Revenge of the NJ Oxymorons: Smart Gun Control

When I read the first couple of paragraphs of North New Jersey’s The Record editorial Smart Gun Control, I thought to myself “Holy smokes! They’re actually finally starting to get it!”

NEW JERSEY has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, but even they cannot prevent an unstable man from opening fire and killing people. The tragic shootings last month at the Pathmark in Old Bridge remind us of that. Not that we needed reminding, because we never had a chance to forget that gun violence can crop up anywhere, regardless of the severity of the laws.

Brilliant! They’ve finally figured out that gun control doesn’t work and are going to recommend repealing all those stupid mala prohibita gun laws that are supposed to prevent crime but don’t work, right? . . .

Well no, not quite.

Even New Jersey’s comparatively tough gun laws, which prohibit the sale and possession of high-capacity semiautomatic weapons, are not strong enough. We don’t have a ready solution, but we do know that New Jersey and the nation need to have the conversation about how to better keep guns out of the hands of killers.

There’s a difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se law, especially as regards gun control. Malum prohibitum literally means wrong (or evil) because prohibited while malum in se means wrong/evil in and of itself. A good example of mala prohibita laws are those regarding so-called “assault weapons”; having a flash-hider, telescoping stock or bayonet lug isn’t something that’s wrong all by itself. Laws against shooting someone (outside of DGUs) are a good example of mala in se laws because harming someone else is obviously wrong in and of itself. Got it?

The primary purpose of mala prohibita gun laws isn’t to punish bad behavior, but to prevent it, as demonstrated by the TReb[1]’s statement that we “need to have the conversation about how to better keep guns out of the hands of killers.” When you pass laws which are primarily focused on preventing some sort of crime and they don’t work one of the “conversations” you should have is not how to make them stricter, but whether they should just be repealed.

I have often suggested that since gun control laws don’t work, they should be repealed. One of the two standard retorts I get from the antis is “well since laws against murder don’t stop all murders should we just go ahead and repeal them?” This is why I explained the difference between mala prohibita and mala in se laws; the primary purpose of laws against murder is not to prevent murders (although they do have a deterrent effect) but rather to punish people who commit them.

Most gun control laws, however, aren’t written with an eye towards punishing bad behavior but rather trying to prevent it. As I mentioned earlier, various “assault weapon” laws are good examples, as are background checks, prohibitions on felons or domestic offenders having guns, bans on concealed carry and bans on guns in certain locations (like schools, churches, government buildings, etc.); none of the proscribed items or behaviors actually cause any harm. Instead they are viewed as being precursors to criminal behavior.

The TReb continues:

So we are glad to see that New Jersey voters are in favor of tighter gun control laws while they also support the Second Amendment. It’s a sensible middle ground that we wish politicians of both parties would act on.

I’m sorry guys, there is no such thing as a “middle ground” between tighter gun control laws and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Regardless of what percentage of the population is in favor of curbing my rights, the fact of the matter is the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility[2]. And I’m pretty sure that the laws you currently have (you know, the ones that aren’t working?) were sold as being a sensible middle ground.

That’s another problem with these mala prohibita laws; each one is pushed as being common sense and reasonable, but each one moves the end-point of the discussion. For example, not selling weapons to felons certainly seems “common sense and reasonable,” but then when that doesn’t work, gun grabbers introduce the “common sense and reasonable” background checks for all FFL sales.

When criminals still get guns, several states (like New Jersey) passed the “common sense and reasonable” restrictions on sales at gun shows. But even that’s not good enough as the Bradys and VPC have now changed their talking point from the “gun show loophole” to the “private sale loophole.” Each and every one of these infringements on that which shall not be infringed is sold as “common sense and reasonable” and each one takes us further away from our fundamental liberty. It’s called incrementalism.

When all else fails, trot out some poll numbers:

According to a new Rutgers-Eagleton poll, 65 percent of respondents think gun control is more important than gun ownership, Washington Correspondent Herb Jackson reports. Twenty-seven percent see it the other way around. Forty-seven percent would like stricter state gun laws, 28 percent like them the way they are and 11 percent would like them to be more lax.

You can see the poll here, but it’s a non sequitur. Rights aren’t subject to beauty contests or popular sentiment. I don’t care how many people want to bring back slavery, segregation, coverture, child labor or branding as a criminal punishment but ultimately, it just doesn’t matter; fundamental liberties are not subject to opinion polls.

To continue:

Interestingly, a greater number of gun owners think the state’s gun laws should be stricter.

… More than 1 in 5 of those polled said someone in the family owned a gun.

Well of course people who already have guns are in favor of more restrictions because none of them believe the restrictions will ever affect them. One of the classic examples of this occurred in L.A. during the riots. From the May 4, 1992 issue of USA TODAY (as quoted at ammoland.com):

The rush to weapons began almost immediately after the riot’s first vivid images went out over TV.

Shopkeepers said some gun buyers were lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they’d never need – only to find themselves blocked by gun-control legislation that requires Californians to wait 15 days.

Katherine von Tour also mentions this in her Gun Owners of America essay:

As the riots threatened to spill over into Beverly Hills, myriad Hollywood types stormed gun stores to arm themselves, only to be told that there was a 15-day waiting period; radio talk shows boiled with people calling in and screaming about how unfair this was, and how the law was leaving them helpless.

Some of them even admitted that they had previously supported the waiting period, and that they were now furious that it had left them unarmed.

Damn that shoe pinches when it’s on the other foot, doesn’t it? The point is, most of the people supporting these laws firmly believe that they will never be affected.

In addition, New Jersey gun ownership is hardly reflective of the national scene; the ‘more than 1 in 5 households with guns’ turns out to be 22% which is less than half of the self-reported national average of 47%.

The TReb blathers on a bit about elections, politics and politicians, and then hits us with their big finish:

People who never should have gotten their hands on a gun are murdering Americans in the public square. It’s a problem that transcends class, income and views on gun possession. It’s an American problem.

Except that, as Don Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser pointed out in their piece, Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide murder is not a uniquely American phenomenon. In fact since 1965 the Soviet Union, with extremely strict gun control and a literal police state, has had murder rates which dwarfed those of the United States. And oddly enough, as the number of states with loosening gun laws and “shall-issue” permit laws has gone up over the past two decades, our murder rate has been dropping pretty steadily.

As Kates and Mauser point out, correlation is not causation and there are many social and economic factors involved in homicide rates but the reverse correlation observed between gun “availability” and crime in so many areas of this country indicates that TReb’s simplistic “availability = massacres” postulate is all wet.

Finally, let’s look at some of our country’s other massacres:

  1. Various Locations 09/11/2001: 2,996 dead, 6,000+ injured – Box cutters
  2. Murrah Federal Building 04/19/1995: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 168 dead, 680+ injured – Bomb
  3. Dupont Plaza Hotel 12/31/1986: San Jaun, Puerto Rico 97 dead, 140 injured – Arson
  4. Happy Land Disco 03/25/1990: New York, New York 87 dead, 28 injured – Arson
  5. Bath Consolidated School 05/18/1927: Bath, Michigan 44 dead, 58 injured – Bomb

Hmm, look at that; the top 5 deadliest (non-democide) mass killings of the last century and nary a gun to be seen.

The fact of the matter is gun control laws will never eliminate this sort of violence which means the antis will always have fresh puddles of innocent blood to dance in. And as they do, they’ll call for the next “common sense and reasonable” laws to pass so the “middle ground” keeps getting smaller and smaller until there is no room left for people exercise their right to armed self defense.



[1] The Record editorial board

[2] L. Neil Smith: Letter to a Liberal Colleague

avatar

About Bruce W. Krafft

I am a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the civil rights (firearms flavor) movement, having not really gotten involved until after I hit 40. I am not really a "gun guy"; I can generally hit what I aim at, but I'm not a competitive shooter. I enjoy the craftsmanship of a fine pistol or rifle, but I am not particularly knowledgeable about firearms in general nor am I a Glock guy, or 1911 guy, I'm just a guy. What I am is passionate about civil rights, especially those of the firearm flavor.

26 Responses to Revenge of the NJ Oxymorons: Smart Gun Control

  1. avatarJoshinGA says:

    Is it wrong that I have a strong urge to get up in their faces and shout at them that their way isnt working, how about we try something else now?

  2. avatarSammy says:

    According to a new Rutgers-Eagleton poll, 65 percent of respondents think gun control is more important than gun ownership, Washington Correspondent Herb Jackson reports.

    VERY SCARY stats. The Nanny state grinds forward as unstoppable as a glacier.

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      I think gun control is more important than gun ownership. It is important to get rid of gun control that is.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Polls are so easy to tweak that the information in them is pretty useless.

      • avatarPhil B says:

        Agreed – depending on how the question is phrased, you can get different results. Example – compulsory military training (CMT).

        “Do you think that CMT, that teaches discipline, teamwork and life skills to young people should be introduced?”

        OR

        “Do you think that CMT, that teaches aggressive young men fitness, combat skills and how to handle firearms should be introduced?”

        So be careful before you accept a poll result unless you have seen how the question was phrased and what the context was.

  3. avatarMoose says:

    I went through a pretty big change after my CCW class. The way I saw police and people in general took a drastic change. Not for the worse, but towards reality. Most people take their safety for granted, they never actually believe that anything can happen to them. A good CCW class will teach you that just isn’t true. Maybe they should try one sometime.

  4. avatarEATENG says:

    Great article. I especially enjoyed the education on “malum prohibitum” vs “malum in se” laws. There is a point you made that I wanted to discuss a bit more though. You wrote:

    “Rights aren’t subject to beauty contests or popular sentiment. I don’t care how many people want to bring back slavery, segregation, coverture, child labor or branding as a criminal punishment but ultimately, it just doesn’t matter; fundamental liberties are not subject to opinion polls.”

    I completely agree that fundamental liberties are not subject to opinion polls, but I’d argue that how those liberties or rights are defined do change based on public opinion and the progression of civilization. The best example is The Eighth Amendment which simply states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The text itself does not implicitly define what is excessive, cruel, or unusual. But it is obvious that what is deemed as acceptable fines and punishments have changed quite a bit since the Constitution’s original adoption.

    I am not in any way saying that we should have a revisionistic view of the Constitution, but only that certain things were not spelled out by the founding fathers and can be open to interpretation and do change with the times. On the other hand, language such as “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” seems excruciatingly clear. To me anyways.

  5. avatarGS650G says:

    Frank is well into his 80s, he came out of retirement when Torricelli imploded in 2004. He will have to be carried out of that seat feet first.

    • avatarjoe says:

      The sooner the better-Lousenberg is a certified piece of sh*t and the world will be a better place without him(and Schumer).

  6. avatarSilver says:

    As a refugee from NJ, I can attest that that place is as lost a cause as Chicago or NYC.

  7. avatarSanchanim says:

    So we try to have some sort of discussion and they keep moving the target? Well that aint fair!!!! Actually I would love to see national reciprocity go into effect. Then we in CA can go to Nevada and get our licenses. Perfectly legal and a fraction of the cost. The CA legislature would blow a gasket!! :-)

  8. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    “So we are glad to see that New Jersey voters are in favor of tighter gun control laws while they also support the Second Amendment”

    And by NJ gun owners do you mean all the cops, judges, and politicians who ARE eligible to get a concealed carry permit under our National Socialist level gun laws? I can confidently say that is impossible. Here you are either persecuted Joe gun owner who pines for residence in a different state and still supports the 2nd passionately, or you’re one of the neighborhood anti-gunners who gets a hard-on just thinking about Orwell’s 1984 coming to fruition in this country. It’s a land of two extremes.

  9. avatarRalph says:

    What this country needs is common sense New Jersey control. And if the sea keeps rising, or Chris Christie gets any fatter, we’ll have it.

  10. avatarAverage_Casey says:

    There is no such thing as “smart gun control”. I would like to see every gun control advocate go and shoot 500 rounds from an AR-15, 500 rounds out of a full size 9mm pistol, and 100 rounds out of a shotgun. Then, I’d like to hear what they think about firearms and gun control. I’d bet a few would change their opinions.

  11. avatarFrank says:

    slowclap.jpg

  12. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Speaking with some intimate familiarity with the situation in NJ, the problem is that it has become a self-perpetuating system of government spoils and politicians controlling the spoils, which results in a state full of serfs.

    Whatever stupid idea their politicians peddle, the majority of the population will say “Why, that’s a brilliant idea! We’re all for it!” because as long as they do, they get their money from these political hacks.

    What pro-RKBA people should do is concentrate this sort of stupidity into a few states, then make these states suffer the inevitable results as criminals figure out which states are more hospitable to criminal predation. Some might regard this as cruel on my part – but it is, after all, what those people voted for. Therefore, I see it as only fitting to let them have what they said they wanted.

    That they didn’t fully understand what they said they wanted when they voted for it is their problem. That’s a problem of low intelligence. The only way they’re going to learn is from experience. So let them have experience… lots of it.

  13. avatarGreg Camp says:

    Compromise is fine in areas in which compromise is appropriate. Rights aren’t one of those areas. I’ll repeat here the question that should always be asked of writers who support gun control: How would you feel about having the expression of your opinions controlled? After all, words can be used to harm innocent people. Words can even incite violence. We must have speech control.

  14. avatarJeff says:

    This is a great essay. Very well articulated points. Thank you.

  15. avatarCharlie Ackers says:

    My stars and garters! seeing lousenberg again is giving me flashbacks. Couldn’t wait to get out of nj and am loving it here in LA (lower Alabama ), nj just sucks the life out of you.

  16. avatarLarry in NJ says:

    New Jersey still has it’s “smart gun” law on the books. It kicks in as soon as a handgun is invented that only fires for its owner. When that happens it will be the only kind of handgun you will be able to purchase.

    Possession of a magazine with a capacity exceeding 15 rounds (no gun or cartridges) will get you 10 years in the Greybar Hotel.

    NJ doesn’t have gun shows.

  17. The UK has some of the strictest firearms restrictions around, yet yesterday morning a wanted criminal used a handgun (banned from lawful possession in 1997) & a hand grenade (banned since forever) to murder two young policewomen.

    Just exactly HOW MUCH more restrictive than the UK does the writer of that editorial wish his gun laws to be if such crimes are to be stopped – whilst remaining “common sense” of course…….

  18. avatarClyde Barrow says:

    Too many of our elites do indeed carry a gun themselves, or they have bodyguard escorts who bear “ARMS”. Surely their defense need is no greater than mine if/when attacked. Yet they are allowed.
    Another major point I have is that millions of USA citizens are allowed to bear arms, yet millions are NOT allowed that same RIGHT simply because they live in a State with powerful politicos. As power grows, so our rights diminish. This is tyranny and what our Constitution was designed to prevent.

  19. avatarM_in_NJ says:

    As a transplant to NJ, I can tell you first hand that there is no dialogue about common sense gun control laws. The legislative din is simply summarized as more, more, more restrictions. It’s never restrictive enough for the urban legislative reps and one more law is a step in the right direction.

    I also want to offer a clarification. The poll found 22% of respondents had someone in their family who owned a firearm. Thats different than being a gun owning household. I don’t have a citation handy but my recollection is that only 2-4% of NJ households have registered firearms. He thicket of forms, steps, laws and restrictions on ranges have effectively reduced firearms ownership by 90-95% here in the Garden State. It’s a very small minority and the prevailing social hostility against firearms makes the STFU principle doubly important.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.