An argument against gun control.

[DavidMS]

To further discourse on gun control and raise the standard of the debate I have 4 arguments against gun control. I do not suggest that there should be no gun control but that unnecessarily strict gun control is not desirable in the United States.

1. Does not conflict with a scheme of ordered liberty: The presence or absence of firearms in a society does not in and of itself create or inhibit the creation of a scheme of ordered liberty. In nations with no functional government and warlords rule by whim and most of the population is armed and miserable. In a totalitarian state (Stalinist Russia, North Korea, Bathist Iraq) only members of the ruling class privately posses firearms. In other nations such as England, Australia and Japan firearms ownership is sharply curtailed these are liberal states that have collectively decided the average citizen cannot be trusted with a gun. The effect of the English and Australian experiments is debatable. On the other hand, Switzerland and Finland have relatively lax gun control laws and low crime levels. Therefore it can be inferred that national treatment of firearms has nothing to do with overall crime rates.

2. Firearm ownership does not materially affect crime rates. Mr. John Lott (AKA Mary Rosh) is almost certain to have tortured his data to make it fit. Mr. Kellermann has been accused of doing the same. If there was a clear relationship between gun ownership and crime, data-torture would be unnecessary. However as I am not a statistician nor do I play one on TV I cannot evaluate the claims made, I can note that the findings are considered suspect.

3. National preparedness. With the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent foreign deployment of American soldiers raises the question of if the draft will be returned. Encouraging civilian marksmanship will produce better solders without encoring significant expense.

4. The Texans seem to handle it. When states liberalize their concealed carry laws gun control groups typically predict a massive increase in shootings over parking spaces. It never happened.

Since it seems that firearms do not seem to measurable effect crime rates but provide a wonderful set of symbols for scaring people. We need to make a national choice. Should we let the panic merchants make policy?

I look forward to seeing responses to these arguments from the otherdenizenss of the Gungon.

Edited for clarity and punctuation.

[eswanson]

1. It's not just the Texans who handle it.

It's also the residents of the 35+ other states that have enacted concealed carry laws. Strangely, Chicago led the nation with 599 homicides last year, despite the fact that there's a de facto handgun ban. Gee, you'd think it would be safer there, what with no one having guns...

[waylon]

3. Yeah that is a surprise....

Imagine that...Id think living 3 feet away from a thousand other fuksticks would make you cheery, and safe!

[MissMarple]

2. What kind of guns are we talking about?And what about "well regulated".

And bearing arms is a military reference. The second amendment "was not intended to give every individual, whether he belonged to a state militia or not the right to amass assault weapons, bazookas, had grenades, and land mines in his basement or his front closet."*

I think gun control falls under the quite specific "well regulated" that we find in the second amendment.

*Michael Lind, "Up From Conservatism, Why the Right is Wrong for America" p.221-222.

I don't think weapons ownership will ever be totally banned in the United States, unless Ashcroft gets his way.

[eswanson]

4. Nice diversion.

How do you respond to the fact that the spread of concealed carry laws (that's "concealed handgun carry", if you need it spelled out) hasn't led to the predicted gunfights over parking spots that all the hand-wringers claimed would happen? Or the fact that states which enacted concealed carry laws saw their violent crime rates drop at a rate faster than the national average?

[MissMarple]

5. Why would I want to do that? And I live in Colorado Springs.

There are concealed carriers everywhere here. And a guy brought a rifle to a city council meeting here last year, just to make a point. It was hilarious. But I do believe in regulation. We have had too many kids shot in their own homes by friends or relatives in the past few years. And we do have a highway shooter in Denver. He hit a woman and her baby last month and fired on a car full on women a week or so ago. If we could trace him through his bullets and gun, I think that would be a good thing.

[waylon]

7. ballistic fingerprinting will NEVER work

All it will do is cost law abiding citizens more $$ and put another politician into office.

Barrels are easily replaced and/or marred in such a way as to preclude any foolproof fingerprinting, especially if its used in a crime. More importantly, it may be a false sense of comfort for those who really want an effective means of tracking weapons used in crime.

[MissMarple]

9. If there are more effective means being developed, GREAT!

And I'm not locked into any specific technology, what ever works best and most efficiently. And, most people who commit most crimes probably would not think ahead far enough to change and mar their barrels. I don't know about the cost, but we still find fingerprints at crime scenes.

[waylon]

11. I think thats the problem... there isnt a tech solution.

I might be wrong but I dont know of any other proposed way of tracking weapons back to their original owners/buyers.

Rather than accept fingerprinting is a failed attempt, there are a few who continue to push for it. It just doesnt make sense to me how otherwise sensible people can lose control of their reason when the discussion turns to gun control.

I wouldnt mind paying a few extra bucks if a solution was viable though.

[MissMarple]

12. I don't think there will be aperfect way to do it, but maybe a viable way.

But the gun manufacturers would have to be involved.

[waylon]

15. Agreed.... and I think they have tried to accomodate....

sensible gun control policies, even if not willingly.

I truly believe they want their products to be used legally and safely. They are for-profit organizations though, and will tend toward the bottom line when they can. If they could ensure that their products are used in ways that dont put them in a court room, they will do it.

Unfortunately, some people see dollar signs by going after the gun manufacturers every time some idiot shoots someone.

[MissMarple]

18. That doesn't make any sense to me either. The court route is inefficient.

Standards and regulation make better sense to me, but the legislators won't do it. All guns should have locks, at least in my view. If we have a multi layered system in place, with built in redundancies, things would be safer and gun ownership, in the long run, would be easier. And I don't mean a burdensome over regulated system. Something better is possible. There will always be people who circumvent the system, but, I don't think that means we don't have a system.

[MrSandman]

47. Criminal or negligient use?

[Withergyld]

48. "All guns should have locks"

At first glance this sounds reasonable, but there are several reasons why this will not work.

1. There currently an estimated 280 Million firearms in the US. Firearms can have a lifes span of over 100 years if properly taken care of. Several of the firearms I own are over 50 years old. Un less existing weapons are retrofitted with safety devices, it will be a VERY long time until ALL weapons have safety devices. Who will pay for this retrofitting?
   
2. The more complex a mechanical device, the more likely it will malfunction. Those that carry weapons for self-defense purposes want the most reliable weapon available. Most legislation that I have seen exempts Police and Military weapons from the "enhanced" safety features. If it is such a good idea why does it not apply to the Police and MIlitary.
   
3. Most accidents that could have been prevented by a safety device could have also been prevented by safe gun handling practices and/or safe gun storage practices. Increased education in safe storag/handling practices could be just as effective, but cost much less

[Withergyld]

16. Most criminals prefer "new" guns to "old" guns

They prefer new guns because it is less likely that the gun has been previously used to commit a crime. If ballistic fingreprinting was prevalant, there would be a large demand in the black market for firearms that had not been "fingerprinted."

[MissMarple]

20. I think there is a demand now for stolen guns for just such a purpose.

But, I think sensible gun measures including the manufacturing of guns, enhanced forensic measures, along with tactics that target the growth of crime including such progressive measures as childcare, health care, good schools and job creation as well as more community policing, etc. will go a long way toward greatly reducing gun crime.

[jhfenton]

23. There are two distinct ways to use ballistic fingerprinting.

The first matches recovered bullets or casings with a recovered gun. This is what we see on Law & Order and CSI and other TV shows all the time. It is a relatively straightforward process to compare bullets recently fired from a recovered gun to bullets newly test fired from that gun. The comparison is generally made by a human being with all controllable variables controlled.

What has been proposed by some is a ballistic fingerprint database created from data submitted by gun manufacturers. This creates many technical obstacles. There are too many variables that can't be controlled. First, fingerprints will change over time, so that a fingerprint recorded when a gun is new will look different after a few thousand rounds have been fired. (It's not unusual for me to put 5,000-10,000 rounds a year through my firearms.) Second, as pointed out above, the fingerprints can be easily modified with a Dremel, file, or screwdriver. Third, fingerprints will vary slightly given different brands of ammunition with different manufacturing tolerances. Fourth, given all the above variables, tests show that there is no way to narrow a computer search of the database down to a number manageable for human follow-up.

Given all the above technical problems, the enormous cost in resources is unjustifiable. There is no way to get the millions of existing firearms into the system, and once such a system is in place, black market gun dealers would "sanitize" newer guns and offer them for sale, taking them effectively out of the new system.

[MissMarple]

24. Thanks for the information. It is very helpful.

:D

[alwynsw]

29. The cost of such a program is astronomical

If we usr the Canadian model for complete registration, which does not include ballisitc fingerprinting, wecould well expect the cost to exceed 80 billions of dollars. That number is used assuming that the Cnadian numbers are correct, transposing their program to US needs, and extrapolating the cost to an estimated 280 million firearms currentlyin the US as opposed to the estimated 8 million in Canada.

The money could be better used for social programs, IMO.

[RoeBear]

42. One more little thing...

...how many guns used in crime are used by the original purchaser?
Sometimes you'll hear of a guy buying a gun and 'offing' his wife with it. Yeah the BF will lead to that guy but he was the main suspect anyways. But how many gang bangers are using guns they bought at the local gun store?

[alwynsw]

27. Did you ever hear of an Accelerator

It has a discarding nylon sabot. There are no striations left on the bullet. The nylon melts from the heat. Accelerators are currently out of production, but are still readily available. They're not all that tough to make for any competent reloader. Where does that leave ballistic fingerprinting?

[MrSandman]

50. Or a blackpowder sabot?

[Columbia]

6. Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? n/t

[MissMarple]

8. Of course, why do you ask?

:D

[Columbia]

10. Well

It just seems you forget where the "well-regulated" part seems to fall in it.

[MissMarple]

13. Yes, they are in the same sentence. It is all of a piece.

The meaning of the amendment comes from both parts of the sentence. And if you are into original intent, you have to consider what the framers meant by the term "to bear arms". But having said that, I'll say again, I don't think the regulated right to have arms will ever be taken away, unless we get a fascist government. It is just too ingrained in our culture.

[Columbia]

14. You forgot the KEEP

as in the "Right of the People to KEEP and Bear Arms"

So, let me ask you this, what do you think this means?

[MissMarple]

17. Have arms, keep arms, well there are different thoughts on that.

I think how you interpret that depends on keeping the context of the times in mind. A strict interpretation on those grounds might be looking at the phrase "to bear arms" which historically has a military connotation. It used to be that the defense of a city, town or region was dependent on the actual inhabitants coming together as a militia to defend their community. In England, at one time, there were laws that required regular practice by the citizens. In colonial times that was necessary primarily because of Indian attacks. But, there was organization, and your neighbors knew if you were any good with your weapon. So there is some thought that the reference to "people" is the people of the individual states as opposed to the "people" of the nation. And that supports the interpretation that that right translates to the state militias or national guards. That the federal government cannot take away the right of the people as organized in the various states to keep and bear arms in their own protection. (And what they are doing in Iraq is another issue entirely.)

But all of that is open to interpretation, something like the Bible. For instance "Thou shalt not kill." for some means don't kill period, even in self defense. But when we understand that the Hebrew or Greek originally meant "murder" not "kill", it puts a different spin on things.

I know people with guns, I want my children to be able to fire guns confidently and safely, I don't think the right to have guns among the general population is going away,... unless something very bad happens in America.

[Columbia]

19. Thanks for the well-thought out response

The context of the time is that the founders and writers of the Constitution feared a federal tyranny over-exerting its influence on individual states and people. The "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" part of the amendment is obviously alluding to what they thought was the most important reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The only way to ensure this is for all people to have the right to keep and bear their own personal weapons. Federalist 29 and 46 go into this in depth.

However, that does not mean that the 2nd applies only to state militias since states/governments do not have rights, only powers delegated to them by the people. Check out the 9th and 10th Amendments for these differences. Only people have rights and it is explicit in the 2nd that the "Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed." If the writers truly intended the amendment to apply to state militias they would have written the amendment this way: "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the power of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is not how it is written, however, so the right does belong to the people at large as it so plainly written.

[jhfenton]

21. Well said (n/t)

[MissMarple]

22. This is fun. Thanks. I'm trying to think this stuff through for myself

because I've been doing a little reading.

But, I think what they meant by "people" is still up for debate. And as we know, this is a dance America will be doing for a long time.

Anyhow, if all the people are allowed to have any or all sorts of weapons, we could actually fall into a state anarchy if small groups got together to start blowing things up. The extreme right supremacists could be a case in point. If all people have the right to keep and bear all weapons their little hearts desire, where would we be? To me it sounds like a Hobbsian nightmare.

But, I have to go. I'll check back later. :D

[Columbia]

25. Precisely

"Anyhow, if all the people are allowed to have any or all sorts of weapons, we could actually fall into a state anarchy if small groups got together to start blowing things up. The extreme right supremacists could be a case in point. If all people have the right to keep and bear all weapons their little hearts desire, where would we be? To me it sounds like a Hobbsian nightmare."

Another good reason for the 2nd Amendment - the ability for the citizenry at large to put down small civil disturbances. Without the 2nd, these small groups (or governments) would be able to procure weapons despite the law and rule unchecked without impunity. The inherent wickedness of man is precisely why it is so necessary to have the right to keep and bear arms to protect us from those who wish to do us harm or take away our fundamental liberties.

Edit to add:

I'm relatively certain that the defintion of people is the same people refered to in the rest of the Bill of Rights (i.e. the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments).

[alwynsw]

38. Look everyone! FUN IN THE GUNGEON!!!

Call Guiness! (Some of you know what I mean.)

[Wickerman]

43. No need tp get catty

the Gungeon is ALWAYS fun. Its the first rule of the Gungeon.

:evilgrin:

[alwynsw]

44. Mea Culpa

My Monarch of Moderators lol

[alwynsw]

26. Try reading the Federalist Papers

#49 I tink (could be wrong). You'll find that the wording of the second is referring to the entire populace; not just the military,

[Columbia]

28. Yes, you are indeed...

Wrong! It's Federalist 46! :spank:

http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive.

[alwynsw]

31. Columbia, my humble Grasshopper

Someday, you too, will be old and feeble. Atleast numbers are about the only thing I lose at in opportune time.

edited to add: Columbia is a poopie head.

[Columbia]

32. Twas good natured ribbing

I suppose it's fairly easy to flip the 6 into a 9. I'll let you off this time...

:pals:
:toast:

[alwynsw]

33. I repeat

You, sir, are a poopie head. A friendly one, but a poopie head nonetheless.

I'm rubber, you're glue...

[Columbia]

34. I know you are, but what am I?

:evilgrin:

[alwynsw]

35. Check your inbox

poopie head

[Columbia]

36. LOL

Takes one to know one. }(

[alwynsw]

37. Welcome back

poopie head TO INFINITY PLUS ONE!

[Columbia]

39. What else to do on a Friday night?

Then post in the Gungeon... umm... yeah...

:beer:

[alwynsw]

40. Works for old married pharts such as me!

Being retired at the ripeold age of 47, we do the fun stuff during the week when all you young whippersnappers are either working or sleepin off, er resting up from the previous weekend.

[Columbia]

41. Sleep?

Who needs sleep? Sleep is overrated. :freak:

[grower]

30. All excellent responses

'The security of a free state' is something I have been thinking about.

A state free from what or who?

Also, and this was most likely covered, the malitia has nothing to do with military, and in fact the 2cnd was enumerated to protect the people from the military

[MissMarple]

49. I'm still reading,and this is getting really murky. You are right about

the Federalist 46. But this is getting very strange. I'll check back again. There doesn't seem to be anything very straight forward about this. I was forgetting my usual caveat that working with people is a very messy business. :D

[lcordero]

51. Let me put it like this

I expect NOT to be regulated for an incident that doesn't have anything to do with me.
I've despised collective punishment all of my life, I left active Army because of it. GUN CONTROL IS COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT.

[Frodo_Baggins]

45. And so do the Alaskans and Vermontians

What was that about "ordered liberty"

[DavidMS]

46. The entire idea of ordered liberty...

is that without order (just liberty) there is a state of anarchy and everyone is miserable (warlording, etc). Order without liberty is tryany (living under Stalin or Kim Il Jung) and is just as bad, if not worse.

A sucessfull nation balances the two.