Gun Licensing in Assam: At What Cost?

Debanjan Borthakur

Perhaps it was 2017. The University of Rhode Island. At that university, Renowned Assamese Dr. Dilip Dutta taught mathematics. Under the university’s Center for Nonviolence and Peace Studies, this writer had to give a presentation in the final class of a course. It has been many years now; the memory is faint and scattered. Humanity should take precedence in people’s minds over the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. While the Second Amendment secures the right to keep and bear arms, that right should not override the basic necessity of safeguarding human life and public safety. The core aim of any society must be to work for the good of its people, not the uncontrolled promotion and spread of weapons. When widespread access to guns fuels mass shootings, domestic violence, and rising suicide rates, one must ask whether the right to own firearms is depriving others of the right to live without fear. There is no evidence or statistics showing that handing weapons to everyone brings peace to society or protects the vulnerable; on the contrary, the negative consequences are visible.

In parts of today’s world, the air itself feels heavy with the haze of gunpowder. The arms trade marches on in the name of peace, but peace is nowhere to be found. In a climate of deep doubt and uncertainty about a nation’s very existence, the policy of granting gun licenses to “indigenous” residents is hardly welcome. Unlike Americans, Assamese people have shown no special fondness for a gun culture. Many Indian states–Uttar Pradesh, Kashmir, Punjab, and others–have issued large numbers of arms licenses. Even so, Uttar Pradesh has one of the highest crime rates, with a per capita rate of 7.4.

Before diving into a dry sea of numbers, one can pause for a little philosophical reflection. Utilitarianism, proposed by Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is an ethical theory that says an action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In other words, people should judge the moral value of any policy by its outcomes, especially how effectively it promotes human well-being and reduces suffering. By that measure, gun ownership granted in the name of self-defence and safety causes more harm statistically, particularly through higher rates of suicide, homicide, and accidental death. A firearm in the home is far more likely to be used for suicide or domestic violence than for self-defence. From a utilitarian perspective, gun control is morally justified because it reduces preventable deaths and social harm. The very idea of the state arose from a social contract, an account of why state authority over individuals is legitimate. If individuals take up arms for self-defence or any other pretext, that contract can be undermined. One cannot confidently claim that the Second Amendment has not revived the possibility of anarchy in society. Is Assam moving in that direction? If every citizen becomes an enforcer, people compromise the legitimacy of law enforcement agencies and the justice system itself. The spread of guns erodes social order and heightens collective insecurity.

Several high-profile incidents of gun violence have deeply affected America and repeatedly underscored the need for gun control. Columbine High School (1999): In Littleton, Colorado, two students killed 13 people and injured more than 20 before taking their own lives, sparking a nationwide debate on gun laws and school safety. Sandy Hook Elementary (2012): In Newtown, Connecticut, a gunman murdered 20 children and six adults, renewing urgent calls for stricter gun control and accelerating efforts toward new state and federal measures. Las Vegas (2017): Considered the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, a gunman opened fire on a music festival crowd, killing 60 and injuring hundreds. Parkland (2018): A former student killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. Survivors became powerful voices for reform, helping launch the March for Our Lives movement. Listing such facts can be wearying. Data alone may not change hearts, yet a blend of facts and reason may still move the authorities toward positive change. Gun violence remains a major issue in the United States; in 2023, roughly 47,000 people died from firearm injuries–about 58% by suicide and 38% by homicide. Who wants to keep guns? About 45% of Republicans report owning guns, compared with about 20% of Democrats. There is also a business side to gun popularity: the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains one of the most influential groups advocating minimal restrictions on gun ownership, lobbying at both state and federal levels to defend Second Amendment rights and block gun control measures.

Research on gun violence and ownership reflects the complex interplay between individual rights and public safety. Studies show that higher rates of gun ownership are strongly and independently associated with higher rates of firearm deaths. Other research links greater gun prevalence to higher suicide rates; firearms are the most lethal method of suicide, and easy access makes attempts more likely to be fatal. Police carry guns, and firearms often feature in officers’ suicides as well. It is therefore clear that guns have a direct relationship with suicide, particularly because many episodes of depression are transient, yet when a gun is at hand, as in America, one cannot rule out that Assam’s suicide rate might rise rather than fall. Who will be granted licenses? Can anybody claim that no particular group will benefit? Many allege that the NRA in America resists removing guns from white supremacist groups; it is no secret that members of such groups were implicated in some of the massacres mentioned. People who keep guns may feel somewhat safer, but crime data suggest no special reduction in risk. On the other hand, alongside all the negative effects noted above, widespread gun ownership can cause those without guns to feel fear and vulnerability. From Aristotle’s perspective, in a society that idolises guns, the place of virtues like courage is taken over by mere caution, and trust in the rule of law erodes. The Assam government should weigh these considerations. No one can guarantee that issuing gun licenses will not, in time, breed disorder. Instead of making citizens dependent on weapons for self protection, other measures should be taken:

a)  Strengthen police capacity and ensure public safety in remote areas.
b)  Provide adequate services and support to prevent mental health crises and suicide.
c)   Rather than fostering fear and division by distributing guns, invest in education and awareness to build trust and cooperation among communities.
d)  Apply strict standards for licensing, prevent misuse of weapons, and prioritise socio economic development.

At the University of Rhode Island, it was taught how to seek solutions to social conflict, especially through the methods of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. As one would expect, none of those methods included a certain word: “gun.”

[Debanjan Borthakur, Toronto, Canada, +1 905 870 7641]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 58, No. 9, Aug 24 - 30, 2025