WHAT?? Yes, this is an attempt to bring this particular debate up to speed. Postings on ancient threads are hard to follow –
SO.. here’s the deal. Some dude went bonkers and killed a bunch of Amish kids. He used guns. So society is asking.. “Are guns really worth having, as a right?”
It is true, to paraphrase Eddie Izzard – “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But the guns help.” – We do have more guns and also more per capita gun homicides than most first-world countries. It is a problem.
On the other hand.. we are guaranteed the right to bear arms. People like to hunt. People like the security they feel knowing they have a gun in case someone breaks in. (Of course, there are statistics that suggest that if you have a gun in the house, youre more likely to be killed by a gun than you are likely to stop your assailant.)
I dont know where to stand.. and I thought I would create a new fresh forum where people can recap their opinions on the subject, just so we can keep straight what everyone is thinking.
This essay…
This essay sums up the argumentative problems surrounding the gun debate:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McClurgA1.html
Basically, just like the abortion debate, it’s impossible to reach a consensus until we get past the rhetoric and establish a reasonable framing for the debate. With abortion, one side focusses on the value of human lives, while the other focusses on the value of human rights. Until they can agree on a suitable framing, they’ll always disagree, but be talking past one another without a hope of compromise.
With gun control, it’s a similar debate. Value of lives and value of rights. It’s not a 1<->1 correlation, but the conflict overlaps a similar domain.
I choose to believe that guns are a net good for humanity. They equalize strength, so that a properly-trained underdog has a chance of winning a confrontation with a physically superior opponent. They improve our ability to hunt and kill animals. This has historically been a vital part of our survival, which only in the last 5,000-6,000 years has given way to domestication of livestock and cultivation of plants.
The problem with guns as a defensive tool is that they are always reactionary. Just like PvP in computer games, victory usually falls to the party who has the initiative. A criminal has the initiative: he’s the one who sets the location and time for the confrontation. In general, he’ll want to avoid it, but in cases like these bizarre shooting sprees, the confrontation and recognition of his existence is what he craves.
The fact is, construction methods used for firearms are sufficiently simple that I could build a functioning firearm in my garage from spare parts commonly available in any hardware store and with any chemistry set. You can’t close Pandora’s box again; you can only hope to manage the problem of evildoers possessing the same resources as the good guys.
The real argument isn’t “should people have guns?”. We do, and we will. The real argument is “what would be the most successful strategy for mitigating the widespread social, economic, and political ills which accompany ubiquitous, easily-available firearms?”
Not nearly so catchy a title, though.
I think the proper management strategy for personal firearms is for the government to stay uninvolved, except in the cases of those who are unable to own a firearm responsibly (this is an intentionally vague definition), and those who are attempting to build arsenals with the intent of promoting civil unrest.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
A thought..
When my house was robbed two years ago, I stood outside with a cop, contemplating the fact that had they come an hour later, my wife would have greeted them – alone.
I asked the cop on the spot how to get a gun. The cop looked at me somberly and said – “you sure you want to?”
I said, “Yeah, I think so” The cop said, “Keep in mind that a gun is a tool with only one purpose.. to kill another human being. It will not stop criminals from entering your house, and will not stop bullets coming at you.”
I said “What should I do.. I want to protect my family.”
He said “Get a dog.. or an alarm system. Having a gun raises the stakes.”
I assume he meant that having a gun enters a gun into what might have been a gunless situation.
Do I agree? I dont know. I may.
Really.. what is the advantage to having a handgun?
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Possible framing for the argument
I would suggest framing the debate with this question: “Does giving Americans the right to own firearms end up protecting more innocent lives than end up being taken by said right?”
Inevitably, most 2nd amendment debates come down to either the stats that say you’re more likely to be killed by your own gun than having it protect you vs. the surveys that say personal firearms are an effective deterrent.
I’m not sure that the debate here is between the priority of rights vs. life, as it is with the abortion debate. I would imagine that most members of the NRA firmly believe that the right to bear arms truly makes us safer as a whole. If incontrovertible proof were shown that the right to own guns ends up killing far more innocents than they protect, I imagine many of them would change their minds about gun control. Because otherwise what they would be saying would amount to “I don’t care if this takes more lives than it protects. I still want to shoot stuff in my backyard.”
For further simplicity, let’s say that we’re only arguing about the right to bear handguns, which are responsible for the majority of firearms related homicides. Also, this still allows people the ability to hunt and go to the shooting range.
So that’s where I personally would say the argument should start. We have guns in our country. A lot of them. Pandora’s box is open. The main question should be “Will our society be made safer by tightening or loosening the restrictions on gun ownership and use?”
Then start interpreting the hard data with that question in mind.
Safety…
Or perhaps a more fundamental question: Do we want our government responsible for ensuring our safety from domestic, non-overthrow-related threats? Is it the government’s responsibility to ensure our safety? Should it be? Or should an individual be responsible for his or her own safety, and that of his immediate family?
Kind of strikes at the whole “nanny state” idea that’s currently in vogue: helmet laws, seat belt laws, etc. I suspect my questions above present a false dichotomy, and that reality is a blend of delegated responsibility to government by individuals, and some individual responsibility.
My take is that those nanny-state laws are in place, actually, to save money. Fewer highway deaths means less time traffic is tied up, fewer cops required, and less tax money spent. It also means that more people get to work on time, and the society as a whole is more productivity. I have some qualms about the government working to ensure “domestic tranquility” by making sure we’re good little worker drones, but I can’t create a coherent argument for it yet.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Easy..
“Do we want our government responsible for ensuring our safety from domestic, non-overthrow-related threats?”
YES! I want police enforcing the law. I want cops to pull over that @$$hole that almost ran me off the road. If you think that police are not important.. you’ve been living in Utah for too long.
Dude.. there ae gangs of people with a lot more firepower than I can muster.. plus I dont want a gun in my house to significantly multiply the chance that my kid will die a gun related death (and it does). So, I absolutely think its good to have a government agency that exists to help protect me.
As for helmet and seat-belt laws – yeah, for kids, absolutely need to be enforced.. for adults.. well.. maybe no seat belt laws as long as people understand they may not sue for injury or get insurance reimbursement for the same unless they wear a seat belt.. and after that they can do whatever they want. That I could agree with.. but I dont want to bear the responsibility if I have a minor fender bender and it cracks some idiots skull because hes not wearing his seat belt.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Straight-jackets should be manditory
Like motorcycles? Like 5-gallon water buckets? Like swimming pools?
We tolerate lots of things that result in accidental deaths for nothing more than ephemeral pleasures in return. As Matt says, guns will not go away. They’re simply too ubiquitous. The question is, now that any criminal who wants one can get one, what will we say to the law-abiding citizens?
1) Trust that the police will always be there when you need them.
or
2) Weigh the evidence to decide how best to protect yourself and loved ones.
In response to Matthew and Daniel’s comments
Matthew, you mentioned “nanny laws” that include seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc.
Daniel, you compared people’s opinions on guns to their opinions on swimming pools and motorcycles.
Here’s the big flaw I see in applying those things to this debate: If I don’t wear a seat belt or a helmet, if I ride a motorcycle, or go swimming in my pool, and something horrible goes wrong, *I’m* the one who gets hurt.
There are a lot of good arguments to be made saying that the government has no right to tell me what to do if the primary person I’m going to hurt is myself. But firearms are completely different. For the most part, guns don’t hurt the person who’s firing the pistol; they hurt whomever the pistol is pointing at.
This isn’t about preventing accidental suicide. It’s about preventing deliberate homicide.
Asking whether the goverment has the right to restrict firearm use is not the same issue as asking if it has the right to force us to wear seatbelts; it’s more like asking if the government has the right to prohibit drunk driving. Which is a completely different animal.
Plus, if we’re willing to give the government the ability to protect my Aunt Maggie from some crazy foreigner who wants to kill her, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to give the government the ability to protect her from the American criminal who, incidentally, lives a lot closer to her and is much more likely to run into her on the street.
Again, saying that the government has the right to take guns away in order to protect its citizens is not in any way the same thing as saying that doing so would be effective. I’m still not remotely sold on the idea that restricting guns would save a large number of American lives. But if someone ever proves that irrefutably, then sorry, the government should have the right to take whatever guns it wants. There are some liberties that are more important than life itself, but this sure ain’t one of them.
You want to sell me on the 2nd amendment, I’m more than willing to listen. But don’t talk to me about rights to privacy or personal liberty. Show me how my owning a gun (and everybody else owning one too) will genuinely make me and my family safer. That will convince me.
So far…
…my main point has not been addressed. Everyone still seems to be talking like the principal problem we have with handguns is that our kids are likely to shoot themselves with them. I still say that’s not the issue. The issue is that other people might shoot our kids with them. Which has nothing to do with the swimming pool analogy, unless criminals have somehow developed a means to use small portable swimming pools as a means of practical weaponry.
Hypothetical situation: let’s say that guns were magically enchanted so that they would *never* cause accidental death. No one shooting themselves by mistake, no one shooting others by mistake, no random bird hunting accidents that ended up with shooting your close friend in the face. In this situation, the only way that a gun could kill is if the person pointing the gun willed it to kill.
Please note, Matthew and Daniel, that I’m making your argument easier by removing the possibility of accidental death from the equation. I’m still going to need convincing that it benefits me more to have everyone own a gun (which would make it easier for both innocents and criminals to get firepower) than to restrict gun use (which would make it more difficult, though not impossible, to have criminals acquire such weapons).
do note..
my post below..
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
England and Florida
England has outlawed all guns. Gun crime is on the rise.
Florida has very liberal gun laws, in that you can possess a gun much easier in Florida. Crime is way down in Florida.
The problem with restricting gun use is that you can’t. We can’t restrict drug use, we can’t restrict smoking, how effective do you really think gun restrictions would ever be? That would just mean only people who intended to use guns to hurt you would have them.
A person who wants to shoot me is going to have a much easier time if they know I’m a law-abiding citizen who obeys a hypothetical gun control law. The same person will think a little bit more about it if they know I have the same firepower they do.
Either way, the bad guys will have guns.
My $.02 Weed
Reinventing the wheel
Here’s an article from England, published in 2001. That’s four years after their complete banning of handguns in 1997. That ban resulted in the surrender of 100,000 legal guns, and I’m guessing, say, between zero and 0 illegal guns. Did that lead to the long-promised violence-free utopia? Unfortunately, in 2001, gun crimes were at their highest level in 7 years. So now we know (know) that banning handguns doesn’t reduce gun violence.
Here’s another law, one I’m almost in favor of: mandatory gun ownership. This experiment has also been tried with much success in Kennesaw, GA. People can argue about whether crime rates dropped or not (see my other note on how this can’t be proved–it’s too complex), but you can prove that people aren’t slaughtering each other. They’ve had only 1 gun murder since 1980, and 2 knife murders (people do kill people). If you are a criminal, and the odds of your mugging victim having a handgun just went from 0.01% to 25%, you start stealing cars instead. And you never, ever break into an occupied home!
The article from an England
The article from an England is an interesting study, and makes a very good case for why banning guns would not result in less gun crime.
As for mandatory gun ownership (and I do note the *almost* in the phrase almost in favor of): regardless of whether it’s a good idea or not, I’m quite frankly shocked, yea, shocked that the word mandatory (read *government-mandated*) hasn’t sent you screaming to the hills, Daniel. 🙂
Wouldn’t that be like saying that while the government doesn’t have the right to take our lethal weapons away from us, they do have the right to force lethal weapons upon us?
Might I instead suggest that the government make firearms freely available to any citizen who requests one? Make the requirement something like two forms of ID plus you need to complete a fairly in-depth course in gun safety. (Note, the course is not a prerequisite to owning a gun per se, but just to get one of the free ones that the city/state will provide you). This would actually not be too costly, as the price of a simple revolver is fairly low. And at the close range of a dark alley or a home the difference between a 6 shot .22 and a 15-shot .45 becomes less important.
An expansion of “almost”
Rowan, you know me well.
I am, for reasons you are familiar with, not entirely comfortable with the proposition. However, I think it can be justified on the grounds that an armed populace essentially creates external benefits in improving security (said security being the moral role of government to provide). I’d craft the law such that the fire-arm would not have to be operational. I would not require ammunition ownership. If you were the victim of a crime in your home, the lack of a self-defense gun would mean that you would have to pay for the police officer’s time in solving your crime. (Note: you don’t have to pay if you do have a gun and choose not to use it–I don’t want to create a perverse “gun ’em down” incentive.) Any firearm would be acceptable (rifle, musket, shotgun, AK-47, Gatling gun).
So, at the end of the day, you wouldn’t have to own a gun, you’d just have to pay more for the state to protect you if you avoided your responsibility to do so yourself.
Exceptions for felons, physically handicapped, etc., would apply. Conscientious objectors would not get a pass–they can choose to object and choose to pay the cops for their protective services.
I thought about government-issued guns, but this also makes me uncomfortable, because somebody is paying for those guns. Once again, the fact that this falls into the moral jurisdiction of government (i.e. protection of the citizenry) makes it okay–it’s just more money on handguns and less money on police salaries and prisons.
I guess I’m fine with some kind of license-to-carry that requires a safety course. I do believe that if you’re going to carry a gun you need to be psychologically ready to end the life of a fellow human being. I don’t think I am (or will be), so that’s not for me. (I knew a guy who used to pack heat, and he talked about that a lot. Once the gun is drawn, the assailant will retreat or one of you will die.) But if it’s just in your house, I probably wouldn’t require anything–after all, it should be mandatory!
Well, just to clarify, if somebody were seriously threatening my wife or kids, I wouldn’t think twice about killing them. Especially with a katana. Gotta love those primal instincts!
What a great marketing campaign:
“Oh honey, thank God you were here! And not only did you protect your family from that horrible burglar, but you did it with a flawless execution of the Falling Leaf technique that expressed the aesthetic beauty of spontaneous kinesthetic creation while at the same time achieving the zen state of No Mind!
I’m so turned on right now! Take me right here in the kitchen!”
– Katana: the pinnacle of artistic familial protection for the past 600 years, and today.
boo..
Motorcycles, buckets, and pools present a risk to those who are using them. Guns present a risk to those who are not using them.
Face it.. the impulse kill is what we’re talking about in this case.. People get killed more and more lately because a stupid argument gets out of hand, and what would have ended in a fight 20 years ago ends up with someone getting killed just because one persong happens to have a gun.
More and more legal guns in killings because its right there and someone just is too angry to think straight. Its not an equalizer as Matt says. It is a stark de-equalizer. Misunderstandings becoming homicides like an impulse buy.
On a side note.. Daniel, I invite you to present evidence to me that a family with a gun is more likely to survive a break in than a family without a gun.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Who’s getting killed
That’s funny, because I typically hear things about how having a gun means your children are likely to die from it, which would make it exactly like the swimming pool. The kid finds the gun (left loaded and accessible by the irresponsible parent) and plays with it, dying. And, since 5-gallon buckets only drown small children, I don’t think that the victims are the users in this case–again, the parents are at fault. Motorcycles are pretty much self-killers.
If you want evidence, here is an anecdote. (I’m linking this for the story about Tom, not the concealed-carry study that follows. The fact is, the government can protect you against foreign armies because, usually, they don’t show up in your foyer in the middle of the night. When they do (think 9/11) the government is fairly useless. Cops can’t be everywhere; robbers know as much. I think the most compelling evidence is the rate of “occupied” burglaries in the US vs Canada or Britain. I don’t have time to Google the stats, but they are much, much lower in the country where people own guns than in the countries where they don’t. It’s simple microeconomics: crime has a cost and benefit, and when your mark may have a gun, the cost is perceived as being much higher.
I’m don’t believe it’s possible to “prove” one way or the other the effect of guns on crime–there are just too many ways to slice the data. Every study gets trashed by the other side, it seems. You have to deal with this on a philosophical level: the right to self-preservation, the nature of criminal behavior, the fact that guns are common, etc.
Falling into a bucket
If I recall the statistic correctly, five times as many children under the age of fourteen die from falling into buckets per year than die from accidental firearm discharge. Obviously, you can slice the statistics any way you want ’em, but in the same vein as this discussion, in the grand scheme of things you’re better off securing your kitchen knives and household mopping appliances than worrying about your kids accidentally killing themselves with guns.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Non-discriminating..
The kids getting killed thing is just an added bonus. Keep in mind the dead kids and the other dead kids shot on purpose by the three year old who brought the gun to school (and don’t tell me that its the parents who bear the responsibility.. this victim’s parents had no control).
Just a thought when we’re talking about tools with only one purpose.. killing human beings.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
One track mind?
Um, you’re kidding right? I don’t even own a gun but I recognize that people own them for lots of reasons other than killing human beings. Please.
1) Killing animals to eat 2) Killing animals for decoration 3) Shooting at targets 4) Collecting for aesthetic or historical interest 5) Paying respect at funerals 6) Scaring off assailants
That’s just off the top of my head.
Allow me to rephrase
handguns. 1 and 2 cant be done. 3 could happen with a gun at the shooting range. 4 is fine 5 With handguns? And how often does this happen non-militarily 6 Is why people get handguns much of the time. Is there evidence that this really works? I still want to see evidence that having a handgun makes you more likely to survive a crime.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
2.5 million deterrences, 400000 lives saved per year
Ask, and you shall receive: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gunslott.html
(Note: the paper admits the 2.5 million per year figure is probably high due to self-selection in statistical reporting, as is the 400,000 figure. Even if it’sa factor of 10 higher, though, that means 250,000 crimes per year are deterred by guns, ad 40,000 lives are saved. This is more than seat belt laws save.)
It addresses deterrence of crime, though, not survivability. It’s interesting to note that the overall amount of home robbery isn’t reduced by gun ownership; it’s translated, instead, into a rise in the robbery of unoccupied homes.
—
Matthew P. Barnson