Another Gun Control Post

Let's talk gun control.

Americans love their guns. Until just a few weeks ago, gun control was a toxic subject on capitol hill. The reason for that is that politicians can't really tell who the gun loving Americans ARE. It is actually nearly impossible to be certain where someone stands on gun control regardless of their other political views. A good chunk of Democrats are just a protective of their firearms and right to have them as Republicans tend to be. The only thing that is certain when dealing with guns is my first sentence above – American love their guns. Conventional wisdom says: Put the topic down and back slowly away if you value your political career.

But avoiding election consequences aside, there are some facts that makes reasonable gun control difficult to completely dismiss. The statistics on gun violence in America are staggering. We're talking 12-15 times as many injuries and fatalities than the top 25 industrialized nations COMBINED. We are not suffering a higher rate of gun violence, we're dealing with levels bordering what might be expected in a destabilized third world nation. What those stats make clear is that whatever you think about gun control, the current relationship between firearms and US citizens is severely dysfunctional.

Let's take a look at gun control from the top down with a moderate perspective, one that wants only to reduce the risk to civilian safety and still acknowledge the right of a citizen to protect themselves, hunt, and maintain a high degree of personal liberty in the choices they make about gun ownership.

Can we do that?

First let's get rid of some anti-gun control myths. Remember, my long term goal here is to suggest a way for Americans to RETAIN gun ownership. What I want to do first is get rid of the extremist positions against gun control.

Myth #1: Democrats and liberals want to take your guns away and leave you unprotected and unarmed.

False. As I mentioned above, a LOT of Democrats love their guns. Democrats have taken truly anti-gun positions before, but these have proven to be political suicide. The voters don't want that, a message they send VERY clearly. Most modern gun control advocates aren't out to end gun ownership. They are want to see a system of oversight in place that balances the safety of society with the liberty and interest of the gun owner. This mentality is one that is held not only by classic liberals but by many NRA members as well. While the NRA leadership draws a hard line in the sand against any new regulation of firearms, even most pro-gun owners understand that the ownership of dangerous machine whose purpose is to kill should require some kind of regulation if for no other reason than to prevent them, the responsible owners, from being punished for the actions of the irresponsible.

Again, Americans love their guns regardless of political position. Any gun control that is to be taken seriously must begin with the goal of protecting responsible gun ownership, not minimizing it.

Myth #2: The 2nd Amendment gives civilians defense against tyranny and a runaway government.

False. This was true when the musket you owned was as good as the musket the military was using. It was true when the federal government was extremely small and not invested in the operational architecture of the country. It was true when the federal government had no standing army of consequence. In colonial days, the 2nd amendment prevent the new federal government from holding military power over its own civilians without their concent, mostly because prior to highways, jet planes and the internet civilians could organize and prepare a militia to resist another force with weeks or even months of time to prepare before a possible altercation. Armed response to a runaway government was, in fact, viable.

Today is is not. Like it or not, standing up to, much less defeating, the US Military is well beyond the ability for any number of civilians with any and all firepower available to them. You can have your pistol or your own tank and you will still lose in a conflict with the government. Let this one go. There is no model left in reasonable discourse that allows a civilian to martially protect themselves from the government.

Myth #3 – If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

True. However no responsible gun control measure should attempt to outlaw guns. The reason this is listed as a myth is that the truth of it's core statement as written is often used to justify a domestic arms race. Since outlawing guns leaves the power of firearms in the hands of those willing to break laws, then this somehow justifies the ownership of any and all guns because if heavy machine guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have heavy machine guns, right?

Wrong.

If the criminals you are facing are para-military special forces looking to zip line into your living room with assault weapons in order to acquire your television, no gun is going to save you. We have to acknowledge that there is a limit to the kinds of criminals we can expect civilians to encounter and from which they can realistically protect themselves. If we accept the reality that we can't outgun everything and everyone we might encounter, then the prospect of setting outer limits on what civilians can have is less scary.

Criminals use guns as a tool to exert their power against the wishes of victims, and ultimately with firearms that is most effective when it's a binary thing: Either you have that power or you don't. Once an armed confrontation begins, there are far more variables playing as to who comes out on top then just who has the bigger gun. If the defense you seek requires more than a hunting shotgun or a pistol, the issue at hand is one of overall public safety and frankly requires the collective attention of the local community, not a larger weapon. The only place the criminal looks at the hero and says “Oooh, yours is .44, mine's only a 9mm, I'm outta here” is the movies.

And bad ones at that.

Myth #4 – Guns save lives.
True – in part. I would point out you can't say this and 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' in the same sentence without earning a slap with a rolled up newspaper.

There are situations where having a firearm can and does save lives if the situation plays out favorably to the defensive gun owner. However strict pro-gun advocates suffer from a delusion of what I like to call projected hindsight. This is to say they like to look at violent situations and say “Well, if X had a gun when Y did this, they could have...” or “If she had been armed, this wouldn’t' have...” But these statements have the luxury of looking calmly back on the full facts after it's over and placing the gun where it would be most useful. I could rule the world if I could have the same luxury with stock investments. During an actual armed conflict, this is not likely to be the case.

In Arizona, there was one civilian who came to the scene with a C&C permit and a gun. He saw another man there with his gun out and people on the ground dying. He was, according to him, 'one second from pulling his weapon and shooting the man' when he figured out the weapon holder had RETRIEVED the gun and was helping the fallen. So in effect, our would be hero was one second from shooting one of the good guys. Situations like this are ALSO a possible consequence of having an armed population. We are then depending on multiple different people's judgment and imperfect information as to when and where to use lethal force. If one of them is wrong we can end up with MORE fatalities, not less.

So again guns CAN save lives. But the guns don't come on the scene with just that added option. They provide additional safety as well as potential additional bloodshed and potential escalation of a conflict. Whether the gun saves anyone is far more dependent on the people involved than the weapons present.

Myth #5 – Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Literally False – Conceptually True. Guns kill people. Guns are designed to kill. This is all they are made for. While guns are broad enough to include many not designed to kill people, the fact that they make killing easier is incontrovertible.

That said, the phrase is designed to shift he focus from the gun to the gun holder. Advocates for responsible gun control would agree that the focus needs to be on the person and their relationship with firearms. We want to find a way for responsible owners to have guns while the sick, unbalanced, irresponsible or criminally minded are prohibited form the same. Easier said than done, of course.

The core of the argument for responsible gun control lies with the idea that we must do what we can to screen users and ALLOW gun ownership. The goal should be to give people permission to own guns. However we must balance this desire with the fact that any system we use will be imperfect. It will catch some of the wrong people and miss some of the right people. So in addition to this, we have to weigh the consequence of being wrong. It is here that certain kinds of firearms end up being made illegal. It is not because we don't think there are people in the US who can handle it. Rather it's that the price of putting that weapon into the wrong hands in a crowded society is too high for that society to bear. So to eliminate the mistake entirely, the gun itself is rendered illegal for civilian use.

Will this stop that gun from falling into the wrong hands? Not entirely. But see my points about criminals above for reasons why that doesn't really matter. We can't defend ourselves against all criminals, nor can our safety be held hostage to a vain attempt to try to do so.

Tomorrow I'll write about what 'reasonable' gun control might look like and how it might find bi-partisan support if people were willing to give one another the benefit of the doubt.