Why gun rights in a violent society?

Posted on January 30, 2011 at 3.01 pm

Q. Being a libertarian…I am guessing you are all for no gun control. But as an international observer (UK), where gun crime is relatively rare. Doesn’t it make sense after the hundreds of gun related incidents; the killing of important political figures, the numerous school/college shootings every year and what happened today to control who gets a gun? I know it is a constitutional right, but the constitution can be amended.

Carrying on from that point…why do people need more than one gun? If the gun is to protect their family, as most people claim to own one for, why do you need 30 or some other stupid number.

To summarise that rather large attempt at asking a couple of questions: Do you think there should be some form of gun control to prevent all the gun crime you have? And if not, should there be some form of checks to prove the person is of a sane mind to bear arms?! — lucasishere, from tumblr.

A.I think you sent this question right around the time of the Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt — whether it came before or after, I can’t recall, but it was very timely and I’ve been putting off answering it for far too long.

As you’ve rightly surmised, I do support gun rights.  These rights are protected by the Second Amendment, and though I think that’s important, I do agree that it could theoretically be changed.  The Constitution is important since we have it, but the simple fact of its existence is not why I’m against gun control.

Nonetheless, it would be inaccurate to say this is an area where I’m very well-informed — like anyone interested in politics, I have some issues which engage me less than others.  Gun control is, at this point at least, one of those issues, so I’m largely going to let others more knowledgeable on this subject answer for me.

For a comprehensive series of arguments and rebuttals about guns and schools, visit this page from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC).  Here are a few samples of the types of pro-gun control statements addressed there, all backed up with reputable academic and legal research:

• Guns on campus would lead to an escalation of violent crime.
• Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons.
• A person with a gun could ‘snap’ and go on a killing spree.
• The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals.
• It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe the answer to violence is more guns.
• The answer to bullets flying is not more bullets flying.

As you’ve no doubt realized, many of the objections to gun rights on campus are equally applicable to off-campus situations.

Specifically to address your mention of lower crime rates in the UK coupled with lower gun ownership rates, I’m going to reference this article from the Cato Institute, an academic libertarian-leaning organization here in the DC area:

Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

I’d suggest you check out the rest of the article as well, as it addresses a total of six common beliefs about gun control quickly, succinctly, and accurately.  For a slightly more sarcastic set of arguments against gun control check out this ironic list of reasons why gun rights “shouldn’t” (wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean?) exist.  Here’s a short excerpt:

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’s high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Finally, you asked why anyone would need more than one gun.  I’m not a gun owner or enthusiast myself (though I did rather want a little Derringer pistol when living alone closer to DC), so I can only speak from comparable experience:  In high school, I took fencing lessons.  I never competed much because I lived too far from all the competitions, but I did pretty well for the amount of time I put into it and rose to the top of my club.  I haven’t fenced for several years now, but I still have all my foils — I think five in total. In addition, I have a potentially lethal, antique Knights of Columbus sword and a carved wooden sabre.

Of all of those, probably only the antique sword would be any good for self defense.  But I still enjoy having the others around for the opportunity to enjoy them for sport or collectivity.  Aside from matters of gun rights — not to mention privacy in one’s own home and possessions — I suspect guns are much the same way.  Different ones are good for different things, such as self defense, hunting, collection, display, etc., and so one might very sensibly want to have quite a few guns about the house.  I wouldn’t, but one could and still be a perfectly reasonable person.