The fundamental compact between a government and its citizens hinges on a foundational promise: The state will ensure the safety and security of its people. Citizens entrust their freedoms and resources to the government in exchange for this essential protection. However, in the United States, this fundamental obligation has been broken, forcing a fearful population, who might otherwise be in favor of gun control, to buy them for their personal and family safety.

The increasing necessity for individuals to arm themselves for self-preservation signals a critical breakdown in the social contract. This breach of duty plays out daily in the deaths by suicide, accident, homicide and mass shootings involving guns. What’s worse, this failure has eviscerated trust in the government–which has always been, culturally, already very low–and between people, contributing to a climate of fear and distrust.

While the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, it was written at a time when the 13 Colonies had just achieved independence and were surrounded by threats domestically and internationally. Civilian militias were essential in the American reality of that time, both for personal and national security.

Times change, and the America of today does not need armed militias. However, the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the law in District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008, (5–4) ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. That is an unfortunate ruling that severely curtailed the government’s ability to control guns and the tragedies they cause.

The sheer frequency of gun-related deaths is mirrored by the unwillingness of politicians to take this crisis on, further eroding confidence in the political system.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2023, over 47,000 people died of gun-related injuries in the United States. This figure includes suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings.

The relentless violence breeds distrust in the government’s ability to protect its people. This sentiment is often amplified by politicians on both sides of the gun debate.

Those advocating for stricter gun control highlight the tragic statistics as evidence of the government’s failure to adequately regulate firearms, arguing that this inaction leaves citizens vulnerable. They call for legislative changes, emphasizing the need for universal background checks, bans on assault weapons and red flag laws to reduce the prevalence of gun violence, but their efforts are often more about appealing to their base rather than developing innovative solutions.

Conversely, politicians who champion Second Amendment rights frame the issue along constitutional and personal responsibility lines. They argue that the focus should be on mental health, law enforcement and the enforcement of existing laws, rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense. They emphasize the importance of individual responsibility and the right to protect oneself in a society where, they argue, the government cannot guarantee safety. This perspective often resonates with those who feel the government is overreaching or ineffective in its protective duties.

Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring a safe society rests squarely with the government. While individual responsibility plays a role in any community, the primary duty to prevent violence and guarantee public safety lies with the state. When the government appears to relinquish this fundamental obligation, either through inaction or by implicitly suggesting individuals must arm themselves for their protection, it fundamentally undermines its contract with its people.

Addressing the pervasive gun violence crisis and fostering a genuine sense of collective security demands a renewed commitment from the U.S. Government to fulfill its core responsibility: to actively protect its citizens and cultivate a society where the fear of violence is not a constant presence. To do this will require a willingness on both sides of the political divide to confront the entrenched issues surrounding gun ownership, implement meaningful policy reforms and prioritize the safety and wellbeing of all its populace.

The political will to bridge the divide and find effective solutions, rather than simply using the issue for political gain, is crucial to restoring trust and ensuring the government fulfills its fundamental duty.

The author is a senior fellow at the Center for International Business Ethics at the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), founding partner of the Center for China and the World at City University of Macau, senior fellow at the Beijing-based Taihe Institute, and an independent economic and political affairs commentator.