Last week the New Republic published a piece by Phoebe Maltz Bovy, a regular columnist for that publication, that makes the argument for banning all guns from American society. Interestingly, the writer isn't talking only about civilian gun ownership, as she advocates disarming the police as well.
It's been a while since I last saw something in print that staked out this position, and so I found myself thinking that it might be time to ban guns, or it might be time to review the reasons why we should not do so. Further, the columnist sets forth her reasons for making the argument, explaining that she believes it is necessary to make the case for elimination of guns from our society in order to bring the possibility into the public mind. And that got me to thinking about the other side of the coin: reasons why, instead, it might actually be counterproductive to do this.
First, a little background for those who may not be familiar with the publication. The New Republic is a "progressive/liberal" magazine with a focus on politics and public policy. It has been around for over a century, and its founders included that luminary of American journalism named Walter Lippmann. (For those with an interest in the history of American journalism, I highly recommend Ronald Steel's book Walter Lippmann and the American Century, a superb biography that was published in 1981 and won the Bancroft Prize.) So this is not some millennial left-wing blog site.
Let us first consider the case for banning guns. In its most elemental form, it is starkly simple. Guns are used for things other than killing people, to be sure, but Maltz Bovy does not address that, so I will set that aside for the moment and focus on this particular use. Guns are used to kill people. Yes, we know that "guns don't kill people; people kill people." And we know there are other ways of killing people, as people killed each other, sometimes in large numbers, for millennia before the invention of the firearm, which historians place in the 12th or 13th Century. So the gun is simply a tool, an inanimate object without autonomy. Thus, as a careful user of English, I am constantly irritated by news accounts that someone was killed by (rather than with) a gun, just as I am when there is a report that someone was "killed by an SUV." But guns are used to kill people, and it is argued that they afford more of what the New York Times called "brutal speed and efficiency" in a recent editorial advocating a new ban on semiautomatic rifles.
So let us imagine 21st-Century American society without guns. To be sure, that does require some imagination. We cannot assume it will be like more primitive societies that didn't have guns because they hadn't been invented yet, because at the same time they didn't have guns, they also didn't have modern social institutions that provide stability and make violent behavior generally unacceptable. In other words, we have made much progress toward creating a "civil society" in the last half millennium, so if we could just eliminate guns, that would be a great leap forward, with apologies to Chairman Mao for appropriating the phrase. Of course we also cannot assume an American society from which we magically removed all guns would be suddenly transformed into a North American version of Japan, where guns in the hands of civilians are rare. There are vast sociocultural differences between Japan and the US. To offer just one example, many of the shootings occurring in the US each year are related to the urban subculture involved in illegal drugs and gang activities, and Japan doesn't have anything quite analogous to that.
But let us imagine that we could eliminate all guns, and thus all shootings, from American society. Would that eliminate all crime? Well, no, obviously not. It would not eliminate crime, it would not eliminate violent crime, and it would not end homicide. It would reduce the number of killings - both homicides and suicides (the latter of which typically outnumber the former) in which guns are used, necessarily to zero, because this is an absolutist hypothetical. But there are other ways of killing; they simply tend to be more difficult and may require more skill or planning.
In general violent crime, to be successful, requires the same things that are required for success in war: careful planning or some other approach that results in the victim being surprised or unprepared to put up a defense; disparity of force; or both. Firearms are not required.
Now let's look at things from the intended victim's viewpoint. How does one avoid becoming a victim? Well, take the elements required to make you a victim and hold them up to a mirror, and you see that you must be prepared to put up a defense and must be able to avoid being on the wrong end of disparity of force. So the keys are education and training, mental preparation, and possession of a tool that can serve as an equalizer if the person(s) intent on victimizing you are bigger, stronger, faster. This is the rationale for the possession of a gun for personal defense. Note the importance of education, training, mental preparation, and practice. Without these, the gun is unlikely to serve its purpose. It is not a talisman.
At this point it is tempting to go off on a tangent about whether private ownership of guns increases or decreases the risk to one's personal safety. The published literature is replete with "evidence" pointing in opposite directions. If there is a gun in the household it is more likely to be used to injure or kill a member of the household than against a criminal intruder, says one side. Oh, no, says the other side, the number of times guns are successfully used for self defense is greater by an order of magnitude, if you look at data collected and reported by criminologists.
So, rather than going off on that tangent, I'll just opine that the private citizen who does the "right things" mentioned above (education, training, mental preparation, practice) along with other "right things" such as safe storage, is going to be one for whom the risks of ownership are low and the value of possession for personal protection has obvious appeal. In a household with children or other irresponsible people and adults lacking the good sense to secure firearms effectively; or a history of domestic violence; or people who are depressed and think the world would be better off without them ... yes, clearly, there are households where guns don't belong.
But when the advocate for a total ban is talking to a gun rights advocate and it gets down to brass tacks, one believes in the right to armed self defense and the use of lethal force in defense of life, and the other does not. Once the discussion arrives at that point, there isn't really anything more to talk about.
So now let us imagine that we would like to see fewer guns in American society. Maybe our idea of "fewer" is zero, but let's leave it imprecise for the moment. We could say we'd like to keep guns out of "the wrong hands." We could say we'd like to ban "weapons of war" (even though we mean the AR-15, when it's actually the M-16 that is a weapon of war).
So we press for universal background checks, and we say no one "needs" an AR-15, and we can find millions of gun owners to agree with us. After all, the number of gun owners is about ten times as large as the number of owners of the AR-15 and similar rifles, and it's easy to compromise on what the other fellow has. The large majority of members of the NRA are OK with universal background checks, although the percentage might drop a little if you remind them that if Uncle John is going to buy a new hunting rifle and decides he'll give his old .30-06 to Bobby, who is ready for his first deer season, that transfer has to go through a dealer.
Now, hold on, say the hardliners to their brethren inclined toward a softer position. This is only the beginning. This is a slippery slope. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Every time they say "common sense gun control" remember it's always the first step toward something you won't like.
And that brings us to the question raised by Maltz Bovy's essay. Not the first one: is it time to ban guns? The rationales for and against could fill a book (and they have, many books), and I've given you the highlights. No, the second one: is it time to make the case for this and try to bring it front and center in the public mind?
On the pro side, Maltz Bovy is right, if you tacitly accept that something is not possible, then it is not possible. If you start talking about it like it is not only possible but clearly the right thing to do, then you can work on shifting public opinion your way.
On the con side, if you make a forceful public argument that unequivocally states your endgame, the very first move of the very first pawn will be resisted.
If you are a gun control advocate, Maltz Bovy is not helping your cause. If you are a gun rights advocate urging the compromisers to take a harder line, Maltz Bovy has just made your case for you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTake a good look at Phoebe Maltz because that is the person who wants to take guns away from the lower class peoples not rich enough to hire armed guards for protection. Who will protect them? Apparently Ms. Maltz does not care about that question.
ReplyDeleteEver since the Magna Carta granted people rights to the longbow, good people have fought and bled to oppose the 1% who wanted to consolidate their power by having a tyrannical and privileged society where only the enforcers of the political group in power (the police and army) are armed.
Power to the people! Fight the arrogant elite who want to take our gun rights away!
A.C. Ratone
Your observations blend the concern about a disarmed populace being subject to oppression with the concern that the poor are often most in need of a means of self defense, as they are least likely to have an effective law enforcement presence in their communities, where "effective" means effective in preventing crime. As recent events have shown, the relationship between the police and the residents of America's poor urban neighborhoods is often an adversarial one.
Delete