What is the debate about?-some say different things: who is
allowed to use deadly force, the individual or the State?-getting guns out of
society, and protecting the innocent (especially children)?-the depth of
control allowed to the people by the State in what weapons they may have?-other
aspects of gun control?
Regardless of any of the questions, there are two facts of
identity to be considered: 1) any removing of a firearm from an individual is
the beginning of removing his ability to defend himself; 2) that banning (or
controlling) firearms is a legalism and will not actually prevent their
[mis]use. The two points are also
related, but come from different angles.
On point one, who will be harmed by such control? The one who would be harmed by such a law of gun
control is the one who would obey such a law.
Harm comes directly in that individual is letting a third party (a
legislature) limit the means that the individual may use in self-defense; harm
comes indirectly for to violate the law to defend himself, he has violated the
law and has to be concerned about being criminally charged.
For self-defense, proponents of gun control say call the
police - this follows the assumptions of one having the means to call, and that
the police will be present to help.
Problems with these assumptions entail further assumptions that one has
a cell phone, has a strong signal and isn't having that signal interfered with,
the battery is not dead, and one has the physical capability to make the call and complete it - isn't being interfered
with by the one making the 911 call necessary, along with the assumption that
the police will be able to arrive and assist before greater harm is caused by
the one who is necessitating the call.
On point two, it is the assumption that control will prevent
criminals from using firearms and accidents from happening. Firstly, what makes a criminal a criminal?-he
is breaking the law. So, with that would
passing another law suddenly make it so he will become a law-abiding
citizen?-no. Expanding the reach of the
law into areas where it goes beyond 'no victim, no crime' into banning firearms
then places honest individuals in Bastiat's quandary: what to do when moral law
conflicts with legislative law? To be
law-abiding when guns are banned is to make one more vulnerable; to own (for
protection) a firearm that was banned is to break the law. It places on an equal legal level the parent
wanting to protect the family with the robber who would harm them; it places
the woman who wants to protect herself on the same legal level of the rapist
who wants to violate her.
Gun control proponents then decry that if all guns were
banned, then criminals would not even be able to have those weapons to be used
in crimes. That is false, and the list
of examples is long: colossal failures in prohibition and the war on drugs, to
the less vast, but nonetheless real as in nearly totally controlled
environments [prisons], inmates can still get drugs, and just like the rest of
society, contraband exists everywhere (depending on location) from drugs, to
music, to books and more. Contraband
always finds its way for there is desire and laws cannot prevent desire.
With respect to accidents: the nature of an accident is that
it is an unintended, rare occurrence.
There is no law that can prevent the accidental. Laws may set up punishments for the
consequences of accidents, but it can no more prevent accidents than it can
prevent people from intentionally getting contraband. (More on this later).
The nature of a weapon is to more efficiently use force
against an opponent; this is the same principle whether the opponent is an
individual or a collective - even the State.
Without a weapon, a an average-sized woman targeted by two powerful
rapists in a van is nearly helpless; with a firearm (handgun) she has a great
chance of negating, and overcoming her would-be rapists' physical might. Without a weapon, the merchant who is being
mobbed by dozens, is nearly helpless to the mob; with a firearm ('assault'
rifle), that merchant has a chance of keeping the mob at bay. Without weapons, the people who wish to be
free, have to settle for what those who lead the State may allow; with weapons,
the people can tell the State what its power is to be extended to, and not
beyond.
The aforementioned is the difference between Linda Smith
(pseudonym for an Oklahoma woman who killed one and wounded another would-be
rapist), and being Shirley Lynette Ledford (raped, tortured and murdered by two
men); the difference between gangs or mobs looting and leaving some Indian
families destitute, and the Korean merchants who held off the mob during the
L.A. Riots; the difference between the Jews in the ghettos before being led to
the camps, and those following the Bielski brothers.
Having a firearm doesn't guarantee success, but it gives the
would-be victim a fighting chance of not becoming a victim. Like the first examples, without means of
defense one is more easily victimized; with a means of defense, one can fight
back and have a chance at not being a victim.
The issue about firearms comes down to use, and efforts to
prevent improper usage. Let's extend
this principle of controlling things since those things may be misused. Automobiles may kill thousands a year; some
deaths can be attributed to intentional vehicular homicide, but others were
accidental. With that, shall we place a
new ban on how fast people can drive, how fast manufacturers can create a
vehicle to go, and have extensive checks on who can own and operate a
vehicle? Some people are obese from
overeating, shall we place bans on what everyone can eat, and monitor
everyone's eating habits? More people
are murdered yearly by silent weapons (clubs, bats, hammers, knives, etc) than
are killed by firearms; shall we have background checks at hardware and sports
stores? About the children, shall we
extend State monitoring to everyone's lives, as well as authorize who can be a
parent and approve parenting styles, to protect the children?
Some will decry: but guns sole purpose is to kill
something!
My response to that is: no, guns sole purpose is to
shoot. But, even if it was to kill… so?
The purpose of a knife is to cut, it is up to the wielder on
if, or how it cuts; the purpose of a hammer is to hammer, it is up to the
wielder on what gets hammered; the purpose of a firearm is to shoot something,
it is up to the wielder whether that is a competitive target, live game or a
human being - a human being can be a target by both a victimizer and a victim,
that is a firearm can be used as an assault weapon to violate another's rights,
or defend those rights. This is for when
the victimizer is an individual, or a collective - like the State.
There is to way around the issue of gun control and its
corollaries; it leaves those who want to be law-abiding with less defense, and
has the false assumption that banning will prevent criminals from getting
guns. Combine those two points and you
will have citizens who are less able to defend themselves against those who
know that their prey lacks teeth and claws - whether the aggressor is an
individual or the State.
