the lives of their fellow Americans. They may claim that their opposition to gun control is primarily motivated by preserving our ability to defend ourselves and that, therefore, resisting gun control is actually putting safety first.

But if we look at all the available evidence, preserving our right to bear arms is not a matter of safety. The United States has the highest rate of gun violence among highly developed countries. Should we conclude that guns make us safer? This may make me safer as an individual in case a criminal enters my home, but it does not make our society safer.

Instead, gun rights advocates should adhere to their commitment to prioritizing liberty over security. It is arguably just as acceptable for a country to choose greater security over freedom, as the Europeans did, as it is for a country to choose greater freedom over security.

The 2nd Amendment is not the only case where we must choose between competing interests when freedom is at stake. In fact, we make such trade-offs all the time. We could improve the quality of life of millions of people and extend life expectancy if we banned junk food, alcohol and tobacco.

We choose to allow people to die prematurely because even millions of premature deaths and billion Losses in economic productivity are not enough to outweigh our interest in preserving these freedoms.

The priority given to freedom over security is not absolute. You must prove that you can drive a car competently by obtaining a license, and you must wear a seat belt to do so. By requiring seat belts, we sacrifice only a small amount of freedom, while significantly improving safety.