by Michael Peterson

The Murphy Institute continued its “Hot Topics, Cool Talk” series with the November 15 program “Gun Ownership for Self Defense? Is It the Right Thing to Do?” featuring School of Law professors Greg Sisk and Julie Jonas with President Rob Vischer as moderator.  Over 100 students, faculty, and community members filled the largest classroom in the law school for a spirited yet civil conversation between Professors Sisk and Jonas on the merits of gun ownership for self-defense.  Sisk and Jonas each presented their contrasting stance on the issue followed by an extended Q&A session for dialogue with one another and the audience.

In his introductory remarks, President Vischer described his experiences with guns. He told a story of the hesitation he and his wife shared in allowing their children to play at a friend’s house while living in New York because the parents had a gun in the home. But then the Vischers moved to Minnesota. “If we hadn’t let our kids go to houses that had guns in them,” Vischer stated, “then they would have grown up pretty lonely children.” He went on to remark that the really important thing in the “Hot Topics, Cool Talk” events was the fact that they showed that relationships without agreement are possible and that agreement is not a prerequisite for relationships. The willingness to relate, despite real differences, is especially important in our increasingly polarized age.

Professor Sisk began his presentation declaring that he was defending the morality and utility of owning a handgun for self-defense. Then, he stated seven reasons for concern with owning a handgun. Real problems can arise, for instance, when people own handguns without taking proper precautions to secure them, or without spending enough time practicing with them, or without the right temperament for owning them, or when not taking enough care of their mental health. These problems are real, and can be serious, and have to be taken care of.

Sisk then laid out several reasons to own a handgun. He noted that, though the media does not like to mention it, violent crime is rising in Minneapolis. In fact, he claimed, Minneapolis is one of the dozen cities in the country with the highest rates of violent crime per capita: higher even than Chicago and New York. In addition, Minneapolis has a low ratio of police to citizens, and the ratio has been dropping since 2019. This makes police response time to emergencies slower and gun ownership even more warranted for self-protection.

For her piece, Professor Jonas took a more sociological approach. Empirical evidence, she claimed, supported her position that handgun ownership makes the country more dangerous than it otherwise might be. For instance, by far the largest cause of gun deaths in the United States are by suicide. Take away guns, Jonas argued, and those deaths might not occur. Additionally, there are mass shootings to consider. Further, she pointed out, it is not clear from the data that guns are even that useful for self-defense. Handguns are fired in defense in an extraordinarily small number of violent crimes. Jonas concluded that handguns are exceedingly dangerous, often used for self-destruction, and limited in their crime-deterrent effect.

Questions came quickly once the Q&A portion began.  One audience member asked the presenters, “What would convince you to change your mind?” to which Professor Sisk promptly replied, “Nothing!” After a moment’s pause, Sisk then answered that he would support more stringent requirements for obtaining and using firearms, however. In response to a question regarding alternative means of self-defense, Professor Jonas mentioned tasers and pepper spray. She also told the audience that she lived in the suburbs, not Minneapolis itself, and mentioned to Professor Sisk that, “To be fair, Greg, neither do you!”

At the conclusion of the program, President Vischer thanked both the presenters and the audience for their participation in the sort of event that brings crucial awareness to the importance of civil dialogue and models its ideal.

 

A recording of this program is available in the Murphy Institute video archive.

Michael Peterson is a Murphy Scholar and 3L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.