The gun control debate makes me feel wishy-washy. I'm a liberal who dislikes gun culture, but I have mixed feelings about gun laws. The correlations between gun violence and gun ownership are really fairly weak, which means guns neither cause nor prevent as much crime as people say they do. I don't want to see all guns banned, but I don't think there's
anything wrong with reasonable regulations on them. I think both
extremes are wrong, and I suppose this post may upset people on both
sides.
So I guess I'll start by upsetting the
hard-core gun control types. But I'll work up to it slowly. First, the Second
Amendment. I think it refers to a situation that no longer exists: a
citizen militia in which people supplied their own guns. There was no
standing army when the Bill of Rights was adopted. In fact, people thought a standing army was a
severe threat to their liberty. In that sense, the Second Amendment doesn't apply
easily to these times. It linked gun ownership with the duty to serve
in a militia. Those militias evolved into the paid
service now known as the National Guard. Today, people want to keep the
right to bear arms, even if they no longer feel the duty be citizen
soldiers. And maybe they should keep that right, but it's worth noting how much the situation has changed.
Still, I'll concede that many of the
founders probably thought of guns as a defense against tyranny. They were free-thinking, even radical, revolutionaries who
participated in a war fought for the most part with
individually-owned guns. They had clear memories of an occupying
army; one which might return at any time. So, they probably thought it was necessary for individual citizens to own their own guns. Whether they would have thought modern,
fully-automatic assault rifles were necessary, I don't know. I
suspect some would and most wouldn't, but I'm certainly no expert, and I don't think we're bound to think as the founders thought anyway.
In any case, for decades legal
scholars held that the Second Amendment protected a collective right
for states to have armed militias. Only in the last few years have
they started to see it as protecting an individual right to bear
arms. The Supreme Court upheld that interpretation in 2008. I
have to admit they were probably right. The Second Amendment probably
was talking about an individual right to bear arms—but that right
was tied, once again, to the duty to serve in the militia.
But the fact remains that many of the
founders would have seen guns as a defense against tyranny. And
that's another modern wrinkle: the idea that a gun will help you
defeat tyranny is much less plausible today than in 1789. Even if you
had an M-16 and a closet full of ammo, would that help you against
guided missiles or drone strikes? Please. Still, an entire nation with guns
in their households would be tough to boss around, even for a
government with guided missiles. One household couldn't stand up to
such a government, but several million might. And maybe one day they might need to. I do agree with the
idea that government isn't legitimate unless it has the consent of
the governed. But I think armed resistance is an absolute last
resort. So did the
founders, according to the Declaration of Independence: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
So, if the President starts quartering troops in people's houses, disbanding state legislatures, and so on, maybe people would be justified talking about rebellion. If he's just talking about waiting periods and letting the gays marry, then simmer down, minuteman. Some weak-minded people listen to that kind of talk and then go out and murder people.
I guess I've arrived at the part where I upset the gun crowd. So: even if the Second Amendment protects
an individual right to bear arms, that doesn't mean this right is
absolute. The First Amendment isn't absolute either. Slander and
libel aren't protected under the law, nor are threats, fighting
words, or dangerous speech like shouting fire in a crowed theater. Should we have the right to carry a gun into a rowdy bar where
people are drinking? Should I have the right to carry a gun if I'm
dead drunk? Do we really need more guns in crowded areas, where
gunshots are likely to hit innocent bystanders as well as potential
muggers? I don't think so. There's a balance to be struck, just as
there is with freedom of speech. Even Antonin Scalia—not exactly a
liberal—has made it clear that an individual right to have guns
doesn't translate into an absolute right to have them, or to do
whatever you want with them.
That's how I feel about gun law--ambivalent. What I'm decidedly not ambivalent about is the
macho gun culture in the United States, which is somehow both scary and deeply ridiculous--like a wild boar in a tutu, or Walter from the Big Lebowski. I'm not
bothered so much by people having guns as by certain attitudes surrounding guns. And I'm really bothered by those. I dislike the gun worship I
see in this country, and I really hate the paranoia surrounding
Obama, and the idea that he secretly wants to take everybody's guns
away.
First, gun worship. I don't own a gun,
but I do understand the allure. I've shot them (at inanimate
objects), and yes, it's fun. You point it, there's a big boom, and
something off in the distance has a new hole in it. But I dislike gun mania. I really do
think it's akin to worship. As with religion, people slip into this
elevated, reverential speech when they talk about guns, as though
they're discussing some holy icon. There's a whole vocabulary, and even standard facial expressions. People get this resolute scowl on their face (the one George W. Bush loved
to use, though I think he might have borrowed it from Charlton
Heston) and start talking about their “instruments of freedom”,
or how there's just nothing like “going out to send some rounds
downrange”. It's not a gun, it's a “weapon” or a “firearm”.
Why all the elevated diction? And then there's the cliches: "from my cold, dead hands"; "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"; "the door is locked for your protection, not mine"; "gun control is hitting what you aim at"; etc, etc. Gun people are the most cliche-loving people I've ever met. Can't you guys at least get some new ones?
And that reverential, stereotyped speech of the church of the firearm--what's that about? Maybe it reflects the fact that someone who talks
this way sees himself (and it's usually a him) as a guy who's
serious about standing up as a red-blooded American and protecting
his family. And he knows his stuff. He doesn't shoot bullets out of
a gun--he sends rounds downrange with his firearm (insert Charlton Heston scowl here). It all strikes me as
puffed up and Walter Mitty-ish (is that where the Coen brother's got Walter's name? Hmmm). If you like guns, fine. Why can't you
lose the posturing?
It's not like that kind of posturing
convinces any reasonable person of anybody's toughness. Quite the
contrary, actually. When I hear someone going on and on about how
they always have their gun with them when they go to the city, or how
they'll plug anyone who tries to come into their house, I think:
you're a big ol' fraidy cat with masculinity issues. Guys who feel
the need to carry deadly weapons wherever they go—and to tell
everyone about it whenever possible—do not strike me as especially
tough. Again, it's just the opposite. It makes me think, “You sound ridiculous and scared. Be a man and shut
up about the guns already.” Do these guys really not know that's how they seem to most people?
I'm guessing there's at least three things
going on with this kind of gun worship. One is just a fascination with guns and shooting them.
I can understand that, as I said, as long as you don't forget how
dangerous they are. Another is masculine insecurity, which is silly,
but not necessarily dangerous. But then there's a darker impulse I
see in some people. They don't just like to shoot inanimate objects.
They like to shoot living things. And I'm not talking about hunting.
This isn't about food; it's about killing something. There's a
certain kind of guy where I grew up, for example, who just can't wait for an
opportunity to shoot a dog that's wandered onto his property. And
then brag about it. If you ever want to see my lip-curling contempt expression, tell me about the time you shot a
dog.
Not all gun lovers are that sort, I
hasten to add. But I see hints of it in too many of them. Which brings me to another of the clichés you hear over and over again: “If somebody comes into my house and I need to
defend my family, I won't hesitate.” I don't know how many times
I've heard that line, more or less verbatim. And OK, fine, I would
also shoot somebody if I had to in that circumstance. But some people
seem fixated on the idea. As a friend of mine said, “All these
dudes who just dream, just DREAM of someone trying to rob them so
they can kill someone. Then cover up their murder-boner talking about
protecting their family.”
Indeed. Some folks just dream about having
an excuse to shoot somebody. They really do. And that's an
ugly dream to have. If those people really had the safety of their
household in mind, instead of fantasies of pulling a gun on someone,
they would talk endlessly about their home alarm systems. After all, those work even when you're not there, and your kid can't find fit and look down the barrel--like he can with that revolver Daddy loves to talk about. Funny how I've heard the gun speeches hundreds of times, and never heard the home alarm speech even once. Why is that, I wonder?
I despise the bloodthirstiness I often see associated with gun culture, but I also dislike the
idea that guns are somehow noble. Maybe that's actually what's behind the
elevated speech people use when they talk about guns. Maybe they see
the Second Amendment as
sacred. If they see the freedom to have a gun as sacred, maybe they
see the gun itself as sacred. Some guys really do seem to. And that doesn't make sense to me. Even if
a freedom is worth preserving, that doesn't mean everything it allows
is good. As a solid supporter of freedom of speech, I'll stand up
for people's right to say things I hate. But I can still hate what
they say.
Similarly, the right to bear arms might
be necessary, but it's not particularly noble. Still less are guns
intrinsically noble. They're machines for killing things at a
distance. No, they're not intrinsically evil either. There's nothing
actually malevolent about a gun itself, if it's never used to hurt
anybody. But guns are used to hurt people, all the time. To the
extent that this is true, even if guns are necessary for
self-protection and preventing tyranny, then
guns that aren't intended for hunting are at best a necessary evil.
It would be better if we could have a society peaceful and free
enough that they weren't needed. Yes, maybe such a society is
far-fetched, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a better one. I tend to
think a society that venerates weapons is likely to be a more violent
society (or maybe it's vice versa). Is THAT so far fetched?
Another attitude I dislike among some
of the right-wing gun crowd is the assumption that someone who thinks
guns should be regulated must secretly want to come and take
everyone's guns away. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. I have met people who do, but I know I
don't. I do want guns regulated, but I don't want them all taken
away. If the government really started calling for a full ban on all
guns, I would oppose it. But the government isn't calling for a full
ban. People keep saying Obama wants to take their guns away. How do
they know that? Calling for regulations isn't the same as calling
for a ban, and most slippery slope arguments like that are fallacies. Taking a couple of steps in a particular direction doesn't
mean you never intend to stop walking. If I put a little hot sauce on
my food, does that mean I secretly want to pour out the whole bottle?
No. There's such a thing as “the right amount” and it's rarely either ALL or NONE.
As for whether Obama really wants to
come and take everybody's guns away, I really don't think he does,
and I think people should consider giving him the benefit of the
doubt. If you look at the White House web page on his gun plan, it
specifically says “Most gun owners are responsible and law-abiding,
and they use their guns safely. The President strongly believes that
the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.”
Now of course his administration is going to say something similar to
that, but I don't think they had to include that part about an
individual right. They didn't have to acknowledge the individual
right interpretation recently ratified by a right-learning Supreme Court, but they did. Maybe that's just lip service to
the more legally sophisticated crowd, but I'm not sure. I think they
may just be acknowledging that the majority of people in this country
believe Americans should have an individual, but not absolute, right
to own guns. Maybe they even believe it themselves. If you want to
claim someone has a secret agenda, that's an extraordinary claim, and
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I just don't see it.
I don't think Obama really wants to come for people's guns. I think those who are sure he does are being paranoid, and mistaking pragmatic liberalism for extreme
authoritarianism. Maybe I'm one of the “sheeple”, but if you
think so, I say the burden is on you to show me credible evidence I'm wrong.
To sum up this intemperate rant:
1. The violence in this country isn't so much a problem with how guns are regulated as it is with the glorification of, and comfort with, violence that we have in this culture. The puffed-up firearm machismo is an expression of that culture. Sometimes it's harmless, but sometimes people take it to far. Guys that rhapsodize about their guns may never want to hurt anybody with them, but they need to realize some of the people listening to them might. They might get the itch to use that sexy gun for what it was, after all, made for, and kill somebody. How about we tone down the gun worship talk a little? Children hear that talk, and it molds their attitudes and goals. Weak-minded psychopaths hear it, too.
2. The Second Amendment
does protect the individual right to have some sort of gun. But that
doesn't mean you should be able to do whatever you want with that
gun, or take it wherever you want. The question is not, “Should I
be able to have whatever kind of armaments I want?” Nobody thinks
you should—after all, the Second Amendment doesn't even use the
word “gun”. It says "arms", and surely no sane person thinks I
should be able to have arms like, say, tactical nuclear weapons. Even if the Second Amendment used the word “gun”, a gun could
be some kind of heavy artillery capable of shooting a ten-pound shell
over the horizon. Everyone with any sense agrees that there is a line
to be drawn, beyond which a weapon is too deadly to be kept by a
private individual. The question is, where do we draw the line? How
do we come up with laws that balance liberty and public safety? Life
is full of trade-offs. Liberty is a great thing. But it's not the
only thing.
