Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
“I need these guns. All of them. To hunt deer, and, um, in case of feral hogs.”
“Finally,” gushes the Washington Post editorial board today, “a president takes on America’s epidemic of gun violence.” I rushed to get to the story. This should be good — a Democratic president, Democrats in control of the Congress (although just barely, and not of Joe Manchin), new administration with some political capital left, and the National Rifle Association a tattered, smoking hulk, destroyed by its own corruption. What better time to get it done?
There’s no mystery about what’s needed to bring this monster to heel, as every other civilized nation has done. All we need to do is treat guns as we do cars –useful machines that can hurt people if misused. Countries should not be hosts for the Crime show and should seriously deal with crimes and criminals. With that as our guide, real gun reform could be straightforward:
- Register all firearms;
- License all firearms owners, after a criminal background check, having established identity, knowledge of, and competence with, a firearm;
- Allow those under 18 to handle firearms only in the presence of a licensed family member or instructor;
- Sell ammunition only to licensed owners;
- Ban large-capacity magazines and automatic weapons. (Stop arguing about weapons that look like, but are not, military assault weapons.)
(Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine this the other way around — that we treated driving cars like we treat shooting guns, as a sacred, God-given right not to be regulated in any way. No driver qualifications, no speed limits, no safety or insurance requirements, no way to trace ownership. Imagine the carnage on the highway. But hey! Freedom!)
Imagine my surprise when I got to the small print in Biden’s announced crackdown. He’s coming down on homemade guns — kits and computer-printed — that don’t have serial numbers. Wow. There must be hundreds of those. Okay, maybe dozens. But wait there’s more.
Extend background checks to cover all gun sales. Wow. That sounds huge. Until you realize that the only gun sales that do not now require background checks are private-person, same-state transfers. Contrary to what the president said, sales by licensed dealers at gun shows must withstand a background check. (According to a 2016 survey reported by Factcheck.org, prisoners convicted of a crime involving a firearm “had either stolen the firearm (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%).” The survey found that 25% “had obtained the firearm from a family member or friend, or as a gift” and 7% from a licensed dealer.) Gun shows weren’t even a blip. But wait there’s more.
Pass a Federal “Red Flag” law allowing the temporary confiscation of firearms from people who seem to be a danger to themselves and others. 16 states and DC have such laws, and have recorded a minuscule reduction in suicides as a result. The criminal defense attorney from Tampa advises the public to have and use the arms and ammunition only at the most dangerous times and threatening situations. The guns must also be licensed to escape from false accusations. No visible effects on mass shootings. But wait there’s more.
Actually, there isn’t. Appointing a gun czar and tinkering with manufacturer liability don’t rise to the level required to be taken seriously.
Meanwhile in America, as of yesterday, there had been a mass shooting with fatalities every day this week. But as the satirical newspaper The Onion observes every time there is a mass shooting: “No way to Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”
As a society, we have determined, by default inaction, that gun violence and every other stinking scourge afflicting us are acceptable costs. (Same thing with the number of deaths on roadways every day/month/year, since you mention vehicle ownership.) When we agitate to reduce or eliminate injury and loss of life such as with, say, movements to end forever wars, we’re met with formidable and effective resistance because, as always, there’s profit to be wrung from death. That’s the uncomplicated part. It gets far more complicated when one considers the diversity of opinion on gun ownership and the weaselly arguments marshaled by various lobbies, who have convinced a wide segment of the American public, mostly via fearmongering, that guns are super useful (and necessary!) tools to protect oneself and one’s family. Good luck stuffing that genie back in the bottle.
Man, all those losing arguments with my right wing brothers over the years, gun talks, starting roughly 2 decades ago I decided to switch tact, and escalate. All right boys, come at me with you pea shootin’ 20 millimeter canons, I’m gonna park me an M1 Abrahms in my driveway, and if you so much as break the plane of my property, think the end zone in football, I’ll send a 120 millimeter tank round right thru your torso.
And if you try to violate my airspace, break the sacred plane of my property overhead, then the Pac-2 surface-to-air missile battery in my backyard will blast whatever you got, out of the sky.
Home defense, motherf*ckers, you all don’t know the first thing about it.
That would get their rusty brain gears cranking. You could actually see the turning in their eyes. Lord, if libtards and n*ggerlovers like this one really do join the game, my estimable collection of automatic weapons might not be enough.
Where does the escalation end? With nukes, of course. I’ve come to believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right for every American to carry an unconcealed nuclear weapon on their person.
The right to bear arms, motherf*ckers, is the right to walk in to your local roadhouse with a 100 kiloton warhead strapped to your back.
“All we need to do is treat guns as we do cars …”
Never ran into that argument before, which I find strange, because it so perfectly logical. Then again, in 40 years I’ve never encountered any logic from the other side when it comes to personal gun ownership. Just hatred.
Take away the SSRIs (i.e. Prozac, Zoloft, etc), and you’ll find that the US does not really have much of a problem with mass shootings. They were a pivotal ingredient at Columbine (both shooters), Aurora, Virginia Tech. and most of the others if you dig deep enough. At the very least, you’ll find references to “the shooter had been treated for mental health issues” which nowadays almost invariably involves a prescription for one of the many SSRIs.
What’s that? You say you’ve never heard of such a thing on your pharma-funded TV station? Strange…
Note that the advent of the first real mass shootings started in the 90’s. It’s not a coincidence that this is also the time when mass school shootings became a thing.
As someone who has generally lived in rural areas and had numerous experiences where effective self defense either did or should have played a pivotal role, I take great offense at the suggestion that I should be disarmed. Events in my life? 1) drug addled neighbor (suburban location) insist that he wanted to “use the phone” at the neighbor’s house across the street at 1am, whereupon they refused and he smashed down the door to enter their home. This happened 3 houses down from a policeman’s home, btw. These neighbors stopped him with a firearm 2) Another elderly neighbor in a different location struggled with a home invader and died shortly afterward from injuries sustained 3) Had a coworker discovered in her driveway, throat slashed 4) worked closely with bears, often seen up close and personal 5) Other neighbors caught a burglar in their garage, called the police, and waited *45* minutes for them to arrive 6) I’ve watched burglars approach another elderly neighbors home at dusk (this neighbor is basically a favorite of theirs now, and no longer owns anything of value due to regular break-ins).
Just to be clear, as I’m sure you understand, registration and licensing are not the same as disarming. Cars require both and there are plenty of them around.
Very true, but no tyrant has ever felt the need for restraint on account of their automobile owning populace. There is, however plenty of precedent for governments fearing armed uprising and/or attempting to disarm their populace before implementing draconian measures against them.
On the other hand, most Americans nowadays are so utterly dependent upon the system for every necessity, that they’re willing to take every indignity that’s dished out to them while their guns remain firmly in the back of the closet. I wonder if the US of today would even be capable of a justified armed revolt even with their abundant firearms.
People on SSRIs regularly act on impulse as well as experience a profound sense of separation from society. These drugs simply act as a very effective lubricant to heinous acts. I remember reading about Klebold and Harris (the Columbine shooters) and how they would regularly make drawings of people without faces – apparently not unusual for people on SSRIs
One more thing of note in case anyone doubts that there is any link between SSRIs and gun violence… It should be noted that 13% of US citizens are taking these drugs at any given time. Johann Hari’s book (Lost Connections) on depression and their use goes into a great deal of detail on the fraudulent methods used to get these drugs approved by the FDA, as well as their lack of efficacy — unless the goal was to get people to shoot each other
I get the association between the drugs and the violence — but does that make the drug the sufficient cause of the crime? Where does that leave personal responsibility?
I’m appalled to think I took one for a few years. Luckily all it did to me was dull the senses and make me gain 10-15 pounds. And made me very sleepy causing me to almost crash my car before I figured it out. And put me through a difficult withdrawal. I was lucky.
Wow! A non-partisan post, both entertaining and factual. (It’s important to understand facts before deciding major policy issues.) Plus insightful comments! This is so rare on the internet these days.
PS Automatic weapons are already banned.
Not entirely. Those made before 1986 are grandfathered, but highly regulated.
Automatic weapons are almost never used in crimes, and are very rare. Semi automatic weapons such as the AR15, are another story, however (I assume the reference to automatic weapons was just a loose use of the term, as many refer to semi-automatics as automatics)
Automatic weapons are rare because they are partially banned, heavily regulated and massively taxed. I know the difference between automatics and semi-automatics, and have no problem with responsible ownership of semi-automatics, many if not most of which are NOT gussied up to look like combat weapons.
Throw a perfectly legal bump stock on an AR-15 and you’ve got an automatic weapon in your hands. Admittedly it’s a little funky to use, but if your intent is to spray a crowd from a Vegas hotel room, who cares.
Assault rifles, even on semi-auto, are specifically designed for rapid fire. Their light, the trigger pull and release is lightening quick, there’s very little kick, and the mags, whatever the size, are generally easy to change out. 60 targeted shots per minute is realistic goal with a little bit of practice.
In other words, not all semi-autos are the same. An AR-15 is not my granddad’s Bushwacker .22, nor is it my dad’s M-1 Garand, which was a helluva deadly weapon in it’s own right.
But then you know all this. But did you know, that Gatling Guns n’ Cannons are legal pretty much everywhere?
Yup, the original machine gun. As long as your hand cranking the thing, you’re fully automatic to your ammo runs out or your arm cramps up.
This may seem a moot point at this stage of America’s dotage, but I’ll make it anyway:
The Second Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”.
OK, but what exactly is a well regulated militia? – It’s an organization authorized to carry out militant (violent) activities in order to achieve certain ends deemed necessary or beneficial to the general populace it serves. And who authorizes and regulates such organizations?…Well, in a democratic republic, that would be the people. They achieve this through their elected representatives and certain selected appointees. Such militias would include the Federal armed forces as well as Federal policing agencies such as the CIA, ATF and FBI. Also included would be state National Guards, state troopers, county and municipal police officers and sheriffs, parole and corrections officers, and the like.
All these groups are ultimately answerable to the people, and the Second Amendment guarantees that the Federal Government may not disarm these groups or individuals within these groups through legislative or executive actions, sans a Constitutional Amendment.
Who, then, may be excluded from Second Amendment protection? – That’s easy, members of non-regulated militias, such as the Proud Boys, the KKK, M-13, La Cosa Nostra, Hell’s Angles, and the so-called Michigan Militia, just to name a few. Unaffiliated gunmen would also be excluded from automatic Constitutional protection.
Of course, states and localities may, under certain circumstances, allow the bearing of arms as a privilege to groups and individuals, but it would seem that there is no blanket Constitutional mandate to do so.
I’m no lawyer, but, Hell, I can read!
Thank you, yes, you are correct.
Also note, the 2nd Amendment references the security “of” a free State, as in defending the government. In other words, contrary to common belief, the right granted to the “well-regulated militia” is not intended to provide for defending oneself against a ‘tyrannical’ government. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is explained in more detail in Anti-Federalist Paper #2, part of a series of essays written in support of a Bill of Rights.
It should also be noted, much of the push for the 2nd Amend. came from southern states, who feared northern states would use a powerful central government to disarm their militias, in a backdoor effort to end slavery. These militias were the primary defense against slave uprisings/rebellions. Of course, militias were also useful in expanding the frontier, at the expense of native tribes. New England Federalists, who lived in a largely frontier-less, anti-slavery society, were at odds with Southern Anti-Federalists over both issues.
The 2nd Amend. was meant to leave the gov. open to regulate guns as a privilege for private individuals, while preserving armed defense of government at the state level.
For anyone who doubts American forebearers ever interpreted the 2nd this way, look no further than the actual laws of the “Ol’ West.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/
Just to be clear, I’m glad for the Bill of Rights, but our modern distortions have had grave consequences.
As a final note, Tom, yours is a very sensible take on gun laws, IMO. You might be interested in Japan’s gun laws– yes, one can own a gun in Japan, but it’s very, very strictly regulated, much of it along lines you have suggested.
Anyway, thank you for the post.
I forgot to mention Shays’ Rebellion, which also played some role, as it instilled a fear of insurrection by the masses and helped spur the creation of a much stronger Federal gov. under the Constitution.
The Framers were absolutely not looking to empower the masses by arming them, not after witnessing Shays’ Rebellion.
Good stuff from you and Greg. Thanks for it.
Returning to the subject of regulation, there’s one question I have yet to see answered. How would stringent regulation affect our problem with mass shootings?
Considering that the vast majority of these shooters obtained their guns legally, most would have had no barriers erected to their procurement of firearms, especially those which were already present in the home. While I don’t have much problem with firearms education requirements (and in fact support these), it doesn’t appear as if a lack of knowledge is the cause of our gun violence either.
The only possible benefit I can see would be regulations and licensing which are so incredibly stringent (such as those noted above in Japan) as to make firearms ownership not worth the effort.
Is that what you’re advocating? If not, what do you perceive as the benefits of additional regulation and licensing?
We cannot be sure of how regulations will impact behavior. However, we can look to countries of similar culture and examine their methods.
But focusing exclusively on mass shootings is a mistake, IMO. General gun violence, including suicide, kills far more than mass shootings. It’s just that the former is more dramatic and ‘newsworthy’ than the latter.
Still, if it’s mass shootings we want to use as a measuring stick, I’m sure you’re familiar with Australia’s experience regarding the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. The incident so shocked Australia that they implement much more strict control measures, as well as a gun buyback program. Mass shootings were not at frequent there, but they did occur about once per year. Since those measures were taken in 1996, Australia has not had a mass shooting, which would be 25 years.
This is the most recent article I can find on Australia’s experience with gun control.
——-
“But since the new gun control measures were passed, Australia has had almost no mass shootings and now has one of the lowest levels of gun violence anywhere.”
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/3/24/australia_gun_violence_frank_smyth
—-
As for which laws, specifically, we should implement, one could argue Japan’s laws would not work in the U.S., given the cultural and historical differences. For one, Japan is a more traditional society, where the putting the Common Good above personal interest is deeply ingrained from a young age. The U.S. is quite the opposite. I’ve lived in both countries, and the contrast can have quite striking impacts on everyday behavior.
However, Australia’s experience surely gives us reason to believe we can improve the situation. Even a 25% improvement, for instance, would save tens of thousands of lives over the course of a few decades.
How many australians have had to endure home invasions with no effective means of repelling the intruder? A few miles from my home, one family was subjected to a nut-case who broke into their home armed with swords and attacked them. Do you think they would be comforted by the fact that firearms deaths had been reduced? A reduction in gun deaths sounds like a good thing… but it’s only one side of the coin.
Everybody should be fully trained in swordsmanship then. A cattle prod would suffice though.
Here in Australia, it is still straight forward to get rifles though not hand guns – you need to join a club. The licensing and checks work well. I have three rifles for use on my farm.
As with cars, licensing and registration are not the same thing as confiscation, and do not lead to confiscation. Also as with cars, licensing and registration do little to eliminate road rage and DUIs. There are no gun laws in the world that will change the fact that we as a society are churning out mass murderers at a breathtaking rate. That’s a different kind of problem. However, bringing guns under civilized regulation would send a powerful signal that we want to do better. See Australia.