Some Thoughts on Gun Control
It has been a year since a certifiably crazy Virginia Tech student shot and killed over 30 of his classmates before killing himself. A common reaction to tragedies such as this is to call for increased gun control legislation. I remain unconvinced that most gun control legislation does anything to make us safer.
One of the principal reasons I (and many others) own guns is for self-protection. I know that there are people in the world, whether they be criminals or crazies or terrorist evildoers, who think little of harming others. I also know that the police cannot protect me every moment of the day and night. I know that I can make choices that make it less likely for harm to come to me or my family, but I cannot completely remove that possibility.
I realize that the state has a legitimate interest in keeping its citizens safe, and that most gun laws are written in an attempt to further that interest. However, many gun laws take away freedoms while doing little to make us safer. Worse still, some laws directly interfere with my legitimate right to protect myself.
A favorite proposal of many liberals is to ban handguns, as they have in DC. It is laughable to argue that the ban accomplished anything there except to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Many attempts at gun control simply demonstrate the ignorance of the individuals writing the legislation. Most bans on “assault rifles” fall into this category, and merely prohibit a making a few cosmetic changes modern era rifles.
There have also been calls to ban “plastic pistols” that could allegedly be smuggled through metal detectors. The amusing thing about these efforts is that although the so-called plastic pistols have polymer frames, their slides and barrels were made of steel. Any attempt to smuggle one of those into an airport would have turned out very badly indeed.
Not all gun laws are ridiculous, however. For instance, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System theoretically ensures that criminals and crazies cannot purchase firearms. That makes me safer and has no effect on my ability to purchase guns.
I also support the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulates the sale of machine guns, silencers, and the like. I do not need a machine gun to protect myself. And as cool as it would be to own and shoot one, I understand why it is necessary for the government to to ensure that the average citizen doesn’t get his mitts on a Heckler & Koch MP5.
I purposefully emphasize the importance that firearms play for self-protection. Many liberals (and especially liberal democratic presidential candidates) will calmly reassure you that they do not want to take away the guns you use for hunting or target shooting. Although hunting and target shooting are great, the main reason I have guns is to protect myself and family from wackos like the student from Virginia Tech.
Chances are, most people will never need to use a gun in self defense. And who knows if an armed citizen would be able to stop a massacre like the one that occurred at VT. But because law abiding citizens were banned from carrying firearms onto the VT campus, I do know that the only individual who had a gun that day was the one who was killing innocent people.
5 Responses to “Some Thoughts on Gun Control”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Occam
A gun is something you can defend yourself with in seconds when the police will be there in minutes.
I am sorry Occam, I must disagree with you. The main reason for the 2nd amendment is not to protect yourself while at VT or for hunting and sport as Obama and Clinton will say.
The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when a government attempts to remove our rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.
Everytime we forget this it makes a logical argument to take them away.
Occam,
I understand your opinion and I do agree that self defense has become the strongest argument for the modern debate of the second amendment right. The concept of a militia is looked at with a raised eyebrow and a quirky smile. Something that people in Montana without running water or Ron Paul would argue as a purist.
My comments were really directed at groups who see things in the constitution that are not there. The prime example is abortion. I keep hearing about a constitutional right to an abortion. I can see no where that it is protected. I do not even see where in the constitution privacy is guranteed, somehow many people see the fourth amendment as a privacy right. If anything the 10th amendment should apply as a states rights issue to abortion and privacy.
Anyways it is a good discussion and I enjoy reading your posts occam.
Tiberius,
One of the underlying purposes of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people had the means to overthrow a tyrannical government.
However, I remain convinced that the principal purpose for the right to bear arms in the modern era is for self protection. Stridently arguing that we need our guns so that we can overthrow the U.S. government if necessary makes us sound like wackjobs.
You state that we have the right to bear arms “so that when a government attempts to remove our rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights.” By my observation, in our modern era, the government has taken many of our rights. At what point to we begin our armed resistance? When they take away our right to text message while driving?
And what would an armed resistance look like? Would we start shooting postal workers and meter maids to make our point?
I’m kidding of course, and I know that you would not advocate those sorts of actions. But I do think that gun rights advocates need to make sensible arguments that do not make us sound like we believe in black helicopters and the illuminati.
Tiberius,
I understand your frustration with the discovery of extra-constitutional rights. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court upholds rights that are actually found in the consitution when they reach a decision on the Heller case.
Nice Ron Paul reference, by the way. Keep up the nice work on the posts and comments.