The Firearm Problem

In response to Ms. Hausmann’s post: Who’s the Real Killer? I would like to point out and clarify a few issues.

My own position on gun control is something of a shaky one. Certainly I believe that Americans should have access to and be able to enjoy the use of firearms; however I’m not sure how much freedom individuals should have with their firearms. Idealistically I do support Ms. Hausmann’s argument. Conversely, I have a few problems with the details of that argument.

While it is true that the men who cobbled together the Bill of Rights felt that gun ownership was important, this does not make for a solid argument to limit gun control. This is particularly apparent when you consider that George Washington argued against a standing Army. In the modern world this would be inconceivable. So this would seem to be more an argument for the obsolete nature of the 2^nd Amendment.

The reference to Eisenhower is much more compelling. (A exceptional reference by the way.) Does the easy answer mean the right answer? An economic system built partly around military contracts probably carries with it certain darkly violent negative consequences. So might the outlawing of firearms. Though, when we look at the statistics, maybe upholding the 2^nd Amendment also has dark consequences.

The argument is made that Australia and England have seen a sharp increase in gun violence since outlawing firearms. Snopes.com argues this an incorrect interpretation of the Australian statistics. As we can see from the graph on above, the amount of gun ownership seems to correlate directly to gun deaths. Though, like all statistics, the people correlating the data usually have an agenda. An example of manipulating statistics (or not) can be found here. They are trying to make the point that the United States just happens to be more violent, but I find it a little shocking that we rate so much significantly higher than countries that have a similar culture and legal structure. We are just under Northern Ireland in 1994. In 1994 the IRA finally declared a ceasefire, but only on the 31^st of August. The fact that we were ranked barely under a country torn apart by sectarian violence, and our violence was mostly made up of firearms, seems to suggest a problem.

To do away with guns would not end violence. However, it would make violent crime a significantly trickier proposition. It seems to me that these statistics do a pretty good job of suggesting the cost in life of legalized firearms. Now, while the cost in life is significant, as Ms. Hausmann points out, there are plenty of other ways to kill people. In fact, most of the arguments against gun control point out that most places that outlawed guns and have low incidences of gun violence, already had lower violence. So while the old adage “Guns don’t kill people, I do,” is certainly true, guns make it significantly easier to kill. It also makes killing in bulk easier.

The big question is would outlawing guns actually save lives? It would probably save several thousand a year (wild guess) but it might not be that statistically significant. As I mentioned above, killing is still going to happen. Actual murder rates occur somewhat independently of firearms.

So are a few thousand people worth our freedom? As Thomas Jefferson said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” I suppose that includes our liberty to bear arms. (But it seems kind of creepy to me.)