Tony Montana
I know, I know. I said no more political blog posts until 2016…but in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass murder, I’d feel obligated to comment on the gun control “debate” in the United States.
I could cite data: I could arrange the proofs and figures in columns before me, and make an argument. For example, this Washington Post article has done just that, much better than I ever could, and even resists the temptation to draw (many) conclusions. The article simply lets the data speak for itself—a rhetorical device seldom employed these days. But I won’t do this, in part because so many have already done this, and I don’t have much to add.
I could mention how the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that citizens have a right to bear arms. It says that citizens have the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. But this leads to a debate about language, and what the founders intended. And if you read the 2nd Amendment in its entirety, you can only conclude that the founders weren’t good writers. The 2nd Amendment may be the most vague, poorly written sentence in all of jurisprudence. But I don’t want to discuss this, because again this is well-trodden ground.
I simply want to put the discussion in as stark terms as possible. As I see it, the gun control debate is just a debate as to wear to draw the line.
That there should be a line somewhere is indisputable. Suppose someone invented a hand-held device that fired nuclear missiles. Should we ban such a device? In a way, it doesn’t really matter, because if such devices were widely available, civilization would collapse within hours. What about flame throwers? Rocket launchers? I don’t think any reasonable person would be opposed to the (civilian) ban of such things.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are (say) knives. A knife can be used as a weapon; a knife can even be used to commit multiple homicide (case in point: the Simpson case). Does anyone want to ban knives? Probably; but let’s say that most reasonable people are in favor of the right to bear knives. After all, Chopped is such a fun show to watch.
So we have weapons or tools that can be used as weapons, some of which should be banned, some of which should not be. Put all such weapons on a spectrum with knives at one side and flame throwers on the other. There has to be a line somewhere. (This follows, surprisingly, from the Squeeze Theorem of calculus).
Let’s just decide where to put the line.
The rest of this post is personal. I will suggest a reasonable way to draw the line. You may disagree. But wherever you want to draw the line, you must admit that there has to be a line, and I hope you have logical, balanced, well-reasoned criteria for whatever you decide. If you’re not logical, balanced, or well-reasoned, then honestly I don’t really want to talk to you.
So. What line-drawing criteria should we use? I would suggest that people have the right to hunt game animals (there are reasonable arguments against this, I will admit), and the right to reasonably defend themselves. But I would say that any device that makes it easy to rapidly kill many, many people should be off limits to ordinary citizens.
Machine guns? Automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Ban them all. No one hunts with them, and no one needs them for protection. If you need a machine gun to defend your house, then you’re either Tony Montana, or the zombie apocalypse has started.
On the other hand, keep your (non-automatic) pistol. Keep your shotgun. Enjoy that hunting trip. Have fun (trying) to shoot that burglar. (I could argue that an 80-year-old with a gun is more likely to have the gun pulled from his hand and be pistol-whipped with it, rather than use the gun successfully—but I won’t.) I have drawn a line, and the line has a logical basis (the number of people that can easily be killed by the device). You may disagree with my line.
Where would you put it?
Many Worlds Theory 
I do not necessarily disagree with the sentiment you express at the end of your post, though it is far too general to be made a law. The devil is always in the details when it comes to writing laws. The time immediately after a tragedy such as this is almost always the worst time to pass a law, as not enough time is given to dispassionately examine unintended consequences.
It is unclear if your definition would have saved even one life, as it appears that the shooter did not bring the high powered rifle into the school. He also stole the weapons, so I do not see how a ban would have prevented the crime. There are other aspects as well, such as the lack of sensitivity that some people (often kids or young adults) feel towards violence and the psychology that accompanies it, as well as the glorified 24/7 press coverage of these tragedies.
As to the larger picture, this country was founded on an armed revolution. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is discernible, even though the language may not read well today. Congress can pass laws regulating assault weapons and, if the laws fail, we have a process to change the 2nd Amendment. Things may be different today. Weapons can kill more rapidly than in the 18th Century. On the other hand, we have a government than can now explicitly target US citizens for assassination without a trial. Notwithstanding the article you cite, some governments that have banned weapons in the past century have exterminated defenseless civilians in the millions.
Fortunately citizens in the US still have the right to seek a balance between bearing arms for self-defense, maintaining a healthy skepticism against centralized government power, and working to prevent these horrendous tragedies.
Excellent post and excellent repsonse David. This is a complex and emotional issue. I agree with Matthew that there is a “line” that we need to draw between low tech limited scope instruments of violence (knives, clubs, brass knuckles) and the other extreme of high tech broad scope devices (ICBMs in general, chemobiocybernuclear devices, flame throwers). However, before the debate may begin I might suggest we first must decide how MANY and for what purpose lines need to be drawn.
1) If the purpose is to allow the individual to pursue hunting (human vs animal violence for food generation (and sport?)) then you have one set of guidelines.
2) If the purpose is to allow individual legitimate self defense (human vs human violence outside the legal framework) then those guidelines might be different based on the perceived and real threats.
3) If the purpose is to allow individual self defense against the existing framework (human vs human violence where one party is otherwise privileged to carry out violence against indivuals e.g. local, state, federal police or military) then the line would be very different.
I might suggest that in #1 you will get fairly good consensus in the types of “arms” that individuals may bear in pursuit of (their) happiness. You would also likely get some consensus on who should NOT be allowed to bear arms at all (minors without supervision, severly mentally disabled, convicted violent felons).
For purpose #2 you start to diverge into the realm of concealed hand guns for personal protection as well as explosive devises or other lethal traps to protect personal residences from home invasion. It is not hard for me to imagine someone living in a particularly violent area, perhaps legitmately in fear for their family and personal safety, with a lack of confidence in the ability of the exisiting framework to protect them, to desire appropriate and effective weaponry to match the direct threat they face. Pepper spray or tasers may not be either effective or an adequate deterrent. I can even imagine a situation where a remotely located individual faces the treat of say heavily armed cartel members with access to not only semi-automatic rifles, but even up-armoured Suburbans, armed unmanned aerial vehicles, and military grade explosives. Although this scenario unlikely, it is not implausible, and telling the defender his only option is to move seems unsatisfying. Could not under certain settings the individual consider being allowed area denial weapons (claymore mines), anti aircraft weapons to use against cartel drones, and assult rifles to match the criminal fire power?
Things get really contentious for #3, for you need to define the role of the individual in challenging the existing legal framework. David is right, our country was founded on a deep, lingering, and perhaps even paranoid mistrust of big government. Perhaps the individual role should be relegated to simply voting and participating with the state militia to curb federal intrusion into individual rights? How then does the individual protect herself from local/state violent intrusion if the federal government does not react (such as occured in the south against individuals last century until the federal government finally began enforcing civil rights in the 1950s). On the other hand, over the last 236 years the power of states continues to decline. Perhaps our ‘militias’ are at this point incapable of defending individuals against the incredible power of our central government and the vast arsenal of instruments of violence. Could not you make the argument that individual citizens remain the only and last solid defense against a future scenario of the U.S. becoming a dictatorship? Likely no…..plausible yes. The question is how best to defend against that possibilty yet still limit tragedies such as occured on Friday in Connecticut.
Bottom line is that “arms” described in our Constitution are instruments of violence. Every level of society in our civilization is accorded a certain level of legitmate violence that may be utilized against fellow human beings. Individuals: personal protection from imminent lethal threat; Local/State: police response to threats to public safety, imprisonment of convicted felons; Federal Government: Declaration of War; violent activity on foreign soil to protect U.S. interests. We all need to decide on what the role of individual really should be in 2013 and then decide what “arms” are needed to that mission.
Nice comments. I will say today that an assault weapon may well have helped a few days ago, as it now appears that a Bushmaster .223 was used.
Admittedly, shooting sprees can happen in non-gun-loving countries (e.g. Scotland) but gun control wouldn’t be about preventing shooting sprees. It would be about preventing the other 9000 deaths that happen every year in the US, most of them single murders and suicides. It’s funny, but when Australia reduced access to handguns, the data says that suicides went down dramatically. That suggests to me that some people will kill themselves only if it’s easy, and if it’s not easy then they may stay their hand.
Someone posted on Facebook recently that a dispatcher recommended to a caller of 911 that they put down the gun they had in their hand (there was an intruder in the house). The poster of the article was outraged that the dispatcher would give this advice…why not be badass and tell the caller to go all Dirty Harry on the intruder? But I actually agree with the dispatcher in most cases. Sure, if you have trained with guns, are in the army, maybe a law enforcement officer, you could repel the intruder. But honestly if my mom had a gun and there was an intruder, it would put her more in danger…she would in all likelihood have the gun taken from her and used against her.
I am rambling. My final thoughts are this: with regard to Drakodoc’s 1,2, and 3, there is no reason we shouldn’t (1) require guns to be registered, (2) require gun owners to be trained, and (3) have ammunition regulated. You have to have a license to drive a car, right? And yet parents give guns to 8 year olds. I’ll stop now.
Oh, go see the Hobbit. It’s awesome.
I think registration requirements should be tightened and training is a good idea, particularly with higer powered weapons. While I wouldn’t totally foreclose someone from owning a high-powered weapon, there would have to be extensive background checks and training, and they’d need a damn good reason for wanting one. If you are a farmer on the Mexican border, there should be a process for obtaining high powered weapons to defend your self and your property from Cartel members if the Feds or National Guard won’t act (a cheaper solution is to end the “war on drugs,” but that is a different topic).
There was an article on the CNN website which argued that a solution to these issues would best come from a public movement, rather than a politcal one led by the President. A comparison was made to how MADD raised awareness about drunk driving and got the DWI laws changed. While I am not a huge fan of the culture wars (and I know Matt hates it), there was a time before the “family values” crusade that Tipper Gore was essentially saying the same thing about violence on tv and in music from the left’s perspective. The same sort of thing needs to happen here so that laws can be changed and, more importantly, children do not become so desensitized to violence.
If the Blade Runner guy’s account is true (and it may be pure BS, I don’t know), your point about trying to shoot the burglar is prescient.
http://world.time.com/2013/02/19/oscar-pistorius-tells-court-how-he-shot-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp/