Gun Control
Moderated by Larry Arnold
This page was last modified on Wednesday, 29-Nov-2006 13:06:29 EST

The gun control question results from the collision of many different values and social theories. Does "might make right" or is the "pen mightier than the sword?" Is it "an eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek?" Is it "every man for himself" or "in unity there is strength?" Do we insist on every man's right to the "pursuit of happiness" (including machine guns) or do we insist on a "social contract" that numbers, cards, and restricts citizens "for their own good?" Can the state legitimately require seat belts and motorcycle helmets? How about smoking in public buildings? Will it ever be a crime not to say thank you? Just how much control of behavior are we willing to give to the government? Back in the 40's there was a cartoon titled "There Oughta Be a Law!" When something outrageous happens, that phrase often comes to mind. But do we have too many laws already? And to what extent does making a new law really help to solve social problems?

These are basic questions, of a philosophical nature, that go to the heart of any political theory or theory of government. But there are more immediate questions regarding the current state of guns, gun use, gun abuse, gun laws, and gun law enforcement in the United States. Here are some of the things that are being said, with varying degrees of accuracy:
 

• The US leads the world in gun violence
• Gun laws in the US are the most lenient in the world.
• Guns don't kill; people kill.
• It isn't guns that kill people; it's those little pieces of lead!
• Anybody that would want a machine gun or an attack rifle (or a hand gun) has got to be up to no good!
• An armed populace is a guarantee of freedom.
• Historically, gun laws have been racist in motivation and application.
• The Brady Bill does not deter criminals.
• If you make strict gun laws only the criminals have guns.
• If you make strict gun laws only the police have guns.
• If only the police have guns, the government can become totalitarian and our cherished freedoms are sure to be lost.
• We must pass and enforce stricter gun laws to bring the US into line with the "more enlightened" nations of the world.
• The right to bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution, is what has made the US the world leader that it now is.
• Guns are the tools of freedom.
• Guns kept for "self defense" are seldom used for that purpose but frequently are either used in the commission of crimes or are responsible for tragic accidents.
• Making it illegal for citizens to carry concealed handguns increases the incidence of crime, and the repeal of such laws will reduce it.

The Truth Tree's position is that neither a complete laissez-faire policy nor outright confiscation of weapons provides a constructive solution to the problem of firearms. Some form of federal or state regulation is inevitable, but the recent failures of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms provide object lessons in the need to have better control over the controllers. Incompetence seems to have been at the heart of most of these tragedies. The present enforcement in this area is so incompetent that it really needs to be reconstructed from the gound up. (What possible logical reason can there be for lumping alcohol, tobacco, and firearms together? It has been suggested that the reason is that the original BATF was considered to be a revenue agency. But there is federal tax on perfume. Why not make it the BATF&P?) While bureaucracy often fails miserably, it doesn't always fail and sometimes provides socially useful service. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and declare all bureaucratic solutions to problems out of bounds. If we aren't willing to try to create an agency of government that can maximize freedom while at the same time minimizing crime and firearm tragedies we are left with anarchy. Regulation should not be based on the length of barrels or other structural characteristics of firearms but on the qualifications and histories of the owners of these weapons. A man with a history of armed robbery might reasonably have his .22 pistol confiscated, while an experienced and decorated veteran should be allowed to collect attack rifles and use them in sponsored target competition or at need in self defense. The problems with enforcement have not occurred because they are bureaucratic but because the laws and the policies have been poorly conceived and poorly executed. If we believe that any government employee is a member of "they" and that all gun owners are "we" we will be guilty of a very dangerous polarization. It is equally reprehensible to believe the other way: that all government agents are "we" and that all gun owners are "they." (Why does the old '60's saying, "There are no bozos on this bus!" come to mind here?)

Recently I have been more impressed than before with the relevance of Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This undoubted truth does have implications for the very interesting question of how the government can be trusted to regulate arms when the purpose of the second amendment (or at least one of its purposes) was to make it possible for citizens to defend themselves against a government gone mad with power. This has been compared with giving the keys to the hen house to the fox. Click here for a site which explores many aspects of this problem. Thanks to Richard Allen Pierce for this information and also for the following highly trenchant observation:

The big question is are we to live under a totalitarian government for the sake of safety, giving up essential freedoms to do so. Or are we to live in freedom, with the responsibility of choice that is required. Each victimless law we pass takes away another freedom.

An interesting example of the misapplication of present gun laws can be found at the Howard Bradley Got Screwed page. Another site of interest is Committees of Correspondence which deals with many issues having to do with government control and freedom. A very interesting novel, "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross is available at Amazon Books . This book will help people who are not gun enthusiasts to understand the "gun culture." The Truth Tree does not endorse John Ross's point of view, because it is an example of a "we-they" mentality, but it is a very interesting book for anyone to read who is seriously interested in understanding these issues.

        Crossbowman, in a recent post, has done an excellent job of comparing the gun control issue with the irresponsible drivers issue. He wrote:

         "We had a tragedy in New Mexico a couple of weeks back. Five of six members of a family killed, with only a 15-year old girl surviving. A drunk driver for some reason decided to do a U-turn on the freeway and hit them head-on. He died too.

        "Cars present an interesting comparison. To get a license, you have to show a basic knowledge of traffic laws and pass a basic test of your driving competence. You can get fined for breaking the traffic laws, and depending on local law you might see your license revoked if you show a pattern of irresponsible behavior. One could presumably consider that a reasonable model for a licensing regimen. Cars are everywhere. Most people have them, and most people are reasonably safe drivers.

        "Still, 43443 people died in traffic-related accidents in 2005 (NHTSA figure), in many cases due to some form of irresponsible behavior. That's not even considering the number of non-fatal accidents that can be directly attributed to irresponsible behavior. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for persons age 3 to 33, and of that 43-plus-thou figure, 16885 were related to alcohol use.

        "New Mexico has some pretty draconian DWI laws. You'll get ordered to put an ignition interlock on after your first offense. That's a device that you have to breathe into in order to start your car: if it detects alcohol, your car won't start. You can get your license suspended for 3 years after 3 convictions, revoked for life after 4. And, of course, there's associated jail time for offenders and for those who try such tricks as driving without a license. In Albuquerque, they'll seize your car.

        "This drunk killer had a history of DWI problems up until 1991 - but he'd stayed out of trouble for the past 15 years, so he wasn't even remotely on the law's "radar". Still, five people are now dead because of him, and a girl was left without her family.

        "Identifying the "irresponsible" can be a tricky job. It's easy to say it. Doing it effectively is not so easy. How do you intend to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of irresponsible people but still remain accessible to responsible people?"

(The original message is at http://www.truthtree.com/Guns/posts/6400.html)

        Here are some links which may prove helpful to anyone looking for arguments on either side of this issue. This list was provided by "Franc", one of the participants in the Tree's discussions of this issue.

Second Amendment Law Library
Independence Institute
Janis Cortese
Democrats for the Second Amendment
Armed Liberal
National Association of Chiefs of Police, 1999 survey
Metal and Wood
Dr. Smith
Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment
State Constitutional provisions
Department of Justice statistics
Rules of Combat

Steve Johnson has suggested Face Off, which contains a lot of editorials on both sides of the issue.  Corey has called to our attention a study by  John R. Lott  that provides evidence that crime rates decline when laws are changed to permit citizens to carry concealed hand guns.