Any discussion on gun control that fails to address gun violence will ultimately fall short.
In advance of gun control activist David Hogg’s visit to the Athenaeum on February 4th, Shiv Parihar published an article in The Forum titled, “David Hogg is No Human Rights Activist.” The piece admonishes Hogg for his strong stance on gun control and argues against the disarmament of American citizens. While the article raises important points, its distorted evidence and refusal to acknowledge the United State’s gun violence epidemic—all framed within a personal attack on Hogg—misleads readers. We believe that the piece overlooks critical factors that must be acknowledged in any solution-oriented conversation on the Second Amendment and gun violence.
The piece states that guns “have historically served as a great equalizer” by helping victims, especially women, “resist crime.” Parihar cites two scientific studies to support these assertions but fails to acknowledge their flaws. The first study was led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which casts suspicion on its motives and reliability. More notably, the National Research Council discredited both studies for their reliance on a faulty self-reporting mechanism which likely overestimated instances of self-defense.
At the center of the article’s argument, though, is a nuanced point about firearms being a means for Black Americans to defend themselves against racial violence. Though this evidence is important and rarely brought up in Second Amendment debates, Parihar warps it to support a distorted conclusion. He argues that people like Hogg who believe in “systemic racial biases” should not entrust the government with gun violence prevention, as the implementation of such laws could disproportionately target communities of color. But the piece completely ignores the fact that gun violence disproportionately affects Black Americans, instead tokenizing the experiences of communities of color to advocate for a policy that is in direct contrast to the current policy agendas of organizations like the NAACP. A study from UPenn Medicine shows that while Black individuals represent only 12.6% of the U.S. population, they are vastly overrepresented as gun violence victims, experiencing over 44.5% of total firearm injuries. Ultimately, the article fails to acknowledge that stricter gun control might protect these communities from the systemic harms they already suffer.
More broadly, the article makes exactly zero mentions of gun violence. The most recent data from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center shows that in 2021, a record-high 20,958 people died from gun murders (up 45% from 2019). Another recent study from Johns Hopkins showed that in 2022, for the third year in a row, gun-related deaths were the leading cause of death among children and teenagers. While the article addresses the benefits of guns for self-defense, it fails to acknowledge the many offensive and unjustified uses of guns. Even if you believe that criminals rather than guns are responsible for violence, not mentioning the adverse impacts of firearms on any level is irresponsible from a journalistic standpoint.
Parihar—up to the very last sentence—levels his argument against disarmament, asserting that “we ought to be wary of those who seek to take [guns] away.” Earlier, the piece states that “When despots have sought to roll back human rights, they have inevitably targeted gun rights… Nazi Germany disarmed its Jewish population on the eve of the Holocaust.” This anecdote, made in relation to a larger argument about gun control, misconstrues disarmament as a serious possibility in present-day America when that is simply not the case. The article fails to provide a single piece of evidence to support the claim that large-scale disarmament is a credible threat, much less the policy agenda of David Hogg.
Though Hogg did say on X—as the article correctly cites—that, “You have no right to a gun,” he has never supported a government program of mass disarmament. In reality, his activism is centered around passing universal background checks by registering voters and promoting young progressive candidates. Generally, the framing of the article as an attack on Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting (in which 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, walked into his high school with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and multiple magazines, killing 17 people and wounding 14 more) seems, at best, tone-deaf.
As two Claremont students whose shared Portland community has been impacted by multiple instances of gun violence, resulting in the deaths of at least four of our former high school classmates, we were upset that the article failed to mention victims of gun violence. Considering the destructive impacts that guns have had on too many communities like ours, we believe that gun control discussions should be centered on solutions to address the epidemic.
When it comes to such a complex issue, we believe that more conversation is needed to both protect liberties and address gun violence. Any reporting on this issue should seek to reconcile both those interests. While we respect Parihar’s contribution to the conversation, we believe he ultimately misrepresented the nature of the gun control debate by taking it out of its present context.
Even in the present day, it would be silly to impose or advocate for a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. With this said, there are some promising proposals to address the gun violence epidemic that we support, including federal laws to ban AR-15-style rifles and close background check loopholes. We do not believe that it is a human right to own assault rifles, weapons of war designed specifically for the military. As for background checks, under the current federal law, they are only required for licensed gun dealers, not unlicensed sellers, including those who sell firearms online or at gun shows. This loophole has been abused by illegal firearm trafficking operations. Moreover, social services should be marshaled to address the mental health crisis sweeping our country. While these measures alone will not stop gun violence, we believe that they are a necessary first step to address the issue. This crisis cannot be swept under the rug, and any discussion on gun control that fails to address gun violence will ultimately fall short.