Okay, I’ve waited a “decent interval” after the Virginia Tech shootings to bring this up. But now that we’ve had yet another horrific incident of gun violence in this country, isn’t it about time we start talking seriously about gun control?
I know the NRA would love it if the public followed the lead of our politicians and remained silent on this matter. It drove me nuts that in the wake of the VT shootings Republicans and Democrats alike seemed to act like talking about the “gun” part of gun violence was a taboo subject. But the fact remains, you can’t have gun violence without the guns, and frankly, the United States has a heavily armed monkey on its back.
Fact: Having a gun in your home makes it over 20 times more likely that it will be used to kill someone you know than any other gun.
On average, we’ve had a major gun-related mass murder in this country every 18 months for the last 30 years. That’s not a few isolated wackos, that’s a trend. A consistent trend. And it’s something we could address if we really wanted to and weren’t so sure that even discussing the idea of restricting handguns was political suicide.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment of the United States Constitution doesn’t say “guns for all”. Here’s what it says, actually.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
See that? “Well regulated militia.” Nowhere does the second amendment protect the rights of civilians to keep weapons. Only members of the militia are so protected so that they, in turn, can maintain the security of the state. Today, we call that militia by two names: the National Guard and the Army. They have outfits and everything. And they have guns. Lots of them.
But the rest of us don’t need them, or we shouldn’t. When the Bill of Rights was written, the United States had no standing army and it was expected that citizens would rise up and fight for their country when needed, much like the Swiss are today. As soon as we formed a standing army, the second amendment was obsolete, and should draw no more attention today than other parts of the Constitution that are irrelevant and out of date.
As for the oft-cited idea that we have to have an armed populace to prevent governmental oppression, two questions:
- See those “free speech zones” that pop up whenever Bush speaks? How’s that fight against governmental oppression going?
- Does it really matter if you have an AR-15 or a handgun when the government has tanks? See Square, Tiananmen.
So guns are a problem, and the Constitution doesn’t actually say that civilians are allowed to be armed to the teeth. Now what?
“If bullets cost $5,000 each, there would be no innocent bystanders.” – Chris Rock
Well, I have some ideas on how we can actually curb gun violence in this country. None involve door to door searches by jack-booted thugs come to take your guns, and all could be done by a willing Congress.
Tax ammunition
The first and easiest thing to do would make bullets much, much more expensive, and then use the tax dollars from the sale of bullets to fund programs for the victims of gun violence. Nice poetic justice there. I’m not talking about the $5,000 per bullet joked about by Chris Rock, but something along the lines of $50 a bullet would make firing off a bunch of rounds a much more daunting and expensive proposition. Law enforcement would obviously be exempted from this tax.
Restrict the sale of “non-sport” automatic weapons to law enforcement
This one is a little more ballsy. Congress can and should enact legislation that would make it illegal to sell handguns or assault weapons to people without the proper law enforcement or security credentials. Regular civilians could still buy shotguns and hunting rifles under the same rules we have today, but you don’t need a Glock or an AR-15 to hunt.
Melt guns used in crimes
This one sounds like a no-brainer, but not all municipalities do this. Some places wholesale the guns and they wind up back out on the market. This is frankly inexcusable and I can’t believe it still goes on. If a gun is used in the commission or attempt of a crime, it should be destroyed, never to be used by anyone again.
Step up prosecution of illegal gun running
As far as I’m concerned, we could take all the cops currently working narcotics and move them to gun trafficking and end up with a safer populace. This will be needed especially once handguns become illegal to sell to ordinary civilians. Over time, the supply of guns won’t stop but it will thin significantly.
Fact: Countries like Japan and the EU which have much stricter gun laws than we do have far, far lower incidence of gun violence.
This is a hard problem and it can’t be solved overnight, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If we’re really serious about this “homeland security” idea that means making our streets safer from bad people among our own population as well as the countless gun-related accidental deaths we suffer every year.
Civilian access to automatic ballistic weapons is a threat to national security. Period. It’s time to do something to make us all safer.
5 Comments
Good column, Jeff. Firearms are a plague on society. No, they should not be abolished. Yes, they should be regulated somehow. Heavily.
I heard a good idea the other day…repeal the 2nd Amendment. Not that it would ever happen, but think of the possibilities. No longer would there be any constitutional reason to fight the reasonable of firearms. We’d simply be able to say that owning a gun is no longer a right, but a privilege, like driving a car.
The bullet tax is a good idea, but I think there should be a few more exceptions. People who legitimately own guns and those learning to handle firearms should be able to purchase tax-exempt ammo at shooting ranges. There’s no reason to tax ammo being used in restricted areas for training and practice — and learning how to use a gun is an important skill, whether you own one or even use one or not.
I also hope you’re allowing exemption for the military… they kinda need guns too.
This does not, of course, take away the gun-lover’s argument that criminals will still have guns. Of course they will — that’s part of being criminal, having things they’re not supposed to have. But the more guns you remove from the market, the harder they’ll be for even the criminals to obtain.
Once again, good column.
Thanks, Lee. Yeah, the military obviously gets their weapons through different channels, so that shouldn’t be a problem. I like the idea of paying significantly less for bullets provided you use them at the range and don’t take them with you.
In the end, of course criminals will still have some guns. But if we drastically reduce the overall supply and destroy the guns we find in the hands of criminals, gangers packing heat will be the exception rather than the rule.
Jeff, good to see you’ve updated the blog. Was beginning to think you’d given up on it.
You know, I’ve been hanging around with you guys too long - I’m starting to agree with you too much. And on this point, I am definitely in agreement, even though it goes against my conservative leanings. The fact of the matter is, guns and the deaths they cause in this country are a REAL problem. And I recognise this even though I myself am a gun owner.
Interesting question I’ve always had - in jurisdictions where gun ownership is severely restricted (like NYC) how do they get around the 2nd amendment interpretations?
I think the point of the 2nd amendment was that citizens should have guns so they CAN form a militia. But with the Army and NG (and the government providing them their weapons) it is hard to see a justification for private owership of at least some classes of guns. I wouldn’t deny the hunters their sport but what in the world does a private citizen need with an assault weapon? Hand guns are kind of iffy - I bought my weapon for home defense, but if weapons were not so freely available to criminals, I’d probably not need or want a weapon in my home.
Anyway, good column and glad to see you writing again.
Normally I agree with you, Jeff, but here I have to strenuously disagree. It has been proven that states allowing concealed carry have the lowest crime rates in the country. Why? Because the criminals don’t know who’s going to shoot back.
Virginia has some of the most gun-friendly laws, but this tragedy took place in a “gun-free zone” known as the Virginia Tech campus. If just one of those students or teachers had been carrying concealed, a lot of lives could have been saved. Think about it. In a neighborhood of homes protected by security systems, would you want to put a sign out on your front lawn saying “no security here”? You’d be a target for every criminal in the area.
Finally, I have the right to be my own first responder. Why should I lie cowering in the corner when some criminal breaks into my home and threatens my family, and wait goodness knows how long before the police manage to arrive and subdue the intruder, when I can defend myself, my family, and my home instantly with my Glock? A lot of really bad stuff can happen in the few minutes it takes for the police to arrive. And don’t tell me that my children or some other criminal is going to get my gun away from me, because when it’s not strapped to my hip I keep it in a fingerprint safe next to my bed, and I regularly participate in defensive exercises that ensure that I know how to use it in a realistic, threatening situation.
The criminals will always get access to guns. By enacting more restrictions, either through laws or increased costs, all we’ll do is make the law-abiding populace more of a victim. A better idea is to crack down on the laws we already have, to make it easier and cheaper for law-abiding citizens to secure their guns against theft or children’s inquisitive fingers (my fingerprint safe is fabulous, but was not cheap!), and to fund programs that train citizens on how to use their guns safely and appropriately.
Oh, and in response to Donald’s question, the city of Chicago, at least, gets around it by allowing longarms but not handguns. Technically they have some kind of handgun system, but good luck getting a permit unless you’re one of Daley’s bodyguards. That’s one of many reasons why we live in the “we’re so far out of the city that we’re barely a suburb” area.
So, Jeff, I may disagree with you here, but I’m glad to see you’re writing again!
Donald,
I thought I would list a couple of sites that speak to the issues you brought up.
1) Levels of gun ownership does not appear to affect overall violence rates only the rate of gun violence, i.e. if a gun is not available some other form of violence is used, be it a knife or a bomb or a poison — http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html Admittedly this is an advocacy site so grain of salt and all that.
2)All males between 17 & 45, unless ineligible for some reason, are members of the U.S. militia — http://usgovinfo.about.com/blusmilitia.htm
3) As far as the constitutionality of gun control, DC’s laws in that regard have been overturned by their U.S. District Court — http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070309d.html I foresee an interesting Supreme Court battle assuming that they decide to hear the case.
I hope these URLs work and aren’t against some posting rule.
Post a Comment