Newswise — CORVALLIS, Ore. – Recent findings from Oregon State University reveal that American citizens leverage their comprehension of firearm privileges to evaluate the ethicality of individuals employing guns for self-defense against criminal activities, with this evaluation differing across distinct situations.
The study aimed to investigate Americans' comprehension of the Second Amendment, the sole constitutional right that directly grants individuals access to a consumer item, and how this comprehension influences the moral acceptability of various gun-related behaviors. The researchers also analyzed the impact of recent court decisions, legal transformations, and market shifts on consumers' entitlements to utilize firearms for self-defense against criminal activities.
According to Michelle Barnhart, one of the authors of the paper and an associate professor in OSU's College of Business, the study's findings reveal that people hold diverse perspectives on the permissible use of guns. However, their thought processes are predominantly driven by a desire to act in accordance with moral principles, such as safeguarding the well-being of their loved ones and other individuals.
"We cannot simply categorize individuals as either pro-gun or anti-gun," stated Michelle Barnhart. She emphasized the complexity of people's perspectives regarding gun rights and armed protection in America. When contemplating the morality of using firearms for self-defense, individuals evaluate specific factors and situational characteristics to form their judgments.
According to Barnhart, people take into account several factors when assessing the morality of gun usage. These factors include the location where the gun is being carried or used, the perceived nature of the threat, and the background and experience of the person wielding the firearm. This includes considerations such as whether the individual possesses a permit, has received training, and has a criminal record or a history of mental illness.
The recently published findings in the Journal of Consumer Research shed light on the intricate perspectives held by Americans regarding gun rights. The paper's co-authors, Aimee Huff and Michelle Barnhart, both associate professors in the OSU College of Business, explore American gun culture from a consumer standpoint. Inara Scott, an associate professor and associate dean for teaching and learning excellence in the College of Business, contributes her expertise as an attorney specializing in constitutional law, business ethics, and related subjects. Together, their research provides valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of Americans' views on gun rights.
The researchers utilized a combination of one-on-one interviews and a large online discussion group, facilitated by professionals, to gain a deeper understanding of how consumers perceive their gun rights. The objective was to explore the reasons behind why certain consumers choose to assume the legally and morally intricate responsibility of owning and utilizing firearms for protection, while others entrust that responsibility to the state. This approach aimed to shed light on the underlying motivations and factors influencing individuals' perspectives on gun ownership and usage.
Earlier studies have demonstrated a notable increase in the percentage of gun owners in the United States who possess firearms for self-protection. The figure has risen from 65% in 2000 to 88% in 2021. Interestingly, this shift has transpired despite crime statistics indicating a substantial decline of 79% in rates of violent crime, including assault and robbery, between 1993 and 2021. These findings highlight a complex relationship between individuals' perception of personal safety and the ownership of firearms, in which factors beyond objective crime rates play a role.
The researchers discovered that strategic messaging plays a significant role in influencing how individuals perceive major societal issues and their ability to tackle those problems. Over the past few decades, pro-gun lobbying groups, politicians, certain U.S. courts, and other entities have conveyed the idea that safeguarding oneself, family, and community from crime is an individual duty. This messaging has led to a phenomenon known as "responsibilization," where the responsibility for addressing social problems is shifted away from the state and onto the individual, as explained by Barnhart. This shift in responsibility has implications for how individuals perceive their role in addressing crime and shaping public safety policies.
Barnhart points out that what distinguishes responsibilization in the context of guns is the evolving definition of responsible behavior over time. She notes that lobbying groups and market influences have played a role in reshaping societal norms. Behaviors like openly carrying handguns for self-defense, which were previously prohibited by law, are now viewed by many as responsible conduct due to the influence of these groups and market factors. This shift highlights the malleability of societal perceptions and the potential impact of external influences on shaping what is deemed responsible in relation to firearms.
Barnhart points out that certain negative consequences of armed self-protection have become evident in incidents where individuals have been mistakenly shot due to misunderstandings. These incidents include cases where people have knocked on the wrong door, entered the wrong driveway, or entered the wrong car, leading gun owners to believe they were facing criminal activity and responding with gunfire. Such instances highlight the potential dangers associated with a reliance on firearms for personal protection and emphasize the need for caution and awareness in these situations.
The researchers observed that consumers, in general, perceive their rights under the Second Amendment as a collection of interconnected rights. This bundle includes the right to protect oneself, one's family, and one's property. However, the specific composition of this bundle can differ from person to person. Furthermore, individuals vary in their perception of Second Amendment rights as either secular or sacred, with some considering them to be divinely granted. Additionally, there are divergent viewpoints on whether these rights are timeless or outdated, as well as whether they are absolute or subject to certain conditions. These variations in perspective reflect the complex and nuanced nature of individuals' understanding and interpretation of Second Amendment rights.
Huff highlights the significance of utilizing these categories to gauge where individuals stand on the spectrum of gun rights and the Second Amendment. Many polling questions merely inquire about whether people support the Second Amendment or not, failing to capture the intricate nuances associated with people's comprehension of the Second Amendment. By considering these categories, a more comprehensive understanding can be obtained regarding individuals' perspectives on gun rights and their interpretation of the Second Amendment. This recognition of nuance is crucial for accurately assessing public sentiment on these matters.
The researchers further investigated how people's perceptions of the Second Amendment have been shaped by the implementation of new laws related to gun carrying and ownership, as well as by court rulings that uphold acceptable uses of firearms for self-defense, including "stand your ground" laws. These legal developments have had an impact on individuals' understanding of their rights and the boundaries of permissible gun use. By examining these influences, the researchers aimed to gain insights into how evolving laws and court decisions have influenced public attitudes and interpretations of the Second Amendment.
"Our comprehension shapes the law, while the law reciprocally shapes our comprehension," Scott stated. "This manuscript delves into profound inquiries regarding our societal interactions and the ways in which they are molded by external influences."
The investigators additionally discovered that consumers' perception of the Second Amendment may not consistently align with existing law, thereby potentially exposing them to legal risks. As an illustration, within the study, certain participants expressed the belief that the Second Amendment grants them the authority to employ force for safeguarding against property theft. However, in general, U.S. law does not acknowledge the right to use force in such circumstances, clarified Huff.
"That highlights the advantages of mandating a certain level of training for firearm owners; in states where training is a prerequisite for carrying a concealed handgun, gun owners not only acquire knowledge about the laws in their respective state but also develop an understanding of the variations in laws across other states," she noted. "Imposing training requirements could serve to safeguard gun owners who genuinely seek to comply with the laws of their state."
RSS