The terrible shootings in Colorado, USA on July 20, 2012 stirred up the gun control debate once again. Not surprisingly, some folks pointed to this horrific event as evidence that there is a need to make changes regarding gun control. Also not surprisingly, other folks tried to quickly head off attempts to use the event in this manner. As might be imagined, the matter of gun control is one well worth considering.
While people often regard it as odd that an allegedly liberal philosophy professor would be pro-gun, this is the case. The psychological explanation for this is easy enough: I was shaped by my pro-gun upbringing. I learned to shoot as soon as I could hold a gun, I hunted for years, and I am still a gun owner. I enjoy shooting and I feel comfortable with guns (although people with guns but without a proper grasp of firearm safety worry me). Naturally, how I feel about guns is no indication of what I should think about guns and gun control. As such, I will turn now to actually arguing about the matter.
Gun control, the limiting of gun ownership, can be supported by a very reasonable utilitarian argument. By restricting gun ownership, the likelihood of people getting injured or killed by guns is reduced. While denying people the right to own guns can be taken as a harm, this is supposed to be offset by the greater reduction in harms to the potential victims of guns (or people with guns).
Because of the utilitarian argument, I do accept that gun control laws can be morally justified. However, there is still the question of the extent to which guns should be controlled. There are, of course, varying degrees of possible gun control which range from none at all (which can be seen as a state of nature in the sense of Locke or Hobbes) to complete gun control in which no private citizen is allowed to own a gun.
In the United States, people are often inclined to view gun control as a special sort of matter rather than being a matter of general principle about the legitimate extents of liberties and limitations. On the right, gun ownership is sometimes venerated and defended with zealous devotion. On the left, guns are sometimes seen as inherently terrifying (perhaps even as mechanical monsters whose very existence threatens life and limb). I, however, prefer to approach the matter of guns by attempting to follow a general principle that can be used to sort out what should be allowed and what should restricted.
As noted above, the main argument for restricting specific gun liberties or rights is to reduce or prevent harms that would be more likely to occur without restrictions. This is, obviously enough, based on the more general principle that rights or liberties can be restricted under the justification of preventing or reducing harms. As such, it would seem useful to discuss the matter of gun control in this more general context.
Given that the goal of gun control is to reduce or prevent harm, it might be tempting to argue in favor of complete gun control or, at least, incredibly strict restrictions. After all, if such a level of control could be established over the entire population, then the amount of harm involving guns would be greatly reduced. The general principle at work here would be, obviously enough, that a complete ban or incredibly strict restrictions would be justified by the fact that they would significantly reduce the harms that involved guns. While this has a certain appeal in regards to guns, it seems rather less appealing when applied to other things.
If the goal is simply to reduce the number of deaths, then gun control would be rather low on the priority list of things that need to be strictly controlled. After all, far more people perish due to automobiles, tobacco, alcohol and obesity than die in incidents of gun violence. As such, if guns can be severely restricted under the justification that doing so would reduce the number of deaths, then it would follow that automobiles should be subject to the same level of restrictions because they generate a significantly greater death toll. Also, the causes of obesity should be addressed by very strict laws regulating what foods people can purchase, consumption volumes and exercise. While some do advocate for such restrictions, most would see these as absurd. However, if banning Big Macs and cars is absurd, then banning guns would also seem absurd.
It can, however, be argued that there are relevant differences between strict gun control and such things as strict automobile and obesity control. In the case of obesity, it can be argued that a person who is obese is primarily hurting himself (although general obesity does impose some harm on society as a whole). Assuming that people have a right of self-harm (a right I do accept) while not having the same liberty to harm others, then the distinction is easy to make. Except, obviously enough, for gun deaths resulting from suicide—if slow suicide by obesity should not be restricted, then it would seem that quick suicide using a gun would also be a liberty. At the very least, suicide deaths involving guns should be regarded as morally distinct from homicides involving guns.
In the case of automobiles, it might be tempting to argue that automobile deaths are accidents while gun deaths are intentional. However, there are accidental deaths involving guns and intentional deaths involving automobiles. Obviously enough, a vehicle can be used as a very effective weapon, albeit one that is hard to conceal.
A more plausible line of argument is to take a utilitarian approach: while severely restricting automobiles would significantly lower death and injury tolls (not to mention reducing pollution and perhaps encouraging exercise), the utility of the automobile provides an adequate offset against the harms arising from automotive liberty.
Unlike cars, it could be argued that guns lack adequate utility to morally justify the harms they cause. After all, guns are mainly used for entertainment such as hunting and target shooting. While they are sometimes used for survival hunting or protection against animal or human threats, these benefits are offset by the harms of allowing gun rights or liberties.
Naturally, when making the calculation of harms and benefits, if the entertainment value of guns is to be discounted or dismissed, then the same must be done for automobiles and anything else. This would include pool ownership. While pools are mainly for amusement, they cause numerous drowning deaths every year. This would also apply to tobacco—which has no practical benefit and is used solely for pleasure, despite the fact that it harms the user and those exposed to the second hand smoke. It could even apply to junk food, snacks and desserts—these are consumed for pleasure rather than any health benefit, yet are major contributors to obesity. It could even be argued that these harmful products are inflicted on people (by advertising and subsidies that make them cheaper than healthy food) and thus they could be seen as a form of attack.
Interestingly, if the restriction of guns is based on arguing that they are primarily entertainment and lack suitable utility, then the same line of reasoning can be used to restrict automotive rights. After all, if the enjoyment of target shooting does not justify the liberty to use a gun for this purpose, then the enjoyment of driving would not justify the liberty to drive for this purpose. As such, if automotive liberty is warranted in the face of death and injury on the basis of the utility of the automobile, then it seems reasonable to restrict automotive usage to matters of utility, such as transporting heavy items over a long distance. Merely driving around for amusement or to go someplace to be amused, such as a movie, would surely not warrant putting oneself and others at risk of death and injury.
Of course, gun defenders would tend not to concede that guns are primarily for amusement. Rather, they would point to the defense value of guns. After all, people are less inclined to attempt to commit crimes against those who are armed and being armed enables a person to mount a more effective defense against attackers. There is also the argument that private ownership of guns provides a balance against the compulsive power of the state. An unarmed population is only free at the discretion of the armed, which is a rather uncertain sort of freedom.
The stock counter to this is that people are, in fact, safer without guns and that the state can generally be trusted not to oppress the people to a degree that would necessitate armed resistance. These are, of course, factual matters—but not uncontroversial ones. After all, at the same time the terrible shooting was in the news so too was coverage of the Syrian state attacking its own people, people who had to turn to the force of arms to hold back the slaughter. Naturally, it can be said that it would be a better world without any weapons at all. This is true, but it would also be a better world if no one was willing to hurt anyone else and both of these seem about equally likely to come about.
Here is an interesting new aspect to the defense argument:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/lone_shooters_a.html
Mike;
Interesting post but this time I am not sure if I agree with the analysis.
I believe that making analogies bwetween gun, cars and food is OK, but I disagree the way they were compared.
For example cars, there are no bans in owning one, however, there are significant regulations on their use. And most of those regulations are around safety and fit for purpose. You do not see formula 1 cars on regular streets and there are specifications around what kind of cars you can drive. There are speed limits, regularly enforced; driver licenses; restrictions to driving under the influence; etc. All these regulations are design to prevent accidents and assure the safety of the population. And let me point out that cars are designed to help you move from one place to another, not to hurt other human beings and/or beings. Noone complains at the national level about these rules. We do not hear the let’s get rid of speed limits or let’s get rid of DUI laws by any association.
What about guns? The NRA and other groups lobby significantly to have as little restrictions on gun use as possible with complete disregard for the safety of the population. Contrary to cars, guns are designed to hurt, to kill; therefore in my mind regulations should be more strict. Why people are allowed to have open access to military grade weaponry is puzzling to me? How many people should die before we stop thsi problem?
Ok, let’s get rid of speed limits and DUI laws, or let’s allow vendors to sell poisoned/contaminated food. Let’s get rid of the FDA.
I personally care for people, their safety and well being, and I strongly believe in a critical role for the state in protecting its citizen’s, including improper use of cars, selling harmfull products (food, drugs), and, of course, guns.
In Syria we have an incipient civil war.
The rebels are being armed by Saudi Arabia and the golf states.
I’m not sure that it would have not been better for millions of ordinary Syrians caught between two military forces that the rebels had not received arms and that business, under Assad’s admittedly unpleasant dictatorship, had not gone on as usual.
swallerstein,
There are four “not’s” in the same sentence, which is confusing. Are you for, or against it?
Dennis:
Let’s see if I can clarify.
It might well have been better if the Syrian rebels had not received arms or did not have arms and if business as usual, under the dictatorship of Assad, had gone on as usual.
A civil war is often worse than a dictatorship.
Obviously, I cannot predict the future in Syria, but it looks like there is a tremendous refugee crisis, besides the innocent people being caught between two military forces.
One also wonders whether the government which replaces that of Assad might not be formed by fundamentalists, who are as bad or worse than Assad.
@swallerstein,
That is more lucid. Guns do not solve any problems.
I am not for the removal of guns but for tighter regulation regarding the purchasing of guns and a means to track unusual purchasing activities. We need tighter regulations in place to keep 17 year old kids from easily accessing a gun to plan a tragic event.
Ken, there are tens of millions, if not a hundred million, guns in the US. You can restrict sales of new ones, try to force people to register old ones, but there will always be millions of unregistered or stolen guns available.
Given recent police action, I would find it much more palatable to give up my guns if the police would also give up theirs. They seem a bigger threat than the regular criminals in many situations.
Would compulsory gun training at school not solve some of the fears people have about guns, both those who fear the concept of guns and those who fear incompetent gun owners?
swallerstein, civil wars inevitably have many, many innocent casualties but if the outcome is more freedom (and less vicious dictatorship) then it could be a ‘good thing’ on utilitarian grounds. Kind of depends on who takes over.
Keddaw:
Even accepting utilitarian grounds, determining whether a civil war is good depends not only on what kind of government takes over at the end, but also on the human cost of the war in terms of deaths, wounded, lives disrupted, private property destroyed, and psychological trauma that the war produces.
Those costs would have be weighed against the human costs of the dictatorship.
I know so little about Syria that I do not presume to make that calculation myself.
I suspect that many who are cheering the rebels on do not know much more about Syria than I do.
Juan,
Guns, like cars, are subject to severe use restrictions. Obviously, shooting people (other than in defense) is illegal as is threatening people. Guns are banned from many places, such as schools and theaters. There are limits on the types of guns people can own and how they can carry and transport them. There are also gun safety courses required for people who get hunting licenses or concealed weapons permits. There are background checks when one buys a gun. While the NRA does lobby to loosen restrictions, they do not represent all gun owners nor do they have complete success in their efforts.
True, guns are weapons. Interestingly, despite being designed to hurt living creatures, they harm fewer people in the United States than automobiles. On any given day, I am in far more danger from people driving cars than people with guns. I grew up in a gun culture, but I have never been involved in an incident of gun violence. However, I have had many run ins with people trying to hurt me with cars (for some reason, drivers often seem to hate runners). I’ve been intentionally grazed by cars and even intentionally bumped.I’ve lost track of the times drivers have thrown things at me and other runners/bikers. I have lost no friends to gun violence, but I have friends who have been killed by drivers breaking the law.
I never advocated getting rid of all gun control. As you note, that would be as foolish as abolishing traffic and food safety laws. My main concern is balancing the legitimate rights/liberties regarding guns (if any) against legitimate safety concerns. if banning guns would end violence, I would be for that. But, people will use knifes (as happened in China recently) or even cars if they decide to go on a rampage. Guns just make violence a bit easier-they do not make it possible. After all, murder, war and such predate the invention of firearms.
Dennis,
Guns can be rather useful tools in problem solving. For example, a hungry person can shoot an animal and solve the problem of hunger. They can also solve the problem faced by a person who is about to be raped or assaulted.
Of course, they can also be problem causers (at least contributory causes). For example, a criminal can use a gun to rob a person. As another example, a dictator can arm his troops and police so they can crush the unarmed population.
I agree. However, one serious problem is that we often do not know that a person should not have a gun until they commit violence. For example, the (alleged) shooter in Colorado had no criminal record and had not been judged to be mentally incompetent or a threat. In some ways it is like when a person kills someone while drunk driving-we cannot take their license until they actually break the law by driving drunk. By then it can be too late.
Keddaw,
True-gathering up the guns in the US would be a massive undertaking. There is also the problem that guns are valuable property and if the state just took them, that would seem to be theft. But, paying fair compensation for them would be rather expensive. I suppose the state could just make them illegal and try to steal them from people-but that would probably get ugly fast.
Swallerstein,
True-we won’t know until the dust settles and the dead are buried whether this has been a good thing or not. While getting rid of a dictator seems likely to be good, perhaps the replacement will be worse. Interestingly, the opposition that tends to survive in dictatorships tend to be groups that are not democratic or liberal.
Mike;
Thank you for the comments, I agree with the factual observation that car accidents kill more people than guns, in fact, as I know, car accidents are in the top ten causes of death. I also agree that guns are not the cause of violence but the consequence of violence. In fact, if violence did not exist, then guns or any kind of weapon would not exist.
Perhaps my apparent difference is that I believe that gun regulations are not sufficently strict or enforced to prevent and/or diminish the consequences of violent acts. As probably, speed limits are not sufficiently enforced. There has been a strong effort to increase and enforce DUI laws.
The problem I see is any effort to enforce current laws, like background checks, or set very reasonable new laws, like regulating how many rounds can you have in your automatic weapon, faced stern opposition from gun owners, at least the ones we heard from (NRA). For me that is like family members of people killed by drivers under the influence trying to enforce or get tougher laws on DUI facing a group of people for alcohol while driving.
If there were good and strict regulations preventable deaths by guns will diminish as preventable deaths by cars.
Mike,
I agree this is a “on the one hand – on the other hand” problem. However, that observation does nothing to help you in your quest to follow a general principle in gun control.
That is an interesting clarification of using guns for something else than shooting humans (hunting). However, there are so many endangered species on the planet, that hunting may be an improbable excuse for guns in the future. Many sportsmen have already taken to archery as a fairer way of hunting.
The analogy of the criminal and the robber is a cultural one. There is too much influence from fictitious television violence. Even the rape and assault example answers no questions about gun control. Many people would agree that one of the guns to restrict sales would be the Saturday Night Special, even for the purpose of self-defense.
It was surprising not finding in the article any mention of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms against repressive governments. With the Second Amendment, everybody ends up armed in a warfare situation – for example, the American Civil War.
In the specific example above, I was paraphrasing swallerstein on his remarks about the situation in Syria. Based on history of the Middle East, it is a reasonable prediction that guns will not solve any problems.
Whatever the NRA says, if there were less guns, there would necessarily be less gun crime. And if there were no guns….
All else involves justifying the endangerment of your fellow citizens, just to own a killing-thing.
Juan,
I do agree that the United States gun laws and enforcement do need to be improved. For example, there should be a better database system in regards to people who are legally unable to own guns because of past crimes or because of psychological problems. But, as people note, shooting people is already illegal and people who are willing to do that are no doubt quite willing to break lesser laws in order to get weapons. This is not to say that the laws should not exist, just that we should be realistic about what such laws can do. As you note, there are many laws regarding automobiles that people routinely break (hence the high injury and death rates). We could eliminate private automobiles, but that seems unrealistic. Likewise for guns in the United States.
Interestingly, some gun owners think the NRA goes too far. As I see it, they often fall victim to the slippery slope fallacy-namely, that if we do anything to control guns, then the inevitable result must be some dire outcome, like guns being completely outlawed.
I do admit that I am somewhat split on guns. On the one holster, I have considerable experience with responsible gun owners and I have enjoyed many hours of hunting and shooting. I also enjoy working on guns, much as some folks like working on cars. Plus, I also contend that a person has a moral right and obligation to be capable of acting in self-defense and this requires being competent and capable. It would be morally wicked and a mark of weakness to expect other people to protect one, unless, of course, one is truly helpless. On the other holster, people do terrible things using guns as their tool of choice and eliminating guns would no doubt have an impact on crime and violence.
Dennis,
There are also plenty of non-endangered species that can be hunted. It could be argued that we humans are part of the ecosystem as top-tier hunters (and gatherers) and that we do have a legitimate role to play. I should note that I have never been a mere sport hunter-I have never killed an animal just to hang its skull on my wall. Rather, everything ended up as a meal. Of course, I’m from the wilds of Maine.
I didn’t bring up the second amendment mainly because that is a matter of law and it has been argued that it is ambiguous.
In the American Civil War, the states supplied most of the guns. This does raise a good point: in terms of gun violence, the biggest killers are the folks who run states. While private citizens engage in gun violence every so often, the “elites” have sent millions of people down into death.
Steve,
True: if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. Likewise, if there were no cars, there would be no car crime. And so on, for all things that are involved in crimes. However, the question is whether or not eliminating guns or cars is worth the cost.
Being a runner and a black belt, I’d do quite well in a world devoid of guns and cars. I’d just run everywhere in safety.
Mike,
I disagree with creating a “database system in regards to people who are legally unable to own guns because of past crimes or because of psychological problems.” Such a policy would instantly be abused. For example, some unscrupulous elected Democrats would not hesitate to restrict the legal rights of Republicans for sins of the past or psychological (meaning political) differences.
What is your objection to discussing law concerning the Second Amendment, while seeking ambiguous legal discussion elsewhere?
Are there still moose in Maine?
Dennis,
Are you suggesting that there should be no restrictions for people who have a criminal background or psychological problems, or that no such list should be made public? I have serious concerns if you are arguing for the former. If the latter, I don’t see how such a public list would be any different than the sex crimes list. Both have the purpose of making folks aware of potential dangers.
Dennis,
There are already databases that are used for background checks, but they have various problems that allow people who should legally not have guns slip by. The lists I agree with consist of people who are violent felons and those legally judged (there is already a legal process for this) to be a danger to themselves or others due to psychological problems. Naturally, there are legitimate concerns that the lists might not be accurate or might be abused, but it does seem to be a good idea for law enforcement to be able to check to see if a person who is picking up an assault rifle, a few handguns, a shotgun and hundreds of rounds is a criminal or legally classified as a danger to himself and/or others.
Naturally, a weak point of such lists is that they do not contain the names of people who have yet to engage in a shooting. The alleged shooter in Colorado would not have been on such a list since he did not have a criminal record and had not been ruled “mentally unfit” or whatever the proper term is.
I suppose I mainly steered away from the Second because everyone uses it and I do not think I could come up with a new argument here. My own view is that it provides a clear legal basis for private ownership and the interpretation that it only applies to militias (the state) is in error. But, I obviously cannot prove this anymore than the other side can prove their interpretation (behold the power of ambiguity).
There are moose left in Maine. I won’t shoot a moose-they are too cool.
Ben,
Good analogy. If the public has the right to know about sex offenders (which it might not) because of the danger, then consistency would seem to require that the public be informed of violent criminals and people who have been found to be a danger to others on psychological grounds.
@Ben Myers-Petro,
Yes, that would be the suggestion. There are several reasons.
The database argument is no different from the Nazis classification of gypsies and Jews as undesirables. Many people died in WWII to stop that type of hatred. It is merely a modern digital extension of hatred exemplified in philosophical works like Hume’s “Of National Characters” or Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”.
America is slightly different that the rest of the world concerning judicial proceedings. In theory and often in practice, the American judicial system tries to seek a measure of truth in justice. However, in most of the world, justice is a sham and no one could depend upon a database to track any measure of truth.
One of the ideals behind a judicial system is that it is supposed to correct behavior. Thus, once a person pays their debt to society, there is no reason to continue to assume that the person will repeat. However, under the database system, a person is never erased from persecution. People change in their attitude and psychological make-up even six months apart. No database could ever predict when someone is going to commit a specific undesirable act.
If the database is more a few names long, then the state is accumulating enemies and provoking people to arm themselves or become refugees. This follows a basic principle of reciprocity. Simply put, who controls the database?
Dennis,
On the one hand, I do share your concerns about government lists. On the other hand, it seems sensible to have a means on checking to see if a potential gun buyer is a violent criminal or violently unstable. A database seems like a legitimate approach to this matter, provided that there is reasonable effort taken to reduce abuses. Naturally, it will not be perfect and someone, somewhere, sometime will no doubt misuse it. But that is true of almost everything in society, from driver’s licenses to tax forms.
Dennis,
The Sexual Offenders list and the ‘not permitted a firearm’ list are in place to attempt to inform law-abiding citizens of people who have committed a violent crime or may do so again. It is not something like whether they are Jewish or a Gypsy.
Reform is of course possible and I’m open to the idea of people earning their way off such lists. That being said, the requisite proof should need to be enormous. It is true, like you say, that someone may reform completely, but they would have to prove without a doubt that they have. And that is not simply something that I or you could be sure of.
Mike is right, if someone wanted to take advantage, they would. Nothing could truly stop that. Hitler certainly did. But to draw a connection to this sort of list is a bit unfounded.
@Ben Myers-Petro,
There is not much more that I can add to the debate. Several objections have been argued against creating a database that would prevent certain people from purchasing a firearm. There has been only one argument in favour of discrimination, and that is that a database can predict the psychological pattern of a potential gun purchaser. A gun vendor can sense whether a person is capable of handling a gun based on personal experience or intuition, but IMO no digital database could ever provide predictable psychological information without violating racial, political, gender or religious values.
Dennis,
If you would like to propose one of the several arguments, feel free.
Here is a second argument in favor of publicizing this sort of list:
-The registered sex offenders list is made public so that law abiding citizens can feel safer knowing that potentially, and previously, dangerous people, are partially restricted.
-The ‘not permitted firearms’ list is like the sex offenders list in that it also aims to both, restrict previously/potentially dangerous people, as well as make the public feel safer.
-Therefore, if the Sex Offenders list is justified, then the ‘not permitted firearms’ list is justified as well.
This argument is of course contingent on whether it is agreed that the Registered Sexual Offenders list is, in fact, justified.
Mike replied “True: if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. Likewise, if there were no cars, there would be no car crime. And so on, for all things that are involved in crimes. However, the question is whether or not eliminating guns or cars is worth the cost.” I feel obliged to point out the very different value of guns and cars, outside of their criminal uses. A gun has no justifiable use in civilised society, that I can see.
“Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775
Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)
Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)
Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2 (equivalent to 10 US murders).
For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita.” — http://www.juancole.com/
Statistics show that because of its liberal gun availability and laws, the US suffers from more gun related incidents/deaths than other developed countries where gun availability and laws are restrictive – eg UK,Germany etc
Mike;
My intuition regarding the comparison between car accidents and gun related death seems to be correct: they seem to point out that less guns result in less death.
Let me explain the data. If you compare the homicide rates by gun fire and gun ownership in first world countries, the USA has the highest rate of gunownership and death rates by gun fire, significantly higher than the rest of the first world. But if you compare the death rates by car accident with road fatalities per 100000 vehicles or vehicle-km, the USA is similar or identical to the same group of countries.
In my opinion, this data says that in the first world, where institutions are more establish and criminality is significantly lower, there is a clear correlation between gun ownership and death rates by guns, which is not parallel by a correlation between car ownership/usage and death rates by car accidents.
This conclusion is also in agreement with several publish studies, where there is a clear correlation between gun ownership and violent death b y gunfire in the USA.
Juan,
I do agree that if there are more guns, then there will tend to be more gun crimes. Likewise, less cars would tend to lead to less car related deaths.
It is, of course, worth considering if the reduction in guns would reduce violent crime significantly in the United States. That is, is there a significant number of people for whom the gun is a necessary condition for violent crime? Obviously, guns are necessary for gun crimes, but my main concern is not reducing just gun deaths, but deaths in general.
Mike;
I perhaps was not clear in my argument. In the first world and the USA, more cars do not correlate with more car related deaths; however, in the first world and USA more guns do correlate with more gun related deaths.
The correlation does not completely establish causation, and it is not clear for me the reason of this correlation. Usually, if one follows the 20/80 rule; 20% of gun owners will be responsible of 80% of the crimes. If we are truly serious about preventing gun related deaths, we should prevent that these people own guns. A similar correlation can not be establish for cars; not in the same grounds.
I like this article, but the comparisons are vague and quite a reach. I think there is a severe lack in consentration on INTENT, which seems to be the cause for destruction by guns, even more so than the vaguely covered car or food agents. Gun control should be discussed more in terms of your last paragraph, the will to hurt another. Enjoyable article.
This argument continues to avoid the central issues, IMO.
1. No guns = no gun crime.
2. There is no socially constructive reason to own a gun.
These two are the real clincher. But we can continue:
3. It’s quite difficult to kill someone with your bare hands. Take away the primary weapon of choice (the gun) and most people wouldn’t BE ABLE to kill someone.
Ban ALL guns, for EVERYONE, forever. There is no justification to do otherwise.
True, more cars might not lead to more car related deaths-after all, a person might own multiple cars. Since s/he can only drive one at a time, the increased number of cars would not increase his/her chances of killing or injuring someone while driving.
I would think that the majority of car deaths and injuries tend to be caused by a low percentage of drivers-that is, people who get in accidents often tend to get in multiple accidents. Of course, this percentage is probably different for guns-as you note, most gun owners do not commit crimes.
True, gun deaths tend to be intended (although there are accidental deaths as well) while auto deaths are more likely to be accidents.
It is interesting that people focus mostly on controlling guns rather than addressing the human causes of violence. While it is true that taking away guns would lower gun crime eventually, all the other causal factors would remain in place.
True, no guns would equal no gun crime. This would be true of anything involved in crime. No cars=no car crime. No fertilizer=no bombs made using fertilizer. No computers=no computer crime and so on.
However, there is still the question of whether or not eliminating things used in crimes is worth the cost. For example, it seems unlikely that it would be worth getting rid of computers to put and end to computer crime.
In the case of guns, it could (as I discussed in my post) be that their positive value (being used for target shooting, self defense, collecting, hunting and so on) is outweighed by their negative value (that is, making crimes of violence easier). There is also the question of the social cost of eliminating guns in the United States-that is, what impact would changing the laws and taking (perhaps by force) guns from citizens. I would not be inclined to hand over my gun to the state, if only because I am loath to put my faith in the goodwill of those who have all the weapons. That seems to be rather unwise. True, it could be said that the first world is not like other places and we will never have to worry about the state turning against the people. Then again, people who have had the state turn on them probably thought the same thing.
I do agree that killing a person without weapons is hard-but hardly not impossible. However, guns are not the only weapons available. While a knife lacks the range of a gun, within knife range a knife can be more lethal than a gun. There is also, of course, the matter of easy to make bombs. While in the US we tend to shoot each other, there are plenty of other ways (such as easy to make bombs) that can kill people.
While it is a slogan that guns don’t kill, but people do, it is also true. Guns make it easier to kill, but history clearly shows that people will make war and commit crimes even without firearms. After all, Alexander the Great did not have guns and Jack the Ripper did not shoot his victims.
Steve,
1. How do you plan on having no guns? Should the Armed Forces not have weapons? No armed police? Nobody allowed to cross the border with a gun (assuming you managed to rid the US of guns)? And with no guns how would you stop them?
2. Farmers killing pests have a reason to have guns, park rangers either protecting themselves, park patrons or culling animals have a reason, some groups of police have a compelling reason to have weapons, Armed Forces tend to do better with weapons and as they train in the US there should be weapons there. Seems to me there are strong socially constructive reasons to have at least some weapons in society.
3. Guns make life easier, but 2,000 Americans are murdered each year using knives. Without guns this number would be much larger but obviously rise less than the number of gun deaths.
4. If ALL guns are banned for EVERYONE, forever, then I think Mexican drug cartels would have a field day in the US. Even if they also magically gave up their guns their willingness to use extreme violence and terror tactics would make them more powerful than the mob in the 20′s.
I’m not necessarily in favour of guns, but they are a necessary evil in certain situations and your absolutist stance is illogical.
Mike;
“True, more cars might not lead to more car related deaths-after all, a person might own multiple cars. Since s/he can only drive one at a time, the increased number of cars would not increase his/her chances of killing or injuring someone while driving.”
It appears to me that I am failing to make an argument clear or that you are not accepting some basic statistic facts. The relationship of gun ownership and crimes committed by guns is fundamentally different than the relationship of car ownership and fatal accidents caused by cars. This difference is not explained by the trivial fact that a person might own two cars; the controls rule that out.
How to interprept this difference or how we use this information are a different issue. But it is clear that in the USA and contrary to car ownership, there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and crimes by gun.
I feel everyone will agree that the underlying cause of gunfire crimes and major problem is human violence.
If we want to diminish preventable deaths by intentional means, we need to address human violence. How to prevent it, diminish etc? And no matter how much we would like to do so, can we ban human violence?
I agree that banning guns will not solve the problem; Colombia, Brasil, Venezuela, Argentina have banned guns; ownership is very low, but crimes by gunfire are higher than in the US. The major cause is that crime organizations used the guns for their ilicit pruposes. the USA is very different and I strongly believe that there is a lot that can be done without banning guns.
My question is: In the US are guns owners more proclive to violence? Perhaps, people with violent tendency are more proclive to own guns, which result in higher crimes. Let me clarify this statement. I am not stating that in general gun owners in the USA are more proclive to violence. I do not know that, but the correlation between gun ownership and crime begs that question.
Juan,
The ownership of cars and guns still seem similar. After all, the number of car or gun deaths would seem to vary based on the ownership of said items. As others have said, no cars/guns no car/gun deaths. It would also seem that having more drivers out there would result in an increase in auto deaths, just as having more gun owners would tend to result in some increase in gun deaths. But, we can probably assume that I am getting your argument wrong.
True-if we want to reduce intentional deaths, then that would tend to involve focusing on human violence and why it occurs. According to some, we are becoming less violent as a species. So perhaps our efforts are paying off.
I would tend to think that people who are prone to violence might be more inclined to acquire weapons. However, as to whether or not owning a gun makes a person more inclined to violence, I would think that getting a gun would not change a person’s psychological makeup. I know many gun owners in several states and they exhibit no unusual tendencies towards violence. Of course, my sample is not vast and it could be biased by the fact that I tend to avoid people who are prone to violence.
Well, the correlation does raise the question but it does not beg it. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, but people misuse the term “begs the question” when they mean “raises the question.” Yes, I just went all “grumpy philosopher” there. I’ll feel better after I have some cake.
Mike;
“It would also seem that having more drivers out there would result in an increase in auto deaths, just as having more gun owners would tend to result in some increase in gun deaths”
I assumed correctly that I did not explain the argument correctly. This is the data I use to compare. First, the data measure gun owners per 100000, and gun fire related deaths as a percentage of crime related death. For cars, cars per 100000, and car deaths either per ownership or per driving distance. These data was compared accross several countries of the first world; i.e Europe, Australia, Canada and the USA. In this comparison, it was clear that more gun ownership led to more gun related crime in the US whereas more car ownership did not. You can make the comparison because you express them as ratios, you do not compare total numbers but ratios, and note that in cars you compare also for distance driven. This data indicates that the consequences of gun ownership in the US are different than in the rest of the first world. And this observation “raises the question”.( I love to learn)
As a final point, I went through all this data and statistics for several reasons: 1.- It is impossible to arrive to final conclusions as “gun ownership leads to more deaths” just on simple correlations; you need more detailed studues showing why 2.- To show how pieces of information that can be used to construct different conclusions that are unfounded.
With the evidence discuss here we can only concluded that gun ownership in the US as a percentage of population leads to an increase of the ratio of gun related guns. But we do not know the cause. We do not have detailed information about why. Who are responsible for this crimes? Is it truly related to poor enforcement of the rules? Is it related to criminal activities? And therefore crime so different in the US than in Europe, etc? And many more questions needed to understand the causes of this correlation. Understanding these causes will lead to more rational and efficcient policies. My fear is that irrational positions for and against gun control are hindering a sensible solution.
As a final note, I do not own guns and I am not inclined to. But talking with reasonable people I have come to appreciate the position of people that own guns.
I still strongly belive that the US needs better laws or enforcement of current laws on guns
Having a lethal weapon actually makes people less inclined to violence. But the outcomes when violence does occur are inevitably worse. cf. Police having pepper spray and tasers which where supposed to be used only in situations they’d otherwise have used guns. Turns out they now routinely use them against non-violent protesters where guns would never previously have been used.
Keddaw said “Farmers killing pests have a reason to have guns, park rangers either protecting themselves, park patrons or culling animals have a reason, some groups of police have a compelling reason to have weapons, Armed Forces tend to do better with weapons and as they train in the US there should be weapons there. Seems to me there are strong socially constructive reasons to have at least some weapons in society.”
Most of your reasons for owning guns there assume other people will have guns too. If — Happy Day!! — NO-ONE has a gun, then NO-ONE will need one to protect themselves. That leaves only farmers and park rangers killing animals, and that can be done with a bow and arrow if need be.
Others have mentioned (gun) collecting and target shooting, both of which are unnecessary, and could be sacrificed in return for the lives saved.
We could — and should, in an ideal world — ban guns completely, for everyone, forever. But this is the real world, and I acknowledge the difficulties that we would encounter if we actually tried it. Pro-gun arguments strongly feature our lack of trust in our fellow human beings, justifiably.
Our underlying capability for violence is what leads to gun crime and killings, but that still doesn’t account for the emotional attachment that shooters have for their guns. Examine the pro-gun arguments: there’s a clear and strong desire in many people to own a means of killing their peers. Without that threat, they feel, er, I wonder what the hell it is they DO feel. Not owning a gun, and not wanting to, I can’t put myself in their shoes.
Juan,
Thanks for taking the time to address my ignorance (I also like to learn).
As you note, one rather important concern is sorting out what increases gun violence. I would agree that the current gun control mechanisms and methods have flaws that allow people to have guns who should not. There are also problems in the screening process-some have suggested making the screening used for concealed weapon permits apply to all gun ownership. That requires an extensive background check as well as education in gun safety. While this will not prevent gun crime, it might help reduce it.
One obvious problem is that someone who is willing to murder other people is probably not going to balk at breaking gun control laws, so part of the challenge is limiting illegal access to guns. Given the success rates of denying people access to other illegal things, like drugs, I think we can expect rather limited success.
Given how well-armed Americans are, the gun death rates can be seen as actually somewhat low. Not low enough, obviously.
Keddaw,
That is an interesting point. If people have access to “non-lethal” weapons, it would make sense that they would escalate more rapidly from talking to zapping/spraying.
Steve,
Even if no one had a gun, it could be argued that people might still need them for self-defense. After all, people are not equal in terms of strength and unarmed combat ability. There are also many other lethal weapons available, such as knifes. People who are not adept at knife fighting might need a gun for defense against someone who knows how to use one and has the desire to harm them.
Killing animals with a bow is obviously possible, but I do not think it would be practical for rangers and farmers to rely on bows.
People do feel attachments to their weapons-this goes back way before guns. Of course, people also feel attachments to other tools/machine such as cars, boats and planes. While I am sure that some gun owners like the idea of having a tool that makes killing easier (just as people no doubt enjoy owning knifes, bows or spears), that does not seem to be the case for the gun owners I know. Most own weapons for self-defense, for hunting, for target shooting or for collecting.
As I noted in my post, similar arguments could be given against cars: most of their use is not necessary. Also, their use leads to numerous fatalities, they pollute and they use resources. Getting rid of private car ownership would make a better world.
Of course, I’m writing from the perspective of a runner and someone who is not fond of cars (which I regard as the unnatural enemy of runners).
Mike,
I agree with you on two counts of your car analogy:
1. That cars kill at a more frequent rate than guns are of serious concern.
2. That ridding the world of private car ownership would be a good thing. That is a view I personally hold.
There is still the fundamental difference between guns and cars and that is that cars were not designed to harm. Guns were. That is their primary purpose. Car related deaths are a side effect of cars, not the car carrying out it’s function. Of course, accidental gun deaths are obviously misuses as well but that does not diminish the fact that there is a difference.
For this reason, I don’t think the analogy stands up.
“1. That cars kill at a more frequent rate than guns are of serious concern.”
Ben;
Road fatalities per 100000 in USA: 12.3
Murder by gunfire per 100000 in uSA: 10.3
In my mind these two numbers are essentially the same. We need to take into account errors and who makes the evaluation.
Juan,
You are correct, that was not the wording I should have used. I mean to say that cars cause more deaths than firearms.
Sorry Ben, but here are the numbers i found
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 60, No. 3, December 29, 2011
Deaths by Motor vehicle traffic: 34,485
Death by firearm: 31,347
Unintentional 554
Suicide 18,735
Homicide 11,493
The factual data says that deaths by motor vehicle traffic are equeal to death by firearms.
That is why i feel Mike’s comparison is a little bit weak. We need cars to do chores, go to work, etc. Even if possible, it is difficult to have a modern society without cars. However, it is possible at least for me to imagine a society without so many guns.
But if some people want to have them, I believe I have the right to demand responsible ownership and tough rules on their use
Juan,
Thank you for the statistics. That is interesting that the numbers are that close. I do agree, the analogy is not quite there.
My main argument, though, was not that cars should be eliminated, rather that private car ownership should.
According to the US Census’ website, in 2009 almost 36,000 people died in motor vehicle related accidents. Less than 50 died on, or because of, a Bus. But that is really besides the point of this gun related article.
Ben,
Good points. It does seem worth making an analogy (as you do) between private and public ownership.
In this case, the comparison would be between guns and vehicles. After all, if our goal is to reduce death and injury and private ownership of X creates more deaths than having public ownership of X (and X has a legitimate role), then removing private ownership would seem worth considering.
While there is a legitimate need for transportation, this could be handled by pubic transport and if this resulted in less deaths, would be justifiable on those grounds. Likewise, while the police need access to guns (public gun ownership), then private ownership could be justifiably denied. Likewise for other things that the principle would fit.
Equivalence fallacy, my friend. A gun is designed to kill. Not so a car, which is designed to transport. It isn’t merely a utilitarian argument, guns are meant to kill. That is their purpose. Your arguments would be true if the question was “How many deaths could be avoided”, but the question is really “How many GUN deaths can be avoided”… or… more apposite… “How can we disarm the occasional lunatic before the shooting begins”.
One has to wonder if the kids of Newton were a blood sacrifice for a my “freedom” to buy assault weapons whenever I want them. This was far too great a sacrifice.
(Just in case someone seeks a genetic fallacy… I’m a gun owner, been so most of my life, but very critical of current licensing schemes)
Steven Sims,
Thanks for the comment.
While guns are designed to kill and cars are not, cars are still very dangerous and effective improvised weapons. They are also causally involved in more deaths in the US per year than guns. So, it does seem reasonable to consider guns and cars as being analogous is some important ways. However, there are cases in which the distinction of intended purpose would break the analogy.
Many freedoms come with a price in blood. The freedoms to drink alcohol, drive a car, have a pool, have power tools and so on are paid for in injuries in death every year. We have, by accepting these things, tacitly or explicitly agreed that we will pay blood for these things and more. Is the freedom to have a beer worth the deaths involving alcohol? Is the freedom to drive to the mall to buy stuff worth the deaths involving automobiles?
Steve, you should take more care when throwing fallacies around. Take Mike’s example and say things are designed rather than having purpose…
Guns are designed to fire bullets straight and true, possibly lots of bullets in rapid succession. But that is still not ‘to kill’ and in no sense is killing their ‘purpose’.
In fact, if you want a purpose for guns it is to be sold. Their selling point is their ability to kill.