Gun Control Compromise?
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 7:37PM 
I was at the bookstore this weekend, and I noticed a book in the True Crime section titled 'More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws'. I am by no means an expert on the topic of gun control, but I've given it at least five minutes of intense thought, so I'll give my half-cocked (pun intended) opinion.
By nature, I am a libertarian. I believe people should be allowed to do what they want, when they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's freedom to do the same. Rather simplified, but you get the gist. I fully support any individuals right to own any type of firearm, from pistol to bazooka, but I understand both sides of the gun control argument.
I've read about the city of Kennesaw, GA, which in 1982 unanimously passed a law requiring all heads of household to own at least one firearm. Their crime rates have dropped drastically. The basic premise of 'right to carry' advocates is 'if we take away the right to own a firearm, only the criminals will have firearms'. This argument makes sense, in theory. However, I think this solution and example will only work in a small town like Kennesaw.
Here's my problem, on a practical level: I'm not a gun guy. If the laws on gun ownership became less strict, I still wouldn't purchase a firearm. It's just not my thing. Most people who live in cities or suburbs (with a few exceptions I'm sure) feel the same way. That's why most gun control advocates reside in major metropolises. Most people who haven't handled a firearm can't imagine handling a firearm.
Assuming the majority people in cities who want guns are criminals, it makes sense to have stricter gun laws in major cities. Leave the small towns the ability to adopt less strict laws, which fit with the community cultural standards. It seems to me that stricter laws in cities will reduce crime (using the UK as an example), while lax laws in small towns would reduce crime (Kennesaw being the model here).
Although I fully support a person's right to own a firearm, it seems that it is a complicated and intense topic for the majority of Americans. Because of this, I suggest a compromise. Thoughts?
If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
I am in complete agreement. The reason gun owners, myself among them, use the argument, 'if we take away the right to own a firearm, only the criminals will have firearms' is two-fold: 1. It's been statistically borne out in the past; and 2. Criminals, by the very nature of the label we adhere to them, are people with a demonstrated propensity to ignore the law. Thus, if the law declares firearms illegal, then law-abiding citizens will be the only ones without firearms. As you point out, that's pretty self explanatory, but I feel it still needs to be explained, because leftist gun control advocates ignore the basic common sense of the argument on a daily basis.
i do not know much about statistics, but if we ban guns people are gonna get it anyway. I also believe that only certain types of gun should be provided to people, unless they need it for special use.
As one who has lived in both the US and the UK, I find that the gun control 'debate' is misguided. First, it is a misconception that all firearms are banned in the UK: only assault weapons (e.g. AK-47s) and handguns are disallowed. People still own rifles and shotguns for hunting, but that is largely in the countryside. One thing I do like about the UK's restrictions is that they technically allow these banned weapons, but it is nearly impossible to get the exception (psychological evaluation, police certified safe storage location, a really good reason [which excludes personal protection], and annual inspection of the first two). Now, I don't want to get into an argument (at the moment) about the second amendment -- primarily because as someone whose doctorate is in the field of interpretation, there are more than one ways to read it. However, I think strong controls for restriction and good follow-through does work. After all, look at the TSA security: I don't see anybody arguing that they have a right to take a gun onboard a plane for personal protection (especially if that person fits one of the racial profiles on which the TSA wishes to focus). In other words, restrictive measures do work if enforced and doesn't lead to a 'well all the criminals will circumvent these'. If there are no weapons to secure, then a criminal can only find weapons by going abroad and smuggling them into the country, which means the problem isn't that the law isn't good but that the enforcement of that law is poor.
Secondly, I see this situation as an ethical one. The intention of self-preservation is a good one, however I don't find that killing somebody (even in self-defence) is an acceptable means to that end. In other words, it isn't proportional (and I would even say that killing one person to protect 250 million people is proportional, so sorry for the Jack Bauer fans). In other words, I hold that killing another person in any circumstance is murder. With that, I take an argument very similar to anti-abortion advocates (does it seem strange that a large majority of these advocates also advocate lax gun control laws?): murder is wrong under any circumstance, even that of self-preservation.
It should also be mentioned that Kennesaw's law isn't as clear-cut: it exempts 'those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm'. Of import is that convicted felons are not allowed to own a firearm; that is, only non-criminals who can and choose to, own firearms.
With that said, I think at least two positions work to prevent criminal acts of this sort: (1) high restrictions and strong enforcement and (2) low restrictions and strong enforcement. In other words, if nobody has a gun, nobody can kill anybody else; but also, if everyone has a gun and knows how to use it, nobody will want* to kill anybody else. The key there is strong enforcement, not the actual law to be enforced...and which situation one would rather have: ability or desire.
A situation in which I think strong enforcement shows a radical difference in culture is drinking and driving. While there is at least one state which does not consider it a serious offence (Wisconsin), most have a high limit (0.08%) and minor penalties (e.g. in PA, where my license is, the first penalty for being over the limit is 6 months probation and $300 fine). In the UK, the penalties are high (maximum of 6 month's jail time, up to £5000 fine, and a minimum of 1 year suspension)...and there is no defence against the charge (i.e. it is automatic without a trial)...and they tend to go for the maximum penalty unless one can prove a really exceptional circumstance (which would probably be a decent plot for film these days).
*NB: Want isn't the best word. Perhaps nobody will follow-through with the desire to kill someone else?
Gun laws are stupid and redundant. We already have laws for assault, armed robbery, manslaughter, murder, etc.
Crime has increased across the board, in all countries with strict gun laws or out right "bans" like in the UK. Like Impleri mentioned, you can still own a "gun", but it's really hard. Shotguns and rifles, from my understanding, are only allowed in the country side for "hunting", not in the city.
In any case, those who have the guns, have power. The minute we the people don't, things will get bad, very quickly, as the majority become the tyrants of the then helpless minority. Sounds far fetched, but it has happened time and time again throughout history, and this situation is bound to repeat itself.
It's already happened in the UK. The whole country has gone to shit from the people I talk to that now live in Florida (from the UK).
Anthony, where are the people you talk to from? According to the Home Office (for England and Wales), crime has been on the decrease. At best, one can say gun crime has increased, but this article says that the figure is misleading, particularly as overall crime (and gun crime) has been on the decrease. The trend in Scotland shows that gun crime and all recorded crime have both decreased. I can say that, as someone who has lived in both a metropolitan area in both the US (both New Orleans and Denver) and the UK (Glasgow, the city with the worst crime rate in Europe according to statistics), I feel safer walking in a dark alley in the bad area of Glasgow than driving through a bad area of any US metropolis.
Further, you seem to ignore history as it has been more common for the minority to control the majority (e.g. South Africa apartheid, medieval monarchies, the Committee in the USSR, etc). Majorities only rule over the minorities in democracies.