Gun Control
Do Americans have the right “to keep and bear arms?” Or was that right intended to be restricted to “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State?” The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says both. But what does it really mean? The Supreme Court recently decided that question in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, stating:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
I suspect that most constitutional experts and even most literate citizens kind of knew that. What’s more important is that both law and judicial precedent establish that restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are constitutional. That means gun control is a matter of public policy and law. The Court affirmed this in Heller:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Now that the old, often circuitous argument over the Second Amendment is over, we can address the most pressing issue of gun control–handguns.
Handguns are primarily used to kill people, and the most common justification for private handgun ownership is home and personal protection. However, privately-owned handguns are far more likely to cause deaths by accident or felonious intent. They’re used in legitimate home and personal defense infrequently and often ineffectively.
The biggest problem with private ownership of handguns is that our society is now awash in them. For every handgun owned by a trained, safety-conscious, responsible citizen, there are hundreds in the hands of people who don’t know much about gun safety and couldn’t hit the side of a barn at 10 paces. And there are even more handguns in the possession of bad guys who use them to threaten and intentionally kill people.
Long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, are different. They’re used for hunting, serious target shooting, and home protection. And, of course, they’re sometimes used to kill people.
Currently we have a hodge-podge of federal, state, and local laws regarding guns. While there may be very restrictive gun control laws in one state or city, all a person has to do is drive to a more permissive jurisdiction, buy his weapons of choice, and drive home. Clearly, federal law is the only effective means of gun control.
It’s troubling to think of Harvey the plumber walking around the supermarket with a Beretta strapped to his side, but that’s happening in some U.S. states these days. Soldiers and police officers who are well-trained sometimes have accidents with weapons; how can anyone think plumbers and account executives won’t have many more? And what if I accidentally drop a can of peas on Harvey’s foot and piss him off? With the Beretta, he could kill me in an instant of rage (assuming he can hit anything with it). Without the Beretta, he’d have to attack me with his hands or a stick or whatever, assuming he could catch me. After running about 15 yards, he would most likely be so exhausted he would have to stop, and that would at least give him a chance to think about what he was doing.
And the bad guy? Well, take away the handgun, and he’s not such a big man. (Come to think of it, maybe that applies to Harvey as well.) I guess he could try robbing a store or swaggering around the neighborhood with a shotgun or a baseball bat, but that would cramp his style and make him a lot more obvious.
I think all handguns should be outlawed, except for law enforcement officers and a very small number of trained, vetted, and licensed people who have a legitimate need. Anyone else caught possessing or illegally buying, selling, or distributing handguns would be guilty of a felony and subject to mandatory jail time. If this prevents some men from strapping their manhood on their belts or inconveniences a few legitimate target shooters, so be it.
Would outlawing handguns run afoul of the Court’s recent ruling on the Second Amendment? Perhaps, but it’s worth litigating again. If private possession of fully-automatic weapons, assault rifles, sawed-off shotguns, mortars, and howitzers can be outlawed, why not handguns? They would be just one more in a long list of especially dangerous weapons that have been prohibited.
I think reasonable long guns should be permitted for private citizens, with licensing and restrictions. “Reasonable” at the very least means no automatic weapons (more than one round per trigger pull), minimum barrel lengths, etc.
Maybe this would mean that for a while only the bad guys would have guns. That wouldn’t be much different from today, and with serious enforcement of the laws, bad guys could eventually be disarmed. Then maybe we could emerge from the wild west and join the rest of the world.
Note: For the record, I have nothing against guys named Harvey, plumbers, or account executives.
(This article was also posted at Opinion Forum.)
Your argument is factually inaccurate. You state;
“They’re used in legitimate home and personal defense infrequently and often ineffectively.”
Did you research this point?
In Washington DC, the handgun ban did NOT reduce gun crimes. The DC gun ban started in early 1977, but the DC murder rate rose relative to other cities. For the 29 years after the ban, D.C.’s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. For another four years, it ranked fourth. Can you explain why DC banned guns and then had the 1st or 2nd highest murder rate during the ban? Logically, we must conclude that a gun ban is ineffective in curbing gun crime. Probably because criminals ignore the gun ban and still get guns.
John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, “Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. … While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that’s precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes.”
Source: “More Guns, Less Violent Crime”, Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column)
Gun control is an emotional, not logical, response.
By the way, I’m not armed, I live in England, whenever you decide to visit give us a shout, knock on my door and try to rob me one on one, unless you’re a chicken s**t and need to hide behind your gun.
Anyone missing a caveman?
P.S. cosmo, unless your a militia nutther, no the government is not out to get you. =)
Tom Carter says: cosmo RO OHIO: You need to get back on your meds, buddy.
LOL =)
To Tom, thanks for the thanks
BTW I love your blog!