My Non-Libertarian View: Guns
I don't believe in the right to bear arms.
I am a libertarian and think that the protection of an individuals rights is the most important aspect of society.
But I do not think that the right to own a specific kind of weapon ever has been or ever will be a fundamental right. The argument for them is usually a secondary one: owning a gun increases your ability to protect your other rights, and thus they are critical to civil liberties.
I think not. Guns do little good, and contrary to the NRA's campaigns, it is guns that kill people. In the UK, you have a higher rate of violent crimes and a much lower murder rate. Surprising? not really. It is much harder to kill if you don't have a gun - and that is a good thing.
The number one argument given as to why guns should not be banned is a practical one: bad guys can always get them, and then the good guys (usually in the form of "me") would not be able to get one.
I will concede that is likely the case - it would be possible to get a gun - but it would be much much more difficult. Again - in the UK most criminals do not carry guns, gangs don't have access to guns etc. Every once in a while someone gets hold of a gun and goes crazy or commits a crime - but this is not an argument for allowing guns but rather an argument for why they should be completely banned and removed. Studies consistently show that the only things likely go up when you own a gun are your own chance of dying, committing suicide, or harming those around you.
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic
Still support guns?
Let us review what is actually written in the Bill of Rights, as passed by this nation's Congress:
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
However, the original proposed text read this:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The idea of the founding fathers was clearly that the nation should be allowed to protect and defend itself and have a military force. The last sentence in this version shows how closely linked (nearly interchangeable) the notions of "bearing arms" and "military service" were. In a nation of farmers, this military force was by necessity largely comprised of citizen-soldiers formed into militia. As the nation matured, this role was then filled by a professional armed forces - who have the right to bear arms.
The other aspect of the right to bear arms is and was the moral check against the power of the state. This is the other way in which the founding fathers saw the right to bear arms as a necessity. In order to protect your rights, the people should be able to defend themselves against a tyrant government.
Again - using guns to do so made sense. Two hundred years ago. When a military was pretty much made up of untrained guys with rifles. Today the idea of individuals taking up arms against the US government? Untenable.
Gun proponents put forward the practical argument that getting rid of guns would be difficult as their main defense, I put forward the practical argument that individuals using guns against the modern military in order to defend themselves against tyranny is near on impossible. "The people" still are a bunch of untrained guys with rifles. The military has moved just a little beyond that. It would be akin to the colonial wars in Africa, and I mean the British or the Germans, not the Italians: rifles against rockets, handguns against network-centric battlefield command and control. The idea of using guns to protect your rights against the government is a technical and practical impossibility, and as such is a moot point - interesting academically, but irrelevant.
I believe that the government should be afraid of its people, but the power of the people is not based on the barrel of a gun but the ability to engage in and even "overthrow" a government through peaceful means. The modern conception of rights and political theory has no room in it for the idea or necessity of owning a weapon designed and needed only to kill another person. It would be like arguing that dueling is a sensible way to settle disputes, chopping off hands prevents thieves, or murder is effective method for handing over executive power. It is outdated and barbaric, and leads to the ridiculous murder rate in this country and the pathetic truth that South American and Mexican drug cartels get their weapons by, legally, buying them in this country.
This was all prompted by the fact that the Supreme Court just struck down Chicago's 28yr old ban on guns within the city. Previously, the 2nd amendment applied only to Federal areas (it did not apply to the States - ever, until now. Literally, until today, it only applied to Federal Laws and Washington D.C.)
In other words, cities facing rampant gun related crimes and deaths, staggering murder rates, violent crimes on a daily basis, and significant risk for individuals who chose not to be involved (and thus their rights are violated) as well as police and public services, are not allowed to limit the "right" to bear arms.
Ridiculous. Of course - I actually agree with the ruling - as far as the legal developments go, interpretation of the 2nd amendment, etc. Honestly, I think it is the only place where the Constitution hamstrings this country from developing - most of the time I would be a fan of striking down a limitation on a "right" - it is just that the right to bear arms should never be considered a fundamental right (but that is not for the Supreme Court to decide - it is for the people to figure out).
I am a libertarian and think that the protection of an individuals rights is the most important aspect of society.
But I do not think that the right to own a specific kind of weapon ever has been or ever will be a fundamental right. The argument for them is usually a secondary one: owning a gun increases your ability to protect your other rights, and thus they are critical to civil liberties.
I think not. Guns do little good, and contrary to the NRA's campaigns, it is guns that kill people. In the UK, you have a higher rate of violent crimes and a much lower murder rate. Surprising? not really. It is much harder to kill if you don't have a gun - and that is a good thing.
The number one argument given as to why guns should not be banned is a practical one: bad guys can always get them, and then the good guys (usually in the form of "me") would not be able to get one.
I will concede that is likely the case - it would be possible to get a gun - but it would be much much more difficult. Again - in the UK most criminals do not carry guns, gangs don't have access to guns etc. Every once in a while someone gets hold of a gun and goes crazy or commits a crime - but this is not an argument for allowing guns but rather an argument for why they should be completely banned and removed. Studies consistently show that the only things likely go up when you own a gun are your own chance of dying, committing suicide, or harming those around you.
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
| Homicide | Suicide | Other (inc Accident) | |
| USA (2001) | 3.98 | 5.92 | 0.36 |
| Italy (1997) | 0.81 | 1.1 | 0.07 |
| Switzerland (1998) | 0.50 | 5.8 | 0.10 |
| Canada (2002) | 0.4 | 2.0 | 0.04 |
| Finland (2003) | 0.35 | 4.45 | 0.10 |
| Australia (2001) | 0.24 | 1.34 | 0.10 |
| France (2001) | 0.21 | 3.4 | 0.49 |
| England/Wales (2002) | 0.15 | 0.2 | 0.03 |
| Scotland (2002) | 0.06 | 0.2 | 0.02 |
| Japan (2002) | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0 |
Still support guns?
Let us review what is actually written in the Bill of Rights, as passed by this nation's Congress:
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
However, the original proposed text read this:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The idea of the founding fathers was clearly that the nation should be allowed to protect and defend itself and have a military force. The last sentence in this version shows how closely linked (nearly interchangeable) the notions of "bearing arms" and "military service" were. In a nation of farmers, this military force was by necessity largely comprised of citizen-soldiers formed into militia. As the nation matured, this role was then filled by a professional armed forces - who have the right to bear arms.
The other aspect of the right to bear arms is and was the moral check against the power of the state. This is the other way in which the founding fathers saw the right to bear arms as a necessity. In order to protect your rights, the people should be able to defend themselves against a tyrant government.
Again - using guns to do so made sense. Two hundred years ago. When a military was pretty much made up of untrained guys with rifles. Today the idea of individuals taking up arms against the US government? Untenable.
Gun proponents put forward the practical argument that getting rid of guns would be difficult as their main defense, I put forward the practical argument that individuals using guns against the modern military in order to defend themselves against tyranny is near on impossible. "The people" still are a bunch of untrained guys with rifles. The military has moved just a little beyond that. It would be akin to the colonial wars in Africa, and I mean the British or the Germans, not the Italians: rifles against rockets, handguns against network-centric battlefield command and control. The idea of using guns to protect your rights against the government is a technical and practical impossibility, and as such is a moot point - interesting academically, but irrelevant.
I believe that the government should be afraid of its people, but the power of the people is not based on the barrel of a gun but the ability to engage in and even "overthrow" a government through peaceful means. The modern conception of rights and political theory has no room in it for the idea or necessity of owning a weapon designed and needed only to kill another person. It would be like arguing that dueling is a sensible way to settle disputes, chopping off hands prevents thieves, or murder is effective method for handing over executive power. It is outdated and barbaric, and leads to the ridiculous murder rate in this country and the pathetic truth that South American and Mexican drug cartels get their weapons by, legally, buying them in this country.
This was all prompted by the fact that the Supreme Court just struck down Chicago's 28yr old ban on guns within the city. Previously, the 2nd amendment applied only to Federal areas (it did not apply to the States - ever, until now. Literally, until today, it only applied to Federal Laws and Washington D.C.)
In other words, cities facing rampant gun related crimes and deaths, staggering murder rates, violent crimes on a daily basis, and significant risk for individuals who chose not to be involved (and thus their rights are violated) as well as police and public services, are not allowed to limit the "right" to bear arms.
Ridiculous. Of course - I actually agree with the ruling - as far as the legal developments go, interpretation of the 2nd amendment, etc. Honestly, I think it is the only place where the Constitution hamstrings this country from developing - most of the time I would be a fan of striking down a limitation on a "right" - it is just that the right to bear arms should never be considered a fundamental right (but that is not for the Supreme Court to decide - it is for the people to figure out).
Comments
Post a Comment