Controlling the Gun
The gun divides American culture. For some, it is the personification of evil. For some, it is a symbol of self-reliance and self-determination. For some it is little more than recreation.
The public discourse over gun control is confused at best. It is political and dishonest at worst. Every time a new tragedy happens, both sides dig deeper into their entrenched beliefs. Neither side seems able to conceive of why the other side holds their view.
My personal biases will quickly become clear (if the title image doesn’t already give it away). The arguments I present here are not at all entirely new, but I hope my perspective adds some nuance and value.
The basic outline of my argument is this:
In a world of violence, self-defense is a legitimate claim and should be the context framing the public discourse over gun control.
Human intention to cause harm, not any specific weapon, is the cause of violence.
The causes of bad intentions in the U.S. are both deep rooted in human nature and unique to the complexity of the United States.
Guns are inextricably woven into the fabric of the United States. They cannot be practically eliminated, and there is no logical, principled place to draw a line between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” firearms.
The firearm is the best close-combat weapon because of its ability to transfer lethal force.
Therefore, taking away the gun from law-abiding citizens is equal to taking away the right of self-defense from law-abiding citizens.
On the other side, guns in society pose a public safety risk. However, the discussion about self-defense is confused, and the public safety concern, as it relates to the firearm, is misconstrued and over-stated.
As a corollary, morally unjustifiable laws inherently perpetuate conflict and violence. Therefore, morally unjustifiable gun restrictions inherently perpetuate conflict and violence.
It is incoherent to deny the right of self-defense. Taken to the logical extreme, denial of self-defense is equivalent to asserting the ability of the unethical, stronger person to take life, liberty, and property from the weaker. Therefore, I hold the right to self-defense as a given.
Physical self-defense is not an insignificant concern. Violence is inextricable from human behavior as much as eating and sex. Assuming a relatively constant crime rate, over a 30 year span, the average American has a roughly 1 in 9 chance of becoming a victim of robbery, assault, rape or murder. (FBI statistics are here.) In the United States, these are the majority of cases in which self-defense may arise. One can conceive of others. Human beings are violent. These United States are particularly so.
If we concede the right of self defense, (excluding the possibility of disarming police) the extremes with regard to weapon ownership are these:
Extreme 1: Any person has the right to own or control any weapon.
Extreme 2: Only police sanctioned by the state have the right to own or control any weapon.
Either extreme is untenable.
Extreme 1, “any person, any weapon,” is irresponsible.
However, the law can temper the right to private weapon ownership with basic legal concepts in criminal and tort law without the need for extending the regulatory state. For example, convicted violent criminals, people with medically diagnosed mental illnesses prone to violence, and those under investigation for terrorism should be excluded. Rational testing and licensing (but not state mandated “education”) for firearm ownership is reasonable as a means to screen each applicant’s criminal and mental health history.
Furthermore, anyone who chooses to own a weapon has a moral responsibility to regularly train in the handling and use of the weapon, but this is the domain of culture rather than legislation. (Of course, criminals, by definition, are not deterred by laws, regulations or cultural norms.)
Within the gun community, there is a general, dangerous disregard of the moral obligations arising out of gun ownership. However, tort law can provide the framework for negligence whenever firearms are involved in injury or death as the result of insufficient training or lack of safety measures.
Criminal courts could reasonably judge a person more harshly if he uses a gun in committing a crime.
Additionally, if a weapon is so imprecise and unstable that it is impossible to store and use the weapon on a single target, then it should be generally restricted. This would address private ownership of certain kinds of radioactive materials, explosives, chemicals, and biological materials. (However, at the global level, the same principles of violence, which apply to guns, apply to nuclear and biological weapons.)
On the other hand, Extreme 2, “weapons only for police,” is equally untenable and immoral.
If police are the only line of defense with any weapon, then most victims have no possibility of averting violence at the moment it arises. In the overwhelming majority of cases of violent crime, police arrive only after the crime is committed. It is impossible for any police force to be omniscient and omnipotent. At the instant of violence, once it comes, the individual is responsible for his or her own life.
When we frame the discussion within the context of self-defense, and if we take the notion of self-defense at all seriously, then we must understand how self-defense works and in what contexts. In the real world of physical violence, the side with superior mindset and weaponry generally prevails.
This conclusion is supported by the underlying combative principles:
1. The human mind behind the weapon is the primary driver of violent outcome. The specifics of the weapons are important, but they are secondary to the mind(s) involved.
2. The individual combatant will always prefer the best weapon in the fight.
Those unfamiliar with weapons or violence do not understand these combative principles. Herein lies the primary sources of confusion in the debate over guns and murder.
The firearm has a unique ability to deliver lethal force without regard to the person’s physical strength. Few weapons exists that can match a gun in this way. The gun is the contact point that holds human violence at bay or unleashes its destructive power. However, no weapon, without consideration of the other variables involved, in particular the human minds, determines outcome.
These combative principles must also be considered in the context of reality as it is. There are over 300,000,000 guns in the United States, with a sophisticated supply network of both legal and illegal firearms. Simply put, there is no practical way to eliminate guns from the United States. It is an absolute economic, political, and cultural impossibility. No matter how much Zeus punishes Prometheus, he cannot take fire back from mankind.
Consider, as all too common and illustrative examples, the possibilities involving a 125 lbs female, potential-robbery-rape-murder-victim against two 190 lbs men. Think about the 9 possible scenarios given the following variables:
125 lbs woman
Armed with firearm.
Armed with “alternative defense weapon.”
Unarmed.
AGAINST two 190 lbs men
Armed with firearm.
Armed with “alternative attack weapon.”
Unarmed.
With proper training, mindset and a firearm, the woman has the best chance of survival. With no weapon at all, the woman has little hope, even if she has years of experience in punching, kicking and grappling. With luck, she can get away (even at night in her own home).
Therefore, taking away the gun from law-abiding citizens is tantamount to taking away the right of self-defense from law-abiding citizens.
Those who stand against guns in principle seem to generally ignore or flippantly dismiss basic truisms. But when violence comes, even victims and witnesses who oppose guns in principle call the police because they inherently understand the police will bring guns. Consider Orlando on June 12, 2016. Phone calls (other than calls to loved ones to say, “Goodbye”) were to police. Why?
No one called the police to come and debate the intellectual and moral underpinnings of Jihadism or homophobia. No one expected the police to come hug and love the gunman into laying down his weapons. They called the police because they understood the police would bring guns to stop the gunman, and they did, period. In Nice, France, July 14, 2016, men with guns stopped the man in a truck. On August 17, 2017, in Cambrils, Spain, men with guns stopped a second plot attempt to drive a van into humans. And so on.
On the other hand, because of the above combative principles, the gun alone is not a magical, all-powerful determiner of outcome. Force transfer, no matter how great, is not sufficient. In order to be deadly, force must hit a target. (Only about 15% of gunshot injuries result in death.)
One common, albeit vague, perspective, expressed by a person whom I will keep anonymous, is that “gas operated semi-automatic rifles with detachable 30 round box magazines are only wielded by assholes or heroes in warzones[sic].”
One of the many problems with this statement is that assholes who are willing to break the law will always be able to acquire weapons. Weapons are ubiquitous with man. And if an asshole with a weapon ever wants to kill you, you either understand that you want the best firearm possible, or you don’t understand weapons or violence.
Perhaps somewhat paradoxically, due to the driving force of the mind intent on doing harm, there is no way to draw a “bright line” between weapons that are somehow more inherently dangerous to the public (so that they should be banned) and those that are not (except, see discussion of uncontrollable weapons under “Extreme 1” above).
The “most lethal weapon” is dependent on context and the human mind behind the weapon. A handgun can be particularly lethal in it’s ability to conceal it in public. A “hunting rifle” can be particularly lethal with distance and cover. A blade can be lethal in an unsuspecting crowd. Too often and too recently, evil men used large trucks and other automobiles in committing some of the worst “mass murders” in recent history.
Therefore, it is impossible to single out a specific weapon or class of weapons that inherently has a significant impact on human violence. This is because human violence is not a function of the weapon, but of the mind and many other causal (even if unknown) factors.
If society keeps the firearm from the person who wields it correctly, then where is the line? If not all guns, then what variations? Why? Based on which criteria? Do we not also take away the sword or spear? Based on what distinctions? Can you imagine what a person with a good, inexpensive machete or a homemade spear can do in an unarmed crowd? For you whose mind does not conjure media images of bloody, brutal massacres, you simply have little understanding of weapons and violence or their use throughout the history of man.
If we grant the right of self-defense with a gun, it is necessary to consider the risk to public safety. There are social costs to many rights and freedoms we enjoy, which must be weighed against the benefits. However, the public safety risk is overstated and misconstrued in the case of the gun.
The often cited comparison to the automobile provides a useful contrast. This highlights how confused the concern about public safety becomes in the context of guns. Applying the combative principles above, the mind, human intention, is the essential characteristic distinguishing the dangers of automobiles and firearms.
Compare:
An automobile is specifically designed for transportation. With rare exceptions, automobile death occurs as the result of human negligence and rarely because of human intention.
A weapon, including a gun, is specifically designed to kill humans (and other animals). With rare exceptions, gun death occurs as the result of human intention and rarely because of human negligence.
Technology can counteract human negligence in many ways. Technology can rarely, if ever, definitively counteract human intention.
In the case of the automobile, the threat to public safety is human negligence, not human intention. Therefore, legislating the technology greatly affects public safety. This is why automobile safety regulations have been effective in reducing automobile death. (But, no matter how safe we make an automobile, an evil mind can intentionally drive it into a crowd.)
In the case of the firearm, the threat to public safety is human intention, not negligence. Therefore, legislating the technology minimally affects public safety. This is why gun prohibitions have little effect in reducing total murder and suicide rates.
Gun Death in the U.S.
Using round numbers, there are approximately 11–12,000 homicides by gun in the US per year (out of a total of about 15–16,000 total murders per year), and there are about 20,000 suicides by gun per year. Per capita murder rate (firearm and other) in the United States is the highest among developed countries.
In sharp contrast, there are only approximately 5–600 deaths per year in the United States by negligent (“accidental”) firearm discharge, which represents roughly 2% of all firearm deaths in the U.S. each year. Far more people drown in pools or die from consuming household cleaners each year in the United States.
It is necessary to note that excluding gang violence and spousal murder, the number of murders in the U.S. reduces by 70–90%. Gun murder in the United States is largely a problem of gang violence and domestic abuse. Excluding gang violence alone, the murder rate in the United States is on par with most other developed countries. These data are a large reason the debate is so misguided.
Even more absurd is the controversy over irrelevant features for distinguishing semantics and definitions, such as “assault rifle.” However we arbitrarily define it, murderers have used “assault rifles” in only a tiny fraction of total gun deaths. In fact, the handgun, measured in total deaths, is by far the most lethal weapon in the United States (again, mostly related to gang violence and domestic abuse).
Even if we magically eliminate the 300,000,000 guns in the United States, a large percentage of the murders and suicides would still occur by other means. Of course, it is impossible to know how many. Approximately 60–70% of murderers use a firearm. But in 98% of all instances, a firearm is only deadly when there is a person behind the weapon with the intention of causing harm. The human intention remains in the absence of any specific tools or weapons or variations thereof. This is the reason many murders and suicides still occur without firearms. Throughout the history of man, violence has persisted.
The data do not support the belief that nationwide gun bans — e.g., U.K. or Australia — cause a drop in murder (although some argue gun restriction slightly reduced suicide in Australia). Upon honest inspection, the data are, at best, inconclusive. For example, “mass murderers” in the U.K. have simply opted for heavy vehicles and knives instead of guns.
Moreover, there is little evidence that tighter restrictions on legal access to firearms reduces gun violence in the United States. (This is another complicated empirical question that is still open. I will largely ignore this argument other than to point out the level of gun violence in cities like Washington, D.C. and Chicago where gun laws are most strict.)
When murder and suicide rates go up or down, they move for reasons other than the gun itself. Simply stated, bad men will do harm and subjugate others with whatever means they can. They find other weapons, like in Boston, or they find illegal firearms, like in Paris and Belgium. With no guns, bad guys use blades. Lest we forget the level of violence men perpetrated against each other when he only had spears and polearms. Restricting firearms from ordinary citizens only acts to appease those who have the simplistic and symbolic perception that the gun is the problem rather than the bad actors who use any means available to achieve their ends.
Automobile Death in the U.S.
In contrast, there are approximately 30,000 automobile deaths per year in the U.S. (This is nearly 3x the number of gun homicides per year, even including gang violence.) In automobiles, almost all deaths are caused by “accident” or, more accurately, negligence. Rarely does anyone intend on causing harm in an automobile (although Nice on 7/14/16, Berlin on 12/19/16, London 6/3/17 on , and Barcelona on 8/17/17 showed how this is not always true).
If we take public safety (measured in total deaths) as the most important concern trumping all other rights, then government could essentially eliminate automobile death through legislating simple technology.
For example, government could mandate that manufacturers must limit automobiles’ top speeds to the road’s legal limit with an acceleration of 0–60 in 60 seconds. Manufacturers could place breathalyzers in every vehicle, disable driver-side phones for texting and talking without Bluetooth devices, and so on. These simple technologies would all but eliminate the 30,000 automobile deaths per year. But we don’t even have this discussion. Why? For the economic benefit of saving two minutes per 20 miles driven?
Aside from the career posturing of politicians like Ralph Nader, there isn’t an emotionally charged public debate about giving up the freedom to accelerate quickly and drive fast in violation of law. We let the (relatively) free market hatch it out. We are willing to trade 30,000 lives per year for our simple freedoms to be impatient and distracted while driving. But no one needs to drive faster than the legal limit. Even further, governments could reduce legal speed limits with little or no net economic loss.
Beyond counting the number of deaths, in the case of the gun, it is a symbol. At the heart of the debate should be the real moral concern about self-defense and self-reliance. We live in a violent world with people intent to cause serious harm to others. There is no corresponding moral justification for accelerating and driving illegally fast. We simply don’t want to give up some freedoms, even if the freedoms are silly and unjustified, and we’re willing to accept the associated costs.
Bad people will inevitably use guns causing serious harm to the innocent. But we have seen this is true whether the person is sanctioned by the state, an agent of the state, or a criminal. This will be true until the day humankind evolves past violence. If only police carry firearms, there will be police carrying firearms who should not. Then, quickly, other criminals will get them.
We are amidst an age old battle between Good and Evil. Unfortunately, good and evil do not always choose clear sides or wear definable uniforms. The battle is waged between nations and within nations, between groups and within groups, between cultures and within cultures, between ideas, between individuals, in our lives, in our families, and within our own minds.
Throughout man’s existence, the sword, and more fundamentally, the spear, has been a tool and symbol for his ability to navigate this world and face the threat. The firearm is merely an extension.
The person who carries the sword has a profound sense that it is impossible to live in a world without violence. Ultimately, at some time, somewhere, someone must meet the threat with force. The person who correctly wields the sword has a responsibility to stand against the threat in whichever form it may take.
Until a very short time ago, no rational Homo sapiens sapiens would walk into the wilderness without a weapon. Today, there is widespread shock and disbelief every time a wild animal mauls an unarmed hiker with a backpack full of granola and his cold, dead fingers clutching his magical bear-spray.
Of course, every person who wields a weapon inevitably faces the same return to dust. And it is statistically unlikely you will die from anything other then cardiovascular disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease or neurodegenerative disease. The irony is that most of us will eventually die because of the things we freely consume, which we can largely control, but we don’t. (The metaphor of the swordsman applies here as well.)
Avoidance is an important strategy. But the ugly reality is that we live in a dangerous world where bad men will take advantage of those who are weaker. If we accept this reality, and we address it intelligently and critically, it is a difficult and complicated matter. Appeals to symbols based on ignorance and fear offer no solutions.
Focusing on the specific weapon is to miss focus on the causes of violence. We need to address the reasons why people have bad intentions. Until we address these problems, the weapon is irrelevant.
Society must take responsibility and limit the conditions that lead to violence. Additionally, each one of us must be clear about personal responsibility in the face of bad ways of thinking, religious fundamentalism, tribalism, poverty, cultural pathology, psychopathy, and other real problems.
We must have an honest discussion about these issues. Imparting some mystical evil on specific tools is patently absurd and a diversion from the real problems we face.
One of the fundamental disagreements is whether we trust the government to protect us, or whether we trust ourselves. At a higher abstraction, this debate hinges on whether we believe all cultural and spiritual reality can be reduced to political reality. I believe spiritual and cultural realities are independent of politics. Therefore, they must be addressed on their own terms. It is not possible to legislate out evil. Our problems run far deeper. Our problems are profoundly cultural and spiritual in nature. No amount of legislation will ever reach those.
Also at the core of this debate are conceptions about the nature of self-determination and the limits of human knowledge and agency. These beliefs divide us, but we must recognize and address them clearly as well.
In practice, life is extremely complicated. I do not accept simplistic theories as blanket positions leading to party-line thinking. Currently, humankind has only limited conceptual and theoretical frameworks for adequately describing, predicting or controlling social, political or economic realities. At the same time, government bodies are slow to accurately process and act on even simple, scientifically verified information.
Humbled in the face of our general ignorance and incompetence, I believe we should err on the side of too little versus too much government control. Just because many people are irresponsible, cannot choose healthy food or lifestyles, and have evil intentions, does not mean government knows what is best. Whenever government cannot know, it should not mandate. (Note: I do not mean this in the same way so-called “Republicans” use this rhetorical move to justify government intervention for their own self-interest as opposed to other’s self-interest.)
When a regulatory framework and criminal code are mired in morally unjustifiable laws, they do little but establish a context, which perpetuates further violence. Much of the violence in the United States can be largely explained in terms of misguided policies leading to morally unjustifiable laws. For example, the “War On Drugs” (I hold it is morally unjustifiable to criminalize drug use) criminalizes non-violent activity prevalent in poor communities and creates incentives for violent criminals to participate in the lucrative, illicit drug economy. This necessarily establishes conflict between police and these communities. The failed “War On Drugs” is largely responsible for much of the violence, which is the focus of the BLM and related movements. Adding more layers of morally unjustifiable laws will help no one.
Even if we agree government should intercede somewhere, it is necessary for us to frame discussion within reality, principle, and evidence rather than fear and misconceptions. I hold these criteria true for ALL sides. Gun control is an emotionally charged, complicated matter. It is a debate that rests at the symbolic heart of many issues central to American culture. Perhaps honest, civil discourse around this topic could lay a foundation for reconciliation within our increasingly fractured society.