Let the Lambs Contest
It
is a debate that has raged for 239 years. Since the time of our Declaration of
Independence, the “serious right to keep and bear arms”, as discussed by
LaFollette (2007), is a debate often viewed from two extremes, either private
citizens may not own “any gun” to private citizens may own guns “with no
restrictions” (p. 179). Bailey (n.d.) presents the author of the Declaration of
Independence, Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria:
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
LaFollette (2007) states, “the best overall moral practice is
one in which normative questions arise from our attempts to wrestle with
concrete moral issues” from which both “meta-ethical questions” and “careful
reflection” may illuminate each inquiry and lead to reasonable considerations
(p. 1). As with any ethical discussion, an historical perspective is always
helpful. As LaFollette (2007) primarily discusses gun control in the United
States, a brief look at the debates taking place at the time of the proponents
and opponents of the U.S. Constitution provides the beginning arguments.
Writing as
Publius in Federalist No. 46, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (2003) warn that is
either State or Congressional legislatures fail to “sufficiently enlarge their
policy to embrace the collective welfare”, then “measures will too often be
decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and
happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments
and people of the individual States” (p. 293). They imagine a time wherein “an
uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray” could amass power and control
over the people through a standing army; however, the repel to such a danger would
be well-armed citizens, ready to stand with their State (Hamilton et al., 2003,
p. 295). They further offer if a standing army, controlled by the provisions of
the Constitution, equaling “one hundredth” of our population at the time, not more
than 30,000 men, were to be used to against the citizens, by sheer numbers, an
opposing militia of almost 500,000 well-armed citizens would repel any such
attempt to deny “common liberties” (Hamilton et al., 2003, p. 296). This was
the reality facing our country at the time of its independence.
Opponents, writing
as Anti-Federalists and presented by Raffin (2010), are those, who through
their “meta-ethical questions” helped lead to the development of the Bill of
Rights (LaFollette, 2007, p. 1). The Federalists came up with a list of the “least
restrictive” requests and assured opponents of their eventual passage (Raffin,
2010). George Mason, a strong voice of the Anti-Federalists copied “to keep and
to bear arms” from “Virginia’s Declaration of Rights” and married those words
with “concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing
army” (Raffin, 2010). What concerns did Anti-Federalists express? Based on
historical evidence from both England and our nation’s early years, it was well
understood a standing armies “were the main tool monarchs used to impose their
will in 17th century England” (Raffin, 2010). This practice eventually
led to the adoption of an “English Bill of Rights” which included a “Militia
Act” allowing Protestant subjects to “have arms for their defense” (Raffin,
2010). This act only protected citizenry from the crown, not Parliament; and,
because of this, Madison declares this portion of England’s Bill of Rights, “inapplicable”
(Raffin, 2010). Our founders feared an out of control government, not simple an
overzealous monarch. In 1774, “a secret military” standing arming seized “publicly
owned gunpowder in the Charleston powder house” (Raffin, 2010). This led
Patrick Henry to head a detail to either regain possession or reimbursement for
the powder; and, more importantly, Massachusetts added “keeping” to its “bearing”
of arms in its State “declaration of rights”, from which Mason borrowed the
language (Raffin, 2010). Anti-Federalists also worried the Federal Constitution
would overrule those of the States and not only would state militias be destroyed
through defunding, individual rights would be lost to the federal government
(Raffin, 2010). Pennsylvania, along with its delegation of Anti-Federalists,
passed the following to its bill of rights:
The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people of any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals (Raffin, 2010).
It is the element of real danger that drives the debate today.
LaFollette
(2007) queries if the very character of a gun is that which makes it “especially
harmful” (p. 183). As he continues, he notes guns were specifically created for
armies and “they were designed to cause (and threaten harm)” (LaFollette, 2007,
p. 184). This fundamental purpose is what further drives redesign to achieve
greater efficiency. We have progressed from flint, musket-ball pistols and
rifles, to Glock handguns and AR 15 assault rifles. LaFollette (2007) contends
gun control prescribes “what governments should allow private individuals to do”
not what the private citizen should do (p. 185). Statistics listed by
Williamson (2013) demonstrate a less than clear answer as to whether homicides
in the U.S. are tied to gun ownership. The U.S. realizes a “4.8 per 100,000”
homicide rate (Williamson, 2013). Switzerland, described as a “gun-loving”
nation has a lower murder rate than the United Kingdom, known for its tight gun
control measures (Williamson, 2013). Sweden and Cuba, the latter being a “police
state”, realize a murder rate of 5.0, higher than the U.S. (Williamson, 2013). The
majority of “gun deaths” in the U.S. are attributed to suicide, not murder
(Williamson, 2013). Likewise, assault rifles accounted for 358 deaths in 2010
(Williamson, 2013). Guns defined as “legally owned fully automatic weapons”
have been tied to only two murders and of those two, one was used by a
policeman against a troubled individual (Williamson, 2013). Given there is a
wide range of results with the combination of strict or liberal gun policies,
the constant variable with any equation is the “violent crime”, not the number
of gun laws on the books (Williamson, 2013). Williamson (2013) notes those
states with strict gun laws and discovers many of the gun sales take place
illegally and as such statistics are easily manipulated to provide the appearance
of lower crime rates. For example, a gun illegally sold in Illinois and used to
commit a crime in Indiana does not appear in any records of Illinois
(Williamson, 2013). He goes on to suggest a correlation that differs from
LaFollette (2007). Whereas LaFollette (2007) observes strong correlations
between gun ownership and violent crimes; Williamson (2013) points to a “correlation
between municipal liberalism and violent crime” that is much stronger than
LaFollette’s (2007) observation. Williamson (2013) cites Detroit, Chicago, and
Philadelphia, long governed with liberal policies and warns New Yorkers they
will miss “nanny-in-chief Michael Bloomberg” once replaced by the same “cookie-cutter
Democratic-machine liberal”. He may very well be on to something.
Of the
arguments LaFollette (2007) presents, I rather appreciate the idea of liability
insurance. Certainly there is sufficient statistical data from which to form
actuarial tables that could provide appropriate rate differences for a policy
covering a hand gun as opposed to one insuring an assault weapon. I believe this
would encourage owners to teach their children how to use the weapon, as was
the case in the early days of our founding. Children, much younger than we can
imagine, often learned to fire and care for a weapon before learning to ride a
horse. As with teaching our children to drive, we encourage them to pass
driver-educational course in order to receive lower insurance rates. We add
insurance coverage so they can operate the vehicle. I have no doubt law-abiding
citizens would endeavor to comply; but, criminals, regardless of the
regulations, just as we saw with prohibition, will always find a way to obtain
a weapon if they are intent on doing harm. Because of this, I do agree it is a
citizen’s “right to keep and bear arms”, especially in the aftermath of
California. Apparently others believe this, too, as according to many
headlines, gun sales have increased because of the current administration.
References
Bailey, B. (n.d.). The Founding
Fathers on the Second Amendment. The
Federalist Papers
Project. Retrieved
from https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers- on-the-second-amendment
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., &
Jay, J. (2003). The Federalist Papers. (C.
Rossiter, Ed.).
New
York: Signet Classic.
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Raffin, R. (2010, May). Mason,
Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms.
Stanford Progressive. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi- bin/?p=559
Williamson, K.D. (2013, May 3).
The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate. National
Review.
Retrieved
from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347263/dishonest-gun-control- debate-kevin-d-williamson
No comments:
Post a Comment