Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Monday, December 17, 2012

Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)

Gun control is hotly political. After all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the individual the right to bear arms. Virginia's George Mason, a key author of the Bill of Rights declared, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." For more than two hundred years, gun rights activists have shared the same sentiment. At the same time, a movement to control and in some cases ban the legal sale of firearms has gathered strength. All states practice some form of gun control, especially in background checks done during waiting periods for purchase. In many states, any conviction of domestic violence is enough to prohibit a gun purchase for a lifetime.

 What follows is a reasonable analysis, not one reinforced by statistics. In this framework, "reasonable" does not mean "right" and "statistical" does not mean "wrong". It is just important to draw a distinction between two types of analysis and this one is of a reasonable kind. In the interest of being reasonable, the views of both sides on gun control will be treated with equal respect in this analysis. 

Statistics are of limited value in support of gun control because they mostly measure the correlation between gun ownership and gun-related violence. The problem on either side of the equation is that the presence of a gun is already a key variable. Therefore, automatic correlation is shown no matter the outcome of the study. Statistics measuring murder rates among several categories of death method are problematic because they are only comparing among instruments of death. The reason for the murder, suicide, or accidental death, goes unaddressed.

 Proponents of gun control point to higher numbers of murder by firearms and assume that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders and accidental deaths. They have several reasonable arguments in their favor. For example, if there is intent to kill, a gun shot from a distance is easier to accomplish and safer for the killer, than murder by other methods. By contrast, a knife attack requires closer proximity, lesser advantage of surprise, greater room for resistance, greater chance of failure, and greater danger to the killer's safety. 

Furthermore, considering modern technological improvements made to firepower, accuracy, distance, innocent by-standers are many more times likely to be killed or injured by stray bullets, bullets passing through their target, and the ricochet effect, than by other instruments of death by criminal intent. It is hard to imagine a scenario, without the presence of guns or explosives, in which James Holmes could have entered a movie theater, butchered twelve people and wounded fifty-eight, inside of six to eight minutes before being rushed and overcome by some of the people in the theater.

Intent, however, provides the stronger reasonable argument for the opponents of gun control. For whatever, they teach us, statistics can not reveal to us what murder rates would look like if guns were legally eliminated from society. Guns can not be uninvented. The genie has been out of the bottle for well more than a thousand years. If guns can not be unmade, they can only be legalized or criminalized. The technology of modern weapons does not disappear with a change of laws. Criminalizing gun possession may very well take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law and limit possession to those who break the law. 

The criminal mind does not want to do the right and legal thing and, so it follows, that the criminal will obtain the weapons without legal sanction. The law-abiding public will be disarmed. The criminal public will remain armed and organized crime will make a killing (financially, but the pun works anyway) from the sales of illegal weapons with spiraling prices. James Holmes may have lacked a criminal history, but it is clear that James Holmes had a criminal mind. He purchased his weapons legally because he did not have to purchase them illegally. James Holmes well understood that committing murder is illegal, but would he not have obtained the weapons if buying them had been made illegal?

Patriot Thought
Posted by at
Labels:

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain. Its funny how the 'Red Scare' of the 60's-90's has been replaced by a fear of your own government. It seems the Russians have after all accomplished their mission. At a time when emerging powers such as China and India are putting more and more trust in their government with positive and good results for the majority of people, the US is going the other way and with devastating effect. Yes, the progun and anitgun camps are never going to agree. The reality is that its impossible to argue since the cultural mindset of America is so diverse and different so thats a topics that maybe needs to rest. Coming back to my original comment however, the 2nd Amendment is brilliant and a better way to keep the perception of power as belonging in the hands of the 'people'. Let me explain. When the 2nd amendment was written people were given the rights to own guns to keep the govt in check and it worked and it was logical since if for example ; Bob owned a old rifle which took a minute to load and fire and so did his 300 neighbours in a small town in Texas, the Military also has similar weapons and it was equal. What funny to me is that today people still buy into this crap of owning guns to keep the govt in check. As my good friend Will MacDonald once pointed out that even with all the semiautomatics and powerful weapons the general public can own such as the militias in the mountains of Montana, the military and government have weapons that can annihilate a any groups possessing even the most powerful weapons the general public are allowed. So you see the issue of gun control is moot. Is it going to change? NO. Will the general public get their hands on stronger and better weapons? YES but only after the govt their theirs on better ones. Americans need to see that their govt are trying to help, not hinder and destroy; not in all circumstances but for the most part. Only after this distrust, hatred, mudslinging and making the 'others' feel like crap will it become better. I will end on this note. You might ask, 'What distrust, hatred, mudsliging?" One only has to look at the billboards that compare Obama to the Colorado shooter, the racism -overt and otherwise, the advertisements on TV about candidates and the way they portray the other side to see and understand my comments. Overall Great post JAson.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 at 5:26 PM

    In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public.

    The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government. We had 10 states in 1987 who gave the right to carry firearms. Today, 41 states allow this. Around 80 million of the American people own guns and about 8 million have permits to conceal firearms. Before you begin shaking uncontrollably, you should know that violent crime is at a 40 year low. This disproves the thesis that proliferation of guns has lead to increased crime. In fact, it may prove the opposite.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

DonaldJuly 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

AnonymousDecember 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

AnonymousDecember 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason AldousDecember 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.