I like to think of myself as consistent. I like to think that my beliefs on various subjects (at least those related to public policy) are based on reasoned study of the questions at hand, an impartial review of the evidence, and a fearless but objective determination of what the right course should be.
Which is why, when I find my opinion on something changing, it’s a bit disturbing. I sort of hold off on leaping into a new ideological position, waiting to see if I’m just disgruntled about something in particular or feeling cranky or influenced by a single news article or event.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ve been wrong all these years about gun control.
(See, that’s the problem. It’s less that I’m excited or proud that I might be, with my change of mind, right about something. It’s that I’ve been wrong up until now. But I digress.)
As a kid, gun-owning was not a big thing in our lives, but I saw it as Just Something People Did. Or most people. It wasn’t discussed over cocktails. I got the impression as much on TV as anywhere else.
The turning point came when I was in high school, and was on the debate team. One of the annual NFL (that National Forensics League, natch) topics had to do with changes to the criminal justice system, and, at the time (we’re talking (ahem) late 70s here), gun violence and Saturday Night Specials and all that sort of thing were hot subjects.
I read the little 4×6 evidence cards avidly. Statistics on gun violence in the US vs. other civilized realms with harsher gun control. The proportion of gun deaths that came from crimes of passion, where, in the heat of an argument, someone grabs a pistol from the bureau and plugs their spouse or neighbor or parent or child. The kids hurt or killed when they stumbled across doofus Dad’s loaded pistol in the night stand drawer.
And I looked at the other side of the argument. The “black helicopter” types who demanded to hold onto their rifles and pistols to protect against an Evil US Government. Or the NRA fanatics, who cared less about how many cops or kids or innocents were killed than in how much political clout they could hold.
It was clear to me that some sort of gun control was needed. Registration, certainly. Probably a ban on pistols (except for sporting pistols, which would need to be kept locked up at firing ranges), maybe on rifles of various sorts as well (this was before all the “assault weapon” part of the debate). Guns don’t kill people, true, but people with easy access to guns can kill people a lot more easily than people with easy access to knives.
So, that particular ideological decision made, I could spend the next two decades rolling my eyes at the NRA, shaking my head at the carnage on the streets, and clucking sadly over the statistics and the cowardly politicians.
Then something began to change. Maybe it was the Bellesiles scandal — I’d welcomed gleefully the publication of a book that iconoclastically demolished the idea that the US had always been a gun-saturated culture, but the revelations that much of the book’s history was made up out of whole cloth (and the silence from the anti-gun side of the debate as those revelations took place) shook me.
Then there were all the “assault weapon” shenanigans, as weapons were banned or restricted, not based on what they could actually do, but based on what they looked like.
The DC Sniper coverage, too, irked me, as anti-gun forces in the media drew all sorts of goofy and unsupported conclusions about how the gun culture had clearly driven yet another white boy loner over the edge.
And I started reading more international statistics, including how, even as Britain has tried to crack down on guns (to a far greater degree than anyone is yet proposing here in the US), criminal gun violence and armed robbery has, over decades, grown and grown — and how, more damningly, it’s been clear that the police have been both unable and unwilling to do anything about it, besides suggesting that, well, maybe you shouldn’t wear flashy wristwatches and flashy cell phones out in public.
Shift gear here a moment. Colorado wrestles with the gun issue as much as anyone. And with the Columbine killings still fresh in everyone’s memory, the question of how easily folks can get hold of guns remains a hot button.
The current battleground has been over concealed-carry permits. Until recently, this was a local (city, county) matter — each municipal government could decide what they wanted to do. In rural districts, it was usually pretty easy — you simply went to the local sheriff, applied for a permit, and were issued one.
Other locations, though, made it much more difficult — even impossible — to get one. You had to prove to an unwilling police chief that you had a compelling enough imminent danger to you that you deserved to carry a gun for your own protection. And even then, it often didn’t happen. Folks with death threats (or fear of a violent ex, etc.) were simply told to be careful, get a restraining order, call 911 if there’s a problem, and so forth. And, yes, people died that way, too.
The state legislature recently passed a law that said, hey, this is a constitutional issue (see here and here on the Colorado Constitution on the matter, and here, of course, for the US Constitution). So we’re going to set uniform standards on the matter, and municipalities may not override them.
Those standards are basically that, subject to a criminal background check and appropriate training, people should be able to get a concealed-carry permit.
The philosophy behind this is one that, as a civil libertarian, I find appealing — the state should show a compelling reason why a particular liberty should be restricted from a person. As opposed to the previous system, where some munipalities asked folks to prove, to their satisfaction, that they should be allowed to exercise a particular liberty.
As one state legislator noted, looking at other constitutional rights, “Which one, other than the right to bear arms, would anyone every contemplate municpalities having supremacy over the state — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to counsel?”
The article in the Rocky, though, contained just that one bit of justification, aside from the law also trying to make uniform and visible the local restrictions on where individuals can carry firearms. Most of the space was taken up with apocalyptic fears of blood in the streets, outrage over the state imposing its will on the city of Denver, and loud denunciations of how the state GOP had cowtowed to the “powerful gun lobby.”
Feh.
It’s not just a matter of being annoyed beyond measure with the rhetoric of the anti-gun side. That’s an emotional response, not an intellectual one. It’s just that I find so many of the factual and logical assertions they make to be so dubious, and that, as I’ve become more of a civil libertarian over time, less in keeping with my own political philosophy, which is that it’s better to punish abuse of rights than restrict the right in the first place — which is, as noted above, the approach we take with so many of the other civil liberties we enjoy and cherish. Freedom of speech, for example, can do great harm, but we shy away from censorship.
I’m not a nut about this, I hope. I think there is room for a certainly degree of regulation of firearms, both as to class (I have no problems with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons) and to access; I remain mixed on how freely guns ought to be obtainable, with what sort of registration or background checks or records kept, but I’d rather start from the position that the citizenry ought to be able to obtain firearms if they wish, than from the position that we must prohibit the wrong people from getting them. I’m not sure I go with the idea that “an armed society is a polite society” (my love of Heinlein notwithstanding), but I’m pretty certain that the proposition that “a disarmed society is a safe society” also doesn’t bear much scrutiny (see “Britain”).
I’m also new enough to being on this side of the fence — and close enough to straddling said barrier — that I don’t expect I’ll be writing about it often here. I’m still feeling my way around some of those practical applications of the ideological shift. But I thought it worth noting at least that the shift had taken place.
When I have discussions on the subject, I have trouble convincing gun enthusiasts (at least those I know personally) that the big problem (as I see it) is with accidental deaths! Too many little kids are dying because gun owners aren’t treating their weapons with the proper respect.
I have to take a written exam and demonstrate my ability to drive, as well as register my car with the state, before I can legally operate a motor vehicle. I must re-register the car every year, and my driver’s license periodically. Occasionally, I have to prove that I can see well enough to operate the vehicle safely. If I get too many tickets, indicating that I might no longer deserve the privelege of driving, my right to drive may be suspended.
Why, then, do dome people seem to think that anybody capable of purchasing a gun will automatically be reponsible with it? in my opinion, human beings are largely irresponsible. That’s why we have thousands of laws regulating our behavior.
It makes perfect sense to me that a handgun or assault rifle, the only function of which is to frighten/wound/kill people, should be regarded as requiring at least as much responsibility as an automobile, the primary function of which is transportation.
This is a touchy subject, and I fully expect to be disagreed with (as I have so often in the past). Flame on!
Interesting piece on “60 Minutes” recently about how the gun industry has done nothing to crack down on dealers who are knowingly selling guns to criminals, or to “straw men” who give the guns to others. At the same time, the gun industry is also continually lobbying for cuts in the ATF budget, while at the same time saying illegal gun sales are the ATF’s problem, not theirs. If you want to punish abuses, there needs to be someone who’s job it is to do the punishing.
re: cars and laws.
A local jury found two men who were illegally drag racing on a city street at speeds over 100 mile an hour not guilty of second degree murder, but instead vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.
“Police said Waller and Calhoun were racing each other last fall near Lemon Grove when Waller’s car smashed into a car carrying three teenagers. Shanna Jump and Brian Hanson, both 19, were killed. Hanson’s younger brother, Michael, was seriously injured.
It was the first time in state history that murder charges were sought in this type of incident.
Defense attorneys admitted their clients were racing, but they said the men did not expect anyone to be hurt or killed.
Waller and Calhoun would have faced up to 30 years in prison if they had been convicted of murder. “
Didn’t expect anyone to be hurt! Do you think they’ll never get to drive again? Not likely. I don’t trust people’s judgement when it come to cars, and guns make me even more nervous.
I would like to see figures on accidental deaths caused by guns in the US. I would wager that they are significantly lower than automobile deaths. If you are concerned about gun deaths, why aren’t you also concerned about stabbing deaths? Knives are MUCH more accessible than guns and are not constitutionally protected.
As for “straw men”, there are already laws concerning the sale of firearms to convicted felons: it’s illegal. Why is it the job of a manufacturer to police what citizens do? Is it the job of Dell to make sure the people who purchase their computers don’t download child porn? How about car manufacturer’s, should they be required monitor people who drive vehicles to make sure they are not recless or speeding?
Scott, the substantial difference between driving and gun-ownership would be that the latter seems to have a degree of Constitutional protection.
Driving on public roads, on the other hand, is not a right, but a license granted by the state (you can, of course, drive a vehicle on your private property without a state license).
(And your own license to drive is, of course, separate from the license of your vehicle to be driven, which is not a matter of rights but of revenue generation.)
That being said, I say that folks who buy and own guns should be expected to behave responsibly with them in their usage and storage. Just as we expect folks who buy rat poison, or prescription medicines, or oven cleaner to do the same thing (even though children are hurt by improper use and storage of those materials, too).
I would disagree with your assertion that human beings are largely irresponsible — the foundation of our freedoms is that we expect folks to act responsibly. There’s no such thing as a completely unfettered right, but the cost of those fetters is such that we try to keep them to a minimum.
I think the vast majority of people who own guns (I think the figure is somewhere between one quarter and one third of American adults, and about 200 million firearms) are responsible, as a moment’s consideration of the (still too tragic) statistics show.
That being said, I think vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws is probably a good thing, efforts by the “gun industry” notwithstanding (and not to directly fault them for it, since most industries lobby to avoid or defang regulation affecting them; so do most individuals).
Other Adam: The gun industry may not have any responsibility toward what individuals do with their product. But I think they should be quite concerned with what their representatives, the dealers, do.
If, as a better example than the ones you cite, a Saturn dealership makes modifications to their cars so they run faster but tend to explode, Saturn itself would want to stop that activity.
(For those who may be confused, the two Adams above are actually different people, as a mouse-hover over their names will demonstrate. Yes, they sometimes confuse me, too.)
Using the CDC database, I see 776 unintentional firearm deaths in 2000; 193 of those were for ages 0-19; 86 were 0-14.
There were 27,657 intentional firearm deaths in 2000, 10,801 were homicides (the rest classified as “legal intervention” or suicide).
That compares to 43,354 motor vehicle deaths, all ages, in 2000. It might also be compared to 740 fatalities regarding bicycling accidents.
Should I call myself something else? Like the above? (I could always refer to myself as “Mr. Adam Wordsmeanthings,” as Andrea dubbed me. But that seems a little long.)
Adam(wmt), I agree that Saturn would certainly be interested in cracking down on dubious dealers, and I agree that gun manufacturers should be, too.
That said, “straw man” purchases of the type you cite (and which, presumably, 60 Minutes discussed), not to mention knowingly selling to criminals, are both already illegal (certainly federally, presumably by state law, too). Which violations, where occuring, should be vigorously pursued by ATF and local law enforcement.
But if it’s difficult for those allegations to be investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement, it’s not clear to me that gun manufacturers (which, as has been often cited, would not make the Fortune 500 even if all rolled into a single company) are in much of a position to do so.
Maybe you could both change your names.
Naw, I wouldn’t want you to go to any trouble. And usually, after a bit of jarring cognitive dissonence, it’s pretty clear which of you is which on most topics. 🙂
I kind of like having an alter ego Adam (WMT). It’s very Sybil’ish.
As Dave pointed out, there are already laws concerning Straw Man sales or sales to felons. There is also a government agency who’s primary purpose is to pursue and prosecute people who break these laws. Perhaps it’s the federal government who should be on trial, not the manufacturers.
To extend the Saturn example, while Saturn would have a business interest, one would assume, in cracking down on such dealers, I would expect the primary responsibility for law enforcement there to come from DoT, or the NTSB, or the CPSC, or some other regulatory agency.
I don’t think the manufacturers should be “on trial.” But I do think it would do them good to be concerned with the actions of their dealers, both from a PR and societal standpoint.
And as for the ATF, maybe they would do a better job if the NRA started supporting them, rather than calling them “jack-booted government thugs” in fundraising letters, pushing for cuts in the ATF budget, and sponsoring legislation that severely undermines the ATF’s policing powers. For example, the 1986 “Gun Owners’ Protection Act” reduced dealer record-keeping violations from felonies to misdemeanors, and took away the ATF’s ability to fine or suspend non-complying dealers.
Stuff like that.
After the ATF’s history of handling crisis situations, such as Ruby Ridge (a woman was shot by a marksman while holding an infant) or Waco Texas (still a lot of finger pointing), I can’t find fault with the NRA or any other organization for being mistrustful of the ATF. For the record, I am not an NRA member.
The record keeping is an interesting point. From my perspective, intent is everything. What does a person intend to do with the gun (or car, or poison, etc)? If a person is intent on committing a crime, I don’t think any requirement for record keeping or requirement for a permit to carry the weapon would likely stop them.
Adam J., I agree that manufacturers should, from a business and PR perspective, be more concerned. They’re shooting themselves in the foot here (as it were).
Adam B., ATF certainly has some prominent failures as a police/SWAT agency, but as a regulatory agency examining appropriate recordkeeping and adherence to legal requirements in gun sales, there certainly seems to be stuff they could be doing better.
The issue of recordkeeping in this case, either for sales or for carry permits, would be part of the background check issue. As a legally available product, delving into intent is not only inappropriate but, as you note, not terribly useful. It does seem to make sense to try and take quick but effective action to try and avoid gun sales to felons, etc.
Long-term registration and recordkeeping is more problematic. While it makes some sense (it provides info for gun traces from manufacturers to the last buyer, in criminal investigations), it’s still not difficult to get around, and it does (as has been demonstrated in other countries) provide the basis for governmental action should the policy decision be made to confiscate all or certain classes of weapons. That’s either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what you think about it.
Are there Volvos and Corvettes in the gun world? Meaning do gun manufacturers use a variety of features to sell guns, e.g. safety, ease of use, speed, etc. Do guns have to meet minimum safety standards other than not being defective?
Could the gov mandate safety locks the way they have seatbelts (even if they couldn’t enforce use)?
Certainly there are price and feature competition in the gun world (what little I know of it). I’m not sure of the regulatory restrictions on gun manufacture (I’ve run across some articles that indicate that they’re not included in at least some consumer safety rules).
I’ve heard mixed things about safety locks on guns (again, not being a gun user or owner, I can’t speak from personal experience). I’ve seen references to gun manufacturers participating in safety lock distribution programs. On the other hand, if you have a gun for personal protection, a safety lock may be counterproductive (which could be one reason why government mandates of them would be difficult to impose). Certainly most of the gun organizations I’ve browsed through out there have strong safety education programs, both in usage and storage.
Dave – I would say that the tracing of a weapon is just as intrusive as asking about intent. If I owned a firearm and it was stolen and used in a crime, should the government be able to grill me about how and where it was stored? I think that we are in agreement concerning the ATF. I believe their shortfallings, both in auditing of dealers and as a quasi-military unit, have given them a tarnished reputation.
Mary – firearms are generally marketed by use first (different types of hunting, protection, competition, etc) then the variances in barrels (twists, length, etc), actions (semi auto, bolt, pump) come into play. Yes, firearms have to meet safety standards. The most stringent that I know of is the ability of the action to withstand certain pressure requirements. Generally, the larger the caliber or guage, the greater the pressure generated by the round fired.
Well, on the other hand, if a gun is found at a crime scene, it’s handy to try to trace back whose it is. Was it stolen? Was the theft reported? Heck, that’s all Perry Mason stuff. I have no problem with that.