Maybe, like, everybody is wrong about guns.
This isn’t an essay. This is a bunch of unstructured thoughts about guns.
This isn’t an essay. This is a bunch of unstructured thoughts about guns.
Every time I’ve shot a gun, I’ve enjoyed it very much.
I don’t own a gun, and I don’t plan on owning one ever. A bunch of people I know (and that I’m related to) have concealed carry licenses, which I also don’t plan on obtaining since (as mentioned) I don’t plan on owning a gun.
A few years back, I wrote a blog post about gun control. You don’t have to go read it. Essentially, I argued that due to vast differences in regional attitudes towards guns, it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to create a uniform national policy for controlling firearm ownership.
Here are two things that I believe almost everyone could agree with:
The Constitution specifically declares that in general, people who aren’t in the military still have the right to possess guns, with a few exceptions.
If we reduce the number of firearm deaths that occur each year, that will be a positive event.
“Everyone has the right to own a gun, with a few exceptions.”
If you were holding a gun, and someone walked up to you and said “I would like to borrow your gun and use it to shoot that person over there, who has not harmed me and who I don’t think will harm me in the future,” would you hand them your gun? It’s an extreme straw man, of course, but I think it speaks to the point that even the most ardent gun rights advocates would agree that not everyone is capable of using a firearm responsibly. Thus, we need a way of determining eligibility for gun ownership.
Look, I know that there’s a vocal minority that really wants to get rid of all guns in America. And there’s another vocal minority that thinks everyone should own a .50 caliber sniper rifle to defend against tyrannical government. The reality is, if we tried to ban all guns, there’d be a ton of people who would illegally retain weapons. And if we completely removed all weapons restrictions, well, the US Army could still turn you into a fine powder before your armed rebellion got to the highway.
The vast majority of Americans don’t want to ban guns. The same majority will not go join the Bundys in Oregon. In other words, a good middle position will make the most vocal people reasonably unhappy.
“Reducing gun deaths would be a positive thing.”
Australia banned guns in 1996, and the number of firearm-related deaths in the country plummeted. Switzerland has more guns per person than almost anywhere else in the world, and yet firearm-related deaths there are minimal compared to the US.
In other words, it seems like there’s a strong cultural component to the effectiveness of gun control, and we can’t just look at the raw numbers of what’s happening in other countries without digging deeper into why.
I don’t think banning guns would affect violent crime rates substantially in the US, any more than banning knives or baseball bats with nails sticking out of them would. I do think focusing on reducing poverty and increasing education will have a material impact on violent crime.
What if, instead, we focused on reducing gun-related accidents and suicides over the short to medium term? I know it doesn’t address the bigger picture, but maybe, maybe, it will allow folks on both sides of the gun debate to work together on a common cause and stop demonizing the other side.
In other words, let’s focus more on the “well-regulated” part of a well-regulated militia and make sure that gun owners get the right training and mental health assessments before purchasing a gun. We don’t give someone a driver’s license without a test, and guns are at least as dangerous as cars.
If both pro- and anti-gun advocates read this blog post and disagree with most of it, then it’s probably a decent compromise. A good compromise leaves everyone mad.