- January 12th, 2013, 3:15 am
#116873
Hello all,
I wish to weigh in on the discussion now that I have a bit of free time. If others have covered similar ground here-I do apologize.
UniversalAlien wrote,
“Again they will start to call for more draconian anti-gun laws to protect the public - But will this really protect the public?”
Yes and no! Access to certain types of guns will not halt all gun violence and few serious gun-control advocates are making any such assertion. Obviously, new laws and the toughening up of old ones will hardly wipe out all gun violence. Again, not the issue. Nor is the idea that doing so is some politically cheap pretense masquerading as a guarantee of “protection” for all.
Rather, the first idea is (1) that tighter gun control laws DO correlate with reduced gun violence over time. While this is not a panacea for all gun-related crimes, such social and legislative action has been universally shown to correlate with fewer gun related homicides and lowered rates of mass shootings. While gun advocates on this forum have accurately pointed out that Australia’s gun-crime has increased in recent years –they equally, and unfortunately, fail to note that such an increased rate of gun violence is also consistent with rises in crime around the world and in similar “highly” industrialized nations. Once more, no serious person is arguing that certain controls will solve all such crime. However, the type of crimes involving guns are not in mass shootings and homicide rates, those figures have actually fallen since the gun-ban went into effect. The increase in gun related crimes involve such incidents as armed robberies-same as here. This suggests, once more, what’s happening in other similar nations consist of economic and social factors. In addition, the so-called rescinding of the law isn’t quite accurate. The issuing of gun licenses to people and businesses have been more common and qualified requirements diminished. Comparatively, Australia’s gun violence and homicide rates are still far smaller than those of the U.S.- even when one adjusts for population differences.
Two other common pro-gun advocacy citations are equally problematic: gun related crime growth in Britain and Switzerland’s low crime rate and access to guns per capita. The increased crime rates, amounting to a few dozen, in Great Britain, once more, suggest economic and social frustrations, and, yes-again, the increase in gun related violence is still overwhelmingly NOT in homicide rates and mass shootings. Also, the laws in Switzerland around gun access are related to how Switzerland primarily organizes its military—which is a militia based organization. We no longer have a militia. We have a standing professional military. Moreover, Switzerland does have armored reserves and secured ammunition depots that restrict and portion out ammunition to all “citizen soldiers.” So, comparing the U.S. and Swiss gun-access is anything but a clear win for gun advocates. The fact remains that the U.S. is the highest in ALL gun-related crime despite the number of guns to person ratio, which outweighs those of any other industrialized nation.
It is certainly true that merely restricting gun access will hardly suffice-and it is naïve to think that all mass shootings and gun related homicides will suddenly stop. In fact, as current statistics show, gun related violence, under certain conditions, can rise regardless of the laws in place and the mode of enforcement of those laws. Clearly, there’s a whole host of issues that relate and are interrelated to gun violence. Yet, such naive restrictive assertions are hardly the position of those of us who favor gun restrictions and gun banns on assault weapons. Statistically, gun violence does generally reduce over time and for more consistent periods of time with those states and countries that have stricter gun laws and gun law enforcement programs.
Now, many will point out that Connecticut had strict gun laws, some of the sternest in the country, and yet one of the worst mass shootings in the country occurred there. I could point out that such states do not have the bulk of the homicide and mass shooting rates overall. I could also point out that it is difficult to prohibit such violent acts when these states are adjacent to states with far fewer gun restrictions. But these facts are only partially relevant to the specific shooting of Newtown and our overall position. More accurately, the issue at hand is addressing a significant factor contributing to the use of certain weapons and the tightening up of laws around general gun purchasing. Had Nancy Lanza, for example, been legally unable to have purchased assault weapons, and knowing already that Adam Lanza couldn’t purchase these weapons, may not have stopped a shooting at Newtown-but it seems highly unlikely that it would have been nearly as devastating as it actually was.
The second idea (2) relates to rights and social responsibility. Gun advocates claim that they have a right to be armed. In fact, they claim that such a political right is rooted in a “natural right” to self-defense that precedes any government and its laws. Of course, even if such a position were somehow true it wouldn’t follow that such a right ought to trump the right of all others to increased safety--or as much safety as may be reasonably expected given the evidence—nor does such a “right” address the practical concerns about governing such firearm resources within a close knit social system quite divergent from any sort of naturalized arrangement on which the “primitive” right finds its logical relevance. Since we DO live in a social arrangement that requires each to be minimally responsible to others, the real question is whether or not the economic interest of the gun industry and the ‘right’ of the gun consuming public are themselves socially responsible and respectful of other’s rights sufficient for the rest of us to tolerate such interests at the financial and human costs we’re currently experiencing—mainly the interest of producing and purchasing certain types of firearms. Our answer to the question is “no.”
The argument is fairly straightforward enough: (1) that while there’s plenty of causal elements involved in any act of violence, the instrumental causal element is not irrelevant to the analysis. In other words, the choice weapons of those who perform mass shootings (and are involved in other forms of crime) are quite obviously weapons that can produce a high number of casualties. The features of these firearms are engineered for the purpose to cover a larger field of fire for a longer period of time than more conventional guns could possibly perform. (2) Certain gun laws ought to be reformed-like the gun-show loopholes, which involves nearly half of all gun purchases and for which no background checks are performed. (3) The laws we do have need to be better enforced—and that means providing the necessary funding for organizations like the ATF to function properly, which Republican oversight has made sure that these government organizations are gutted and have no official organized directors. These are things that can be improved. Moreover, we have the right to demand it. The reason for this demand is twofold: One, we live in a social network wherein safety and preventive measures against certain kinds of undesirable acts are produced to better ensure the wellbeing of the citizenry-this is a necessary function of any government in order to have a stable social order. Two, one’s supposed right to have access to such weapons places the rest in some considerable and measurable danger-since, and quite obviously, the legal access to these weapons more easily increase the criminal access to these weapons.
Immediately, gun advocates will launch some basic-worn out and eccentric arguments against these points. They will argue firstly that they need these assault weapons because it adds some protection for the “good” guys against bad guys who’ll get them anyway. This argument is only valid if the practical ability and social desire is for the “good” guys to have plenty of these weapons and possess them enough of the time and in most social situations as to increase safety. Quite obviously such a situation is neither practical nor desirable. First, we MUST work, play, go to the grocery store, work on our vehicles, and take up all other sorts of interests that will divert our attention away from “self-preservation.” Private institutions wouldn’t allow for such weapons on their properties and bad guys would still have the tactical advantage since their use of such weapons is initially covert and target those with the weapons anyway. This, in fact, we do see in many cases wherein those visible enough to have such weapons are made into primary targets. It is unlikely that any of us would wish to maintain combat efficiency at all times and in all facets of life. Secondly, the reason why many bad guys have these weapons is BECAUSE they are legal and are becoming increasingly available—as can be seen in Mexico’s infamous gangland wars-many of the weapons used there criminally and along the border are gotten from Americans who sell their stock for handsome prices.
Two, we’ll hear that such people have a right to these weapons because of the possibility of either invasion by another country or our own turning against us. Neither of these reasons is very convincing. First off, we cannot be invaded by another country. In fact we couldn’t invade France if we wished. Why? Because of tactical nuclear weapons produced for any battle scenario would secure our, and other, nations against any aggressor. The global strategic rationale for prohibiting nations like North Korea and Iran from ever obtaining such weapons is precisely because if they had such weapons, given their respective radical socio-political arrangements, then more reasonable- conventional diplomatic and military means of dealing with these nations would be automatically eliminated.
Naturally, the gun advocate groups will insist that it is the responsibility of any citizenry to protect itself against the potential violent tyranny of its own government. At this juncture in their polemic gun supporters will cite the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution as the legal justification of their supposed basic-natural rights. Despite the fact that the 2nd Amendment says nothing about having firearms for the purpose of self-protection against a tyrannical state nor addresses, in any clear and obvious way, one’s right for self-preservation, the gun advocates claim that regardless of the explicit language and prima facie meaning given that the intent of the Founders were these concerns and such rights cannot, therefore, be morally or rightfully infringed. They might also cite support for this reading of the 2nd Amendment by referring to the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling. In any case, the claims of gun right advocates on this point seems to be contingent not so much on legal grounds in as much as it is on some natural or primitive right. But even if this were true, and it is hardly clear that it is or is so on some “natural rights” grounding, it still doesn’t follow that there’s no conflict between the means to secure this so-called right and the rights of the rest to better security. In my view, the answer to which ought to be preferred seems clear on ‘externality’ grounds alone.
We might well say that one has rights to sell and purchase certain products in as long as such rights do not conflict with the interests of others. When harm, and potential for greater harm, is both continuously realized in the deaths of hundreds to thousands and is always potential, in part, due to the products some businesses provide, then the public has a right to analyze the harm; if it is found that the harm exceeds the advantages, then we have a democratic right to restrain both the buyers and sellers of such products. We do this with all kinds of products. Note: this position doesn’t require me to logically deny people the ability to arm themselves and defend their homes, loved ones, or country. All it requires is restriction, at least for now, of certain weapons and better gun regulation until other details involved in these issues are being adequately dealt with. For those making the argument that this will somehow only embolden some possible future dictator is both a gratuitous assertion and logically stilted at best. Comparing what other democracies did in other nations may lead us to do the same one day-but it also equally means that we may not. In basic, the argument FOR gun restriction could just as easily be made by arguing that our nation’s history and culture is relevantly distinct from other democracies that have fallen into despotism—and the fact that more and more nations are struggling to bring about legitimate democratic nation states after our own example- seems to show that we are not moving towards some despotic system but rather that the world is moving more towards us. Such speculation logically works in both directions, and, therefore, supports both sides. It is true, however, that numerous OTHER factors would have to emerge for anything like what we hear in the apocalyptic fears of pro-gun activists. In other words, we’d have to experience a total collapse of our social, political and economic system. Even if done gradually, such a takeover would indicate far more problems for democratic citizenry than what’s just involved in our rights to firearms. In fact, such totalitarianism may make use and empower those who have the bulk of the firearms. Again, such imaginative possibilities know no boundary.
Many gun activists will argue that gun control isn’t an answer because we may work to have solutions that allow gun rights advocates to have purchasing rights for assault weapons and promote public safety: a sort of have your cake and eat it too argument. They say if more people have more guns, then more bad guys will be stopped. First off, this has been tried in schools and public shopping areas and it hasn’t quite worked out in the Bruce Willis like fashion envisioned by the gun advocates. Quite the opposite. The infamous Columbine massacre had armed deputies who were unable to stop the shooters. The same was true at the worst massacre to date-VA Tech School massacre. The same can be said of the Aurora shooting as well -and the list continues. Why is this? After all, it seems reasonable to assume that those “good guys” armed will simply blow the shooter away like Arnold Schwarzenegger. It isn’t that easy. Any “dynamic theatre” situation requires more of people than simply being armed and having weekend gun certificate training along with some shooting range experience. It also requires full combat ready conditioning and law enforcement practice on rules of engagement training, and continuing training. Once again, this mode of readied awareness is neither practical nor desired. Much of the time those who are far better trained and who’s job is largely nothing but being ready for such scenarios are often caught off guard-shocked and must react to confusing, dangerous, and ambiguous targets. To ask teachers and staff members to be armed and ready will likely have far worse results then even these tragedies where trained and conditioned personnel did in fact fail to stop the attacker(s).
Gun activists will also argue that if you make assault weapons and their ammunition illegal-it won’t stop shooters and overall gun violence. This latter part isn’t part of our position so we need not be detained by it. They also argue that we should instead place social pressure and perhaps laws around proper gun ownership, that is, possibly criminalizing improper storage of these weapons. This approach is baffling at best. The thrust behind denying a law to ban these weapons and their ammunition is the supposed view that laws are an ineffectual mechanism for action. Why? We’re told that certain deranged people having these weapons or getting access to them cannot be stopped by any law because they are by definition criminals or potential criminals who are resourceful and creative enough to access these weapons regardless of the written laws on the books. Yet, somehow, while laws prohibiting the purchasing of these types of guns are an ineffectual mechanism for prohibiting such gun violence, even over time, either encouraging people or criminalizing improper storage will somehow be more effective against these creative and resourceful doers of evil? Obviously, there’s simply no way to make rational sense of this approach on the very grounds that gun advocates themselves offer up for their own position.
In the end, we must choose what kind of society we’re going to be. We can choose a dystopic view of human nature such that we are forever in a death struggle for self and national survival. Or, we can recognize the dystopia we’re actually experiencing and attempt real change to better our world. After all, we’ve moved considerably far from a world of short, nasty and brutish existence. We did so when most of the best political, religious, and educated authorities said we couldn’t. Perhaps the real problem here isn’t one of where our rights to self-preservation and freedom are being ripped from us. Rather, perhaps it’s because we think we cannot change at all-that all we have and ever can have is the present best. I’m hoping, and betting, that such a view is wrong! Wrong not only for our sake-but our children’s sake! We owe such a noble effort to the living, posterity, and the dead to try!
Eric D.
A post note: the idea that the gun-control lobby possesses some sinister agenda that would do unlimited harm to all is laughable at best! The main reason it’s not even a serious point of discussion is because, once more, even if it were true it hasn't mattered--nor is it likely to ever really matter. We know that the gun industry makes about 12 billion dollars a year. We also know that one of the largest lobbying groups, the NRA, receives 40 million from these businesses in order to continue the work of promoting, at least in part, these businesses personal and capitalist interests. Most politicians have given in to the major policy issues and legislation demands of the NRA and their allies for twenty years. They have organized and developed enough public support that gun sales will remain high and most Americans will firmly stand against the abolition of all firearms. Even the giant firm ALEC has, with help directly from gun lobbyists-like the NRA, promoted pro-gun laws like the expansion of the 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Stand Your Ground legislation,' which exists in numerous states. Moreover, even now these pieces of legislation are ver popular in the states where they're legally relevant.
To cite some odd history and warn us of the supposed evils of some socialist (of which I'm one) or some other despotic-like plot is nothing more than a red herring. What we do have, not appealing to speculations about the intentions of people and organizations we don't know, is a vast gun promoting, buying, and loving public that has NO intention of allowing the 2nd Amendment to expire under some evil plot. If gun control advocates have reasonable grounds to object to certain gun producing and buying practices because of the grotesque toll it IS taking on society, then it wouldn't even matter what other intentions we might have up our collective sleeve. If our argument is sound sufficient enough to make our point on this particular topic, then one need not concern oneself with supposed plots of evil and possible futures of Nazi-like proportions.
Instead of citing numbers of past defenseless people slaughtered by despotic regimes of one kind or another, we ought to look at the hundreds of thousands of people killed in our gun loving, gun toting, and capitalist promoting country. These are the actual horrid conditions we're living through! We need not concern ourselves with some other possible blood soaked future accompanied by gratuitous assertions of some people's political intents to know that the present is blood soaked enough for us to act with reason and compassion!
- By Sy Borg
- By Wamboi Susan
- By Steve3007