Gun Control: What is the Answer?

LaFollette in his book, “The Practice of Ethics” asserts that bearing arms is not a fundamental right.  Based upon this statement, gun control is the ethical and moral stance to take.  People are dangerous animals and with firearms are much more likely to commit crimes than if they did not have easy access to them.  He further cites studies that claim that firearms do not deter the commission of violent crimes against citizens who bear them.  The argument then devolves into assigning gun ownership as a “derivative right” (LaFollette, 2007).  The comparison used is alcohol consumption based upon societal restrictions.

 

The argument then progresses along the lines that “….owning guns is not a fundamental interest and that guns are inherently dangerous” (LaFollette, 2007 p. 184).  Guns are dangerous and can be misused.  Children have been killed when their parents have left firearms unsecured.  Evidence is presented that more weapons cause more violence.  “Armchair arguments” about firearms preventing crimes are statistically inflated (LaFollette, 2007).  The bottom line is that firearms could be permitted, but tightly regulated.  The corresponding restrictions would result in a less violent society.

 

I disagree with nearly everything that LaFollette writes in his chapter on gun control.  Primarily, it is obvious to me that LaFollette has a hard time comprehending the English language.   “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (States, 1791).  The meaning of that sentence is clear.  Bearing arms is a “fundamental right”.  In effect, the basis for his arguments starts from a false assumption (or interpretation if we are to be kind).  The entire basis of the fundamental right to bear arms was not for self defense or pleasure.  The basis of the right of the people to bear arms was to prevent government tyranny.  “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist” (Federalist 29).  He cites freedom of speech and the press as a fundamental right but leaves out the other fundamental rights embodied in our constitution (LaFollette, 2007).  For example, freedom of speech, freedom to practice religion, bear arms, property rights, and a representative form of government, are the basis for our system of government.  The rights stated are to prevent against “psychological ego” (LaFollette’s term), or what I like to term human nature.  It is part of human nature to want to rule over other people.  LaFollette does so by trying to convince people of what his point of view is.  Governments do so by coercing people by force.  Our founding fathers understood human nature and evil very well.  In fact, they stated openly that the system of government they were devising would fail unless it was administered by “Christian moral men” (Federalist Papers, 1788).  Therefore, LaFollette, is wrong.  Bearing arms is a fundamental right of American citizens and was done so for a reason that he does not state in his arguments.  LaFollette needs to read the Federalist Papers.

 

Let’s examine his other arguments.  He cites deterrence as a non-factor for citizens owning firearms.  Leftists constantly “cherry pick” data that they agree with while ignoring other data that does not support their arguments.  Let’s look at two examples.  One of these examples relies heavily upon human nature and the judgements that we make as intelligent human beings.  The second example will show motives behind the cherry picking of data.

 

First, lets set up a scenario.  You are a criminal and you own a firearm (for argument’s sake, let’s say that it is a 9mm Glock pistol).  Your specialty is home invasion and subsequent robbery.   You live on the border of two states.  In one state, there is strict gun control.  Gun ownership by home owners is less than 5%.   In the other state, there is no gun control.  Gun ownership by home owners is over 95%.  Based upon your knowledge of the situation in both states, which state will you travel to for your next home invasion?  Most of us I am assuming will pick the gun control state.  Even if the home invasion is discovered or the people are in the house, they will likely be unarmed.  Self-preservation dictates where you should go to commit your crime.  After all, does a criminal want to be shot during a home invasion?  Is this scenario just theoretical?  No.  Back in the 1980s, there were a rash of armed robberies at some major tourist destination airports in Florida.  Why?  One was because the people coming off the planes had cash on them.  Second, the criminals knew that people coming off airplanes would be unarmed.  It is simple logic.

 

Second, let’s look at motives for cherry picking data.  While most of us want to be right in our analysis of an issue, money is also a factor.  Global warming advocates have been cherry picking their data for over 20 years.  Their advocacy of the issue is almost like a religion to them.  That doesn’t explain everything.  Why else would someone tout inaccurate data to promote a worldview?  Hidden behind the drumbeat of global warming (or is it simply climate change now?) is the monetary motive.  The U.S. government alone exclusively funds studies to prove global warming.  I did not say study global warming, or to study the question of climate change, I said to PROVE global warming.  No proof.  No funding.  It is funny to hear global warming advocates derisively dismiss studies conducted by energy companies that run counter to their views.  Their claim that those studies are tainted by accepting money from energy companies is exactly what they are doing in accepting public funding to prove the opposite.  It is hypocritical to say the least.  The leftists create an echo chamber in their community where they constantly cite each other and use it as “proof” of what they are saying.  For further information on the global warming scam, and the cherry picking of data, read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”.  At the risk of digressing too much, I will say the Mr. Crichton was a global warming believer.  He wanted to write a novel about it using real data from real sources.  As he researched the actual data, he was stunned.  He was stunned to find out that there was no global warming and that data was being manipulated to make it appear so.  He did write his book, but it was now an anti-global warming book based upon real data.  After reading his book, I became convinced that the worldwide socialist movement (one world order, or global government cabal) was behind the movement.  It is designed to scare people into giving up their freedoms (based on an emergency of course), submit to a global government, and be secure.  Enough digression.  Let’s get back to gun control.

The cherry picking of data is evident of LaFollette’s assertation that crime prevention incidents are inflated statistics (LaFollette, 2007).  Really?  I think most of the 95% leftist media underreport these incidents because it doesn’t fit with their worldview.  LaFollette is simply repeating what is heard in the leftist echo chamber.  In fact, the information I have read shows that states that loosen their gun control laws see a corresponding decrease in crime.  What about areas that have strict gun control?  Is Chicago safe?  I don’t think so.  Gun control only affects law abiding citizens.  Law abiding citizens will submit to gun control, leaving only the criminals having weapons.  How exactly does that correspond to decreasing violence in society (LaFollette, 2007)? 

 

I do agree with the fact that some children are harmed by firearms left unattended or secured by their parents.  That is an educational issue and not one that alters our fundamental right.  Tragic?  Certainly.  My heart breaks when I hear of those stories.  I can compare that to a table saw.  A table saw, much like a firearm, is a dangerous tool.  Would I want small children playing with a table saw with no formal training?  No.  It is a dangerous tool that requires educating anyone that is going to use it or be around it.

 

I agree with LaFollette on one thing. I do wish that we lived in a world where we didn’t need firearms at all.  That is a good thing to wish for, but it is not the reality of what our world is.  The worldwide socialist movement has long stated that the citizenry of a country needs to be disarmed.  Both the Bolsheviks of Russia and the Nazis of Germany were successful in disarming their populations.  Some of the survivors of Tiananmen Square (1989) came to the United States and said, “Don’t ever give up your guns here.  Otherwise, what happened to us can happen here”.  The world is not a nice place.  I equate that thought with Ronald Reagan’s view on socialism.  “Socialism works in only two places:  Heaven where they don’t need it, and Hell where its working great, but everybody hates it”!

 

Respectfully,

 

John Hescott

 

References:

 

LaFollette, Hugh (2007) The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing

 

10 Amendments, (December 15, 1791) The U.S. Constitution, 2^nd Amendment

 

Hamilton, Alexander and Madison, James and Jay, John (1788)
The Federalist Papers. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc.