Understanding the Hand Gun Debate
From Zanecorpwiki
Saw an article linked from Digg that a court recently upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. The poster's summary was: Of course this law only applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals will keep their weapons.
This is an issue I've seen debated by the faithful of both sides on a number of occasions, and I can sympathize with both. The amusing thing about the entire debate is that both sides are right, meaning they both have valid points that should be incorporated into policy. The problem is that it's one of those hot button issues where both sides are so afraid of giving up any ground that they stubbornly and stupidly cling to their mantras while all the time proclaiming to be the rational voice.
What the anti-gun crowd fails to fully appreciate is that:
- Defense is a right. People do have the right to vigorously defend themselves from aggressors.
- Common sense and moral calculus says that a parity of force makes sense. If the bad guys have guns, the good guys should have guns too.
- In some cases, both at the personal and international scale, we have a moral obligation to oppose aggression. It is the aggressors which decide what options are left open, and when all options but violence have been closed through no fault of our own, then we are morally required to answer aggression with violence.
What the pro-gun crowd fails to understand is that:
- To curb violence we must begin to dampen the potential for violence. Taking guns out of circulation, reducing availability, and shrinking the market, even if it first happens with the law abiding among us, lessens the availability of guns for everyone--including criminals. The idea that a gun law only effects the law-abiding is naive in the extreme.
- There is no question that nations with stricter gun control laws and culture have fewer deaths and violence--both gun related and overall. Whether it means the simple absence of guns--as in most first world nations--or a strict training and education program, like Switzerland, the result is reduced violence and death.
Where both sides err:
- The anti-gun crowd is focused on removal of guns. This is line with their ultimate goal of a more peaceful and more just society. However, it may well be worthwhile to push from the other side as well. You can get a gun, but you must actually take on the responsibility of ownership and get real training.
- The pro-gun lobby does not take gun responsibility seriously at all. Our concealed carry permit classes are a joke compared to the training that should be received. If the argument is self defense one needs to be put through repeated simulations over a period of time where one experiences having to calmly acquire a hostile target, avoid non-combatants, all while under extreme stress and being shot at. It's ludicrous to think that talking about a safety and doing some target practice in any way prepares someone for something like home defense, or responding to a mugging.
What both sides agree on:
- Gun ownership in America is predominantly a cultural thing. From gun shoots and gun shows, to the more nostalgic idea of militia and defense, it's a deeply rooted part of much of the rural culture.
What both sides should understand:
- There is no clear consensus on the effect of gun laws in the near term, and as long as the debate is centered around such a narrow, we will never have consensus. It's a time wasting effort that only benefits politicians who can kick the football around without ever doing anything substantial. We are treated to a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
- The two sides are looking at a fundamentally different part of the same question. The pro-gun side focuses on individual rights. How do I protect myself? and I want to buy a gun. The anti-gun side focuses on the rights of society, How do we make a more peaceful world for our children? and I don't want a fearful hot-head emboldened to respond to a situation they have no training or temperament for and putting my life in danger.
TODO: undeveloped observation -- the "Right" sees the second amendment as a check on tyranny. The issue is typically dismissed by the "Left", and on the one occasion I recall it explicitly engaged (a Rachel Maddow segment from mid-February), the pundit presented the goal as "overthrow". Given some of the political rhetoric originating with the Right, the presentation isn't entirely baseless, but still constitutes a clear straw man attack in my view. (The conclusion being that under the logic of "overthrow", any regulation of weapons should be overturned on the theory that the populace should be able to beat the professional military at any point in time). While "overthrow-ability" may be the goal of some minority, the clear majority of pro-gun "Second Righters" (if I may use that term) is to provide a check on tyranny by increasing the cost of violent oppression by being able to mount an effective resistance which serves as a deterrent. In this calculus, it's not necessary to defeat the hypothetical "tyrannical army", just make their job difficult enough that they focus their attention someplace else.
