One of the ways that we assess the stability of the international system is by examining the balance between offensive and defensive weapons. The basic argument is that a system in which offense has the advantage is less stable than a system in which defense has the advantage. Think about it this way: if two countries exist and both only have fixed forts on their own territory then it is impossible for those two countries to go to war against each other as forts can’t move. However, if both sides have mobile units that are highly destructive but easily vulnerable to attack, then both sides have the incentive to strike first as to not be the sucker that relied on the good intentions of the other side.
America’s love affair with the gun fits with an imagined scenario that is reminiscent to the first example: the American homesteader, sitting on his porch fending off villainous desperados. New laws, however, are pushing us toward the second example. A gun on the street becomes a purely offensive weapon. This should be a concern for non-gun owners as well as gun owners, as it creates an environment in which a lot more Trayvon Martins as well as George Zimmermans are needlessly dead.
The stand your ground laws create an unstable offensive dominated system. Under this law Trayvon Martin was actually as, if not more, justified to shoot and kill George Zimmerman. Trayvon was in a space in which he had the right to be, George was following him, and at the moment he saw that George war armed, Trayvon would have been irrational not to shoot first. (Of course, Trayvon wasn’t armed and I’m pretty sure that if the scenario had played out this way there would be no discussion of stand your ground laws, as Trayvon would have been arrested immediately.)
The point is that carry permits and stand your ground laws fundamentally change our domestic system from a defensive one, in which someone’s gun is used to protect a fixed location (their home), to an offensive one, in which someone not knowing the intention of another armed or potentially armed person encourages a first strike.
In addition, this has corrosive effects on our democracy as the gun’s presence changes one’s calculation on whether to voice what might be an unpopular opinion or, as in the case of Trayvon, being the wrong color. The NRA continues to push these laws and they are dangerous. They are dangerous not because guns themselves are inherently bad, but because a society that is offensively balanced is one in which there are a lot more people needlessly dead.
Democrats have moved away from gun control legislation, but in backing away from that fight, they have allowed laws to go on the book that aren’t pro-gun, but are simply pro-death. The tragedy of the Trayvon Martin case may hopefully help us develop a more nuanced understanding of the broader societal implications of these types of laws.