Virginia Tech and Gun Control

I had an interesting conversation with my brother the other day regarding the recent incident at Virginia Tech. Like most people, we were both shocked at the death toll. To think that anyone could do this is disturbing enough in and of itself, but to think it could happen so close to home is even worse. I’m only thankful that most of my high school friends who attended Virginia Tech have since graduated, and that the rest have been confirmed safe and sound.

It brought into light a lot of questions, but one in particular seemed to spark debate between my brother and I. Could incidents like this be avoided with stricter gun control? Is the Second Amendment antiquated? In today’s society of high-powered handguns and assault weapons, should the right to bear arms be a thing of the past?

For the most part, we fell along the same side of the debate. Guns are dangerous. They make killing people far too easy and most of them on the market are more powerful than is necessary for self/home defense. This much we agreed on. Heck, we even agreed that tighter regulation is called for.

Where we diverged, however, was when it came to touching the Second Amendment. My brother was in favor of repealing the right to bear arms altogether. I was not. Do I think it’s an antiquated law that fails the current public interest? Yes, absolutely. Why, then, do I disagree with repealing it?

For those of you Americans who paid attention in social studies, try and recall what’s right next to the Second Amendment on the Bill of Rights. That’s right. It’s the First Amendment. It guarantees little things like the freedom of speech, free press, and religion. As far as I’m concerned, there is no America without these things, so compromising them even a little is simply unacceptable.

Here’s my point. If you let people muck around with anything in the Bill of Rights, you’re giving them license to muck around with all of it. Try to repeal the right to bear arms and you open the door on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I’m not a proponent of gun ownership, quite the contrary, in fact. I am, however, willing to live with the idea if it keeps everything else I value as an American safe.

Thus, even in light of the recent tragedy, I believe that the right to bear arms should remain protected. You can regulate guns all you like by enacting stricter laws, longer waiting periods, or whatever. Heck, make all gun owners wear funny hats if it makes you feel safe. Just don’t mess around with the Second Amendment, because repealing anything on the Bill of Rights is a precedent that we as a country cannot afford to set.

Stephen, I flatter myself as a gun rights activist, which means you and I don’t have a great deal of common ground. All the same, your reverence for the Bill of Rights is something I recognize very well–you could have been writing about me, rather than yourself.

By the way, I’ll wear a funny hat when you put it on my cold, dead scalp .

I don’t get it. Perhaps I’ve missed something here.

You don’t want to touch the words on paper. But you do want to make the actual expression of those words as difficult and painful as possible?

What’s the difference?

Turn it around to your pet right, the freedom of speech. What would you think if they started regulating speech the way they are currently regulating firearms? Or how would you feel if you had to be identified as a “free speech nut” by wearing a funny hat?

The way you express your right to free speech makes me feel unsafe (honestly it really does, talking about adding more regulations to the only means of personal defense I have makes me highly anxious) so shouldn’t you have to go through extensive background checks and wear hats so that I can feel safe?

You say that you’re against “messing” around with the right, but by enacting stricter control measures you are in fact messing with the right. You can’t really have it both ways.

Thanks very much for the thoughtful responses, Kurt and Nick. Please know that, despite the disagreements I’m about to make, I am grateful for your consideration and believe that more of this sort of discourse could really strengthen America as a whole.

You are entirely correct in your assessment, Nick. I make no illusions of the fact that I’m holding a double standard. I believe guns should be regulated. It’s my personal opinion that they cause more problems than they could ever prevent or solve, and that our country would be a safer place if owning and/or using them were as difficult as possible. I used the funny hat suggestion only jokingly, of course, but it nonetheless demonstrates my pro-gun control attitude.

At the same time, I believe freedom of speech, religion, and the press are, and should remain, untouchable. I would protect the right to bear arms only as a way of protecting them vicariously. I warn against repealing the Second Amendment because I believe it would set a dangerous precedent, not because I believe in the right to bear arms. Thus, it is most accurate to say I’m for the Second Amendment but against the right to bear arms. It’s a paradoxical stance, I realize, but one that I stand by.

Whatever the case, there it is in a nutshell. For what it’s worth, I respect both of your opinions wholeheartedly and I hope you can do the same for mine. Thanks again for the great commentary.

<<Puts on his “Free Speech Nut” hat and salutes Nick>>

I appreciate your open-mindedness and willingness to discuss. I just wanted to touch on this one point.

“It’s my personal opinion that (guns) cause more problems than they could ever prevent or solve, and that our country would be a safer place if owning and/or using them were as difficult as possible.”

That’s what they said in England. And now their crime rate is skyrocketing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

And as an example of the opposite, Kennesaw, GA, passed a law in 1982 requiring every head of household to own a gun and ammo. In one year’s time crime dropped 74 percent. http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

The problem is that regulating arms only prevents the folks who are already obeying the law from getting them. The folks who everyone needs to be worrying about having guns are criminals. And as criminals they are going to get their guns no matter what other laws we pass. It’s the oft-used “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” argument.

But while that argument is starting to sound a might cliché, it is entirely true. You have only to think of any of the other examples of prohibition in our history to see how true.

Also I wanted to touch on this quote:

“I warn against repealing the Second Amendment because I believe it would set a dangerous precedent, not because I believe in the right to bear arms.”

Personally, I think the more dangerous precedent is allowing folks to pass laws infringing upon a right while giving lip service to the “ultimate law” (i.e.- the Constitution) which is supposed to be protecting that same right.

Finally, I am extremely curious about that last sentence:

“Thus, it is most accurate to say I’m for the Second Amendment but against the right to bear arms. It’s a paradoxical stance, I realize, but one that I stand by.”

I would really like to hear more about what you have to say about this.

I do respect your opinion. At least right up until the point that you come to take away my gun or prevent me from legally obtaining another.

Believe it or not, Nick, I paid your blog a visit and saw your two main points there prior to your comment. That got me curious enough to go do some research. What I found to support my argument were the Kellerman papers, a body of statistical data that sheds some very disturbing light on the consequences of widespread gun ownership.

Among his other findings, Kellerman discovered that gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or a member of the household than an intruder. Homicides occurred almost five times more often, and suicides 37 times more often, than self-protection shootings. Even assuming some of the criticisms of Kellerman’s methodology were valid, I can’t bring myself to believe he was so far off from the truth in his findings. The fact is that guns in the home are more often used to hurt innocents than criminals.

Can I refute the facts that you mention? No, not directly. In fact, it seems like very sound evidence in support of your stance. However, I don’t believe that they’re telling the whole story. Gun regulation is by no means the only factor influencing the crime rate in England. Likewise, there could easily be more at work in Kennesaw, GA. Even if the law there has had the profound effect reported, I have to wonder, based on Kellerman’s evidence, what effect it has had on suicide rates and accidental shootings, neither of which would be reported as crime.

You say that, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” The problem I have with that is that guns are dangerous facilitators. As Kellerman’s research demonstrates, ready access to guns causes people to turn to violent crime much more readily. In effect, it makes criminals out of people who might otherwise exercise restraint. As I’ve heard friends quip, Smith and Wesson designed the original “point and click” interface.

You are, of course, welcome to criticize me for my hypocrisy. The fact of the matter is that I do value one part of the Constitution over another. If I thought removing the Second Amendment were possible without compromising the First, I’d vote to that effect. The fact is, though, that we live in a democracy and making any revisions to the Bill of Rights would be dangerous. It allows people to say, “Well, while we’re making changes…,” and that’s not something I think should be allowed to happen.

Whatever the case, I believe we both have solid bases for our opinions. The fact of the matter is that we’ve thought it through and come to separate but equally valid conclusions. Shall we agree to disagree?

“Shall we agree to disagree?”

By all means. And I’m not criticizing, I’m just very curious and wanting to know more about your unique stance on the second.

I can understand the argument regarding facilitation. However, I think a disarmed public is a greater facilitator. When a person who would not otherwise commit a crime realizes that all his potential victims are unarmed and not capable of fighting back … I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this.

But this idea falls into the fallacy of blaming the tool. A person intent on committing a crime is going to find a tool no matter what laws are in effect. And the person looking for “quick fix” can just as easily pick up the nearest axe, pipe or heavy branch.

The problem is not the tool but the person. And the solution is to make more responsible people, not ban tools.

Don’t ask me how to make more responsible people, though. I haven’t thought that one out yet.

Yes, I’ve heard the, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people,” argument, and it has merit. However, speaking from my background in psychology, it’s worth noting that people will often refrain from an illegal action if it’s made more difficult for them. Someone who might steal a car, for instance, might choose not to if they don’t have the tools to do so or if a police officer is in the vicinity. Likewise, someone might elect not to kill someone else if it’s more difficult, such as by removing ready access to firearms.

Will someone who is intent on killing necessarily be deterred by a lack of firearms? No, not all the time. However, it’s much more difficult to bring oneself to stab or bludgeon someone to death than to shoot them. Such actions require a focused and likely protracted effort, whereas pulling a trigger is a split-second decision. Taking away guns could very well see an increase in violent assault or attempted homicide, but I believe it would cause a decrease in overall successful homicide. It’s one of those “lesser of two evils” things. Would you rather be beaten and stabbed or shot and killed?

You are right, though. If we had more responsible gun owners, I might not oppose gun ownership. I’m sure you can agree that it’s a difficult issue with no easy answers. At any rate, let me know when you figure out a way to make gun owners more responsible and I might be on board.

P.S. Thanks for the wonderful debate. I’ve found it to be quite gratifying.

Anecdotal evidence only, but it certainly affects my view of the “facilitator” argument. In 1969, I picked up a deer rifle, pointed it at my sleeping husband and pulled the trigger. Luckily for him and me, the safety was on and before I could click it off, I realized what a stupid thing I was doing, in spite of the fact that he was very abusive. I opted for divorce and went on to have a good life with a good husband and children. My ex husband had a lousy life, of his own making, and died quite young, a bitter, unhappy man with a string of ex-wives and children who hated him. If the safety hadn’t been on, and it usually wasn’t, I would have been a murderer and missed out on the rest of my life. I have guns in my house in a locked gun safe. I think we need to find a middle ground that doesn’t negate the Second Amendment, but that brings us more in line with countries with stricter gun control and lower murder rates.
Respectfully,
Lill

The only thing I know for sure is that I am throughly disturbed by the Google ad up in the corner of this page advertising a ring tone that sounds like a gun shot.

Be well.

Thanks so much for your thoughts, Lill. Your experiences definitely offer some real food for thought.

Unfortunately, Nick, AdSense ads are determined automatically by Google’s algorithms. They’re pretty sophisticated, but it seems like they miss the mark on occasion.

I’m going to come in wearing a tin hat here. I dont like guns, and dont own any, and while it may sound paranoid, I think the best reason to limit gun control is to keep the government in line. What with a large evangelical contingent in this country, which has a strong will to control our behavior and a lot of access to government apparatus, I think the presence of guns all over the nation is a bit comforting, even if it is quite dangerous.
Is that crazy? Yes, I’ll admit it probably is, and I dont stay up all night worrying about it. But isnt it interesting that in a nation where the administration is conducting unprecedented intelligence gathering on its own people, that the only real gun control laws in this country regulate registration, meaning that the government knows where the guns are, and can put that together with things like political affilliation?

That sounds nuttier than I think I am. Just speculating, just speculating.

GOPOLI » Carnival of Commentary: The First Edition

[…] Stephen W. presents Virginia Tech and Gun Control posted at Project Paradox. […]