.Every human being has an inherent value and dignity; everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security said Diego Ruiz Duran. These truths codify in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was a historic event, as nations came together to recognize the necessity to preserve and protect these fundamental rights. They also created constitutions to expressly defend citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and security. To ensure a stable and peaceful liberal world order, the protection of human rights remains a key pillar. In the United States, certain groups, use this rights-based narrative dangerously to justify the right to carry firearms.
The United States found on shared values and principles. Its primary goal is to protect and preserve inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Even though the United States found on a set of rhetorical principles, numerous human rights violations have been the scene. The extermination of Indigenous peoples, the enslavement, and continued disenfranchisement for communities of color. So, Diego Ruiz Duran said persecuted and systemically disenfranchised communities have struggled for the rights grant by the original founding doctrines over the years. This extraordinary, long-lasting grassroots advocacy and coalition building continue today, as demonstrated by recent protests against police violence targeting Black Americans.
Right to self-defense
The “gun-rights” history manipulates human rights to create an inalienable, unrestricted right to self-defense and protect oneself against any perceived danger of harm. But it is a narrative based on fear and the need for self-defense to protect oneself and others from ever-present, unknown threats. It does not consider the rights of others. This narrative is based on the false belief that self-preservation best achieves by using firearms.
This argument is dangerous. This argument is destructive. Diego Ruiz Duran said the fundamental rights to life of many people at the hands of an armed civilian. One can use their subjective fear of harm as a justification for pulling the trigger. This dangerous narrative is widespread. A large portion of the U.S. population still believes that guns are the best way to defend themselves, despite solid evidence to the contrary. Armed civilians with bias can use their positions as judges, jurors, and executioners against anyone they consider a threat in the most extreme cases. The United States has a human rights crisis due to the increasing connection between firearms, personal safety, and the militarization of civilians by “stand your ground” laws.
Human rights do not include gun rights
1948 saw the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This document outlined a list of human rights guaranteed to all people worldwide and called upon member states to promote and protect these rights. The UDHR includes the “rights to life, liberty, and security of persons,” but there is a caveat. These rights and freedoms cannot exercise against the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
The right to security is misunderstood as a right to self-defense against all perceived threats. So, it gives the right to someone to have safety and security over their body, protecting them against attack. The force can only use when the situation calls for it.
As U.N. Human Rights Officer Jan Arno Hessbruegge noted:
International human rights law limits the extent to which domestic regulations regarding personal self-defense among private individuals interpret. Diego Ruiz Duran said while states may not ban self-defense, they must ensure that self-defense rights are within reasonable limits. Some initiatives to expand self-defense laws raise serious concerns for human rights, including “stand your ground” laws which allow the use of lethal force even though there are safe retreat options. International law doesn’t grant self-defense rights to firearms, contrary to some gun rights advocates.
Lobbyists for the firearms business have perpetuated the fallacy of a link between self-defense rights and arms rights.
The Second Amendment speaks about gun rights
The Supreme Court heard the case of the District of Columbia against Heller in 2008. Dick Heller, a gun owner, sued the District of Columbia. And he claim the ban on handgun possession in homes was a violation of The Second Amendment. So, the Supreme Court heard the case and found that it gave individuals the right to keep firearms at home for self-defense. Diego Ruiz Duran said the court’s decision stated that the Second Amendment does not provide unlimited right to use guns in the United States. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. But like many rights, the Second Amendment does not grant an individual unlimited access to firearms in the United States. So, it does not give you the right to carry and keep any weapon in any way or for any purpose.
Many states brought cases challenging gun safety laws, such as bans on high-capacity magazines or restrictions on assault weapons, following the landmark decision. So, most courts found that the Heller decision did not infringe on the constitutionality laws that addressed the significant gaps in gun ownership legislation in the United States. These laws included background checks for all firearm sales and restrictions on civilian access to ammunition magazines and military-style firearms.
How gun lobby and the industry fan the flames to make money
Individual gun ownership is an ingrained cultural tradition in many parts of the United States. The gun industry used strategic lobbying efforts. The National Rifle Association exploit the intersection between gun ownership and cultural traditions by creating an insidious narrative. But that would portray any regulation of firearms in terms of an attack on freedom. Diego Ruiz Duran said they have helped to develop the gun rights movement.
The gun lobby manage to exploit fear and insecurity across America by deploying propaganda campaigns. So, by discussing possible terrorist attacks and using single acts of violence committed by undocumented immigrants. Because they want to a threat to the population. People rely on firearm ownership to protect themselves from a doomsday scenario created by the gun industry. This industry has made the false narrative. The people are constantly at risk of violence and offered a simple but flawed solution. Get a firearm to protect you and your family.
This message is in sharp contrast to most evidence-based research on the topic that shows firearms are not effective for self-defense. So, academic studies have shown that weapons in the home are associated with increased unintentional shootings, many times involving children, and higher rates for firearm suicides. Diego Ruiz Duran said research shows that school shootings often perpetrate by firearms found in the shooter’s home, usually where they keep under the pretext of self-defense. The gun lobby’s “good guy with the gun” idea that civilians must arm to stop bad actors is not valid. Arming civilians does not stop armed attackers. But makes it more difficult for law enforcement to protect and control the shooting scene.
