The assassination of American conservative commentator Charlie Kirk and the persistent scourge of school shootings in the United States have once again reignited debates on gun laws. In my own country, Kenya, discussions on the disarmament of communities with illegal arms are ongoing, particularly as a way to curb banditry and livestock theft.
Gun violence is undoubtedly a growing menace, especially in societies where access to both legal and illegal arms is widespread. For many, this has led to the conclusion that the availability of guns is directly responsible for gun-related violence. I believe this conclusion is flawed. Violence is rarely the product of weapon access alone. It is shaped by deeper socio-political, cultural, and economic forces that influence when and how individuals choose to commit violent acts.
Comparisons across countries illustrate this point. Nordic nations, where hunting culture is ingrained, have high gun ownership per capita yet relatively low gun crime. Conversely, the United States and Serbia—both with high gun ownership—experience significant levels of gun-related violence. Clearly, ownership levels alone do not explain the difference.
Law enforcement and military personnel also provide an instructive example. Firearms are part of their daily lives, yet misuse is rare. This discipline is not the product of access or restriction, but of intensive training and enforced codes of conduct. Guns in their hands are no less lethal, but the cultural and institutional context in which they operate reduces the risk of misuse.
While it is true that availability of firearms increases the lethality of violent encounters, the Nordic example shows that crime rates cannot be explained by access alone. As peer-reviewed research highlights, violence is shaped by cultural norms, political rhetoric, and economic challenges (The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, American Journal of Public Health, The Lancet Regional Health and Journal of Urban Health).
Kenya offers another perspective. In some arid and semi-arid regions, communities possess illegal firearms not for self-defense in the traditional sense, but for cattle raids and banditry. These practices are not only tolerated but often celebrated at community level, reinforcing violence as a cultural norm.
Political rhetoric also plays a powerful role. In the United States, polarizing narratives have visibly radicalized sections of both the extreme left and right, fueling hostility and sometimes erupting in violence. The killing of Charlie Kirk illustrates how political disagreement, amplified by divisive rhetoric, can escalate into lethal confrontation.
Economic pressures add yet another layer. Poverty, inequality, and unemployment drive many into criminal acts such as robbery with violence. Disparities in access to healthcare and other essential services further strain communities, creating conditions where violence becomes both a survival strategy and an outlet for frustration.
What emerges from these examples is clear: violence is not merely the product of weapons, but of the societies in which those weapons exist. Guns amplify the outcome of violence, but they do not create its roots. To meaningfully reduce violent crime, societies must look beyond the availability of firearms and address the cultural, political, and economic conditions that give rise to violent behavior. Only then can we begin to dismantle the drivers of violence and create safer, more stable communities.
