By Jared D. Van Vranken
Since the Newtown massacre, proponents of civilian disarmament compare the United States to the United Kingdom. They point out that the UK’s total firearm death rate (which includes suicides) is less than half than ours. Therefore, the argument goes, we should severely limit the availability of firearms. As the President said, if we could save just one more life, then a new Assault Weapons Ban is well worth it. . . .
The pro-gun side asserts that the UK has seen their overall violent crime rates soar; up 250 percent since 1992, according to the Home Office. This despite their limited gun rights and availability. As America has a lower violent crime rate, it shouldn’t change its gun laws. Doing so would increase the number of violent assaults and rape and cost lives.
I submit that when discussing what the appropriate breadth of civil rights should be, body count has no bearing on the matter. In fact, determining what civil rights we should have based solely upon the expected amount of casualties that may result from those rights is exactly the method necessary to justify violating all of our civil rights.
For example, let’s say State X passes a law mandating that everyone who is a resident of that state must also be an organ donor. Instead of having to check a small box to choose to be a donor at the DMV, the state makes that choice for you. This law would no doubt enlarge the pool of organ donors, and certainly save many lives (surely at least just one, to satisfy the President’s test), but it would be fundamentally wrong to do so.
Similarly, what if instead of enjoying the strong 4th amendment rights we have, instead we submitted to randomized searches of our homes and persons? Let’s imagine that on any given day there is a 1/10,000 chance that authorities will search your home or person.
Further, imagine that this is a “white glove affair,” where a person’s home and body are respected, and generally speaking everyone views it as their civic duty in order to make the community “safer.”
Certainly such searches would reveal plenty of criminal activity, have a deterrent affect on certain crimes and save some lives. But, regardless of the benefits, most of us wouldn’t agree to such searches because we respect each other’s right to privacy.
Even when the topic of discussion isn’t fundamental rights, but rather just the regulation of activities and possessions, people don’t like to give up freedom in the name of “safety.” For example, I’m sure we could save many lives if we banned all residential swimming pools over three feet deep. Many children die annually from accidental drownings in the family pool.
Besides, why does anyone really need a pool over three feet deep? You can certainly cool off and do laps in three feet of water, and if you want to jump in, or play volleyball, go to your local YMCA, where they have lifeguards.
Most people don’t like that line of reasoning, despite the number of lives it would undoubtedly save annually. People generally would rather have the freedom to own whatever kind of pool that they want and take personal responsibility for safeguarding their children, rather than having the state limit their freedom of choice.
Most of us would view calls for taxation of pools over three feet deep and hefty liability insurance requirements as not being “reasonable,” but as an indirect means of doing what the state shouldn’t be doing directly.
In the same way, cars really don’t need more than 200 horsepower. In fact, “high horsepower” vehicles have no place on our neighborhood streets. They belong on the race track, in the hands of experienced drivers in a controlled setting. Certainly not in the hands of the average person. “High horsepower” vehicles only encourage the average driver to be reckless behind the wheel resulting in more traffic fatalities.
Furthermore, we should mandate a national speed limit of 65 mph and electronically limit a car’s ability to go over 65 mph. Of course some may have a legitimate need for a “high horsepower” vehicle, such as building contractors who need powerful trucks.
If that’s the case, then they will need to file papers with the local department of transportation and a judge can rule as to whether they have adequately demonstrated a need. They will then be required to go through a training course, get certified to demonstrate they can operate these vehicles and get re-certified every few years.
Obviously, these aren’t serious suggestions. There is no such thing as a “high horsepower” car, yet when we select some arbitrary number (why not 150 horsepower, or 100?), anything above that can be labeled “high.” All of my fictitious measures would certainly save hundreds, if not thousands of lives annually (certainly at least one), yet I doubt that most people would consider them “reasonable” or wish to enact anything so restrictive.
Many of the people calling for stricter gun laws, including bans on semi-automatic rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, have little-to-no experience with firearms. If they did, they probably would view their ideas not as being “common sense” and “reasonable,” but more like my proposed swimming pool and car regulations.
Those of us who have experience with firearms liken the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, pistol grip, flash suppressor, and barrel shroud see them as being akin to a nice Corvette, not a Formula One race car. The former can be driven safely by anyone with basic driving experience, while the latter requires racing know-how and an appropriate racetrack.
Arguing that a rifle with a pistol grip should be banned, but the very same rifle with a traditional stock is permissible is like arguing that cars with gear selectors in the center console should be banned, but those mounted on the steering column are just fine. Most everyone would agree that such legislation is silly, but that’s because we all have experience with cars. Unlike firearms.
Arms-bearing rights are fundamental. Curtailing rights some see as trivial, in the name of safety, can be a cure worse than the disease. We are a rights-based society. We respect individual rights over those of the community, even when doing so may mean a more injuries and deaths.
Whether we’re discussing fundamental rights (like choosing what happens to our remains) or more trivial rights (like being able to own the swimming pool or car you want), focusing solely on the number of potential casualties is dangerous and inadequate. It causes us to frantically sacrifice liberty at the altar of safety and to give up on searching for less restrictive means of accomplishing the same goal.
The only dissapointment to me was walking in to my local Wally World and seeing 7 boxes of Federal .40 JHPs but a sign saying 3 boxes per customer. Still, it was relly nice seeing .40 on the shelf again.
My Walmart has had the same 6 boxes of Hornady Zombie Max .40cal for weeks now. It has gotten to be a joke between the employees and customers, wondering if anyone will buy them. For some reason at this store, .40cal and 22-250 hangs around forever. Oh, and .22shorts at 9.97 for 50.
Many of the antis such as Feinstein (who was taped as saying she would ban all guns if she had the votes) don’t actually think that banning certain types of firearms will make a difference. Her end goal is all guns. But by selecting certain firearms, defining features of some of the most popular ones to define a wide range, and appealing to emotion they feel they can eliminate a large number of guns. It won’t stop there.
She has admitted her goal is the elimination of all guns, once she bans one type she will move onto the next type. The first step is the hardest, and she has chosen a class of firearm (“assault weapons”), and made up her own definition for it. She cleverly chose the first target based on firearms that she can marginalized gun owners in support.
They try to divide us by convincing pure hunters to be on her side of the AWB. To think that she will stop there when she has admitted otherwise is naive.
Many more people die from alcohol-related accidents and disease than do from “assault weapons” each year. If you total the amount of money spent on medical care for diseases and injuries that are directly related to alcohol use it would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used for better purposes like educating our children. We need to have a national dialogue on the problem of alcohol abuse.
Obviously the only way to fix this problem is to outlaw the sale or transfer of alcoholic beverages. People won’t be able to drink alcohol if it’s not sold in stores, and then all of the alcohol-related problems will go away.
Uh… hold on… what did you say? It’s been tried and failed? Oh. Then never mind. But it’ll still work with guns, right?
Remember the old panic after Obama’s election in 2008? A friend of my dad’s was whining about the ammo shortage, he couldn’t understand why ammo was so hard to find. Every time he saw .380 ACP ammo he would buy all he could. By March of 2009 he was sitting on 6,000 or more rounds of .380 ammo and bitching that he couldn’t find anymore. It never occurred to him that, because of selfish people like him, the ammo supply had dwindled.
He’s only selfish if he just sits on them instead of actually shooting them… or at least trying to resell them for profit or trade. The act of sitting and doing nothing whatsoever is selfish imo.
I live in New England.
Two nights ago I was in my local gun store when someone called looking for ammo.
The caller was from Georgia.
I hardly think exaggeration is a terrible crime.
1000000
How about a break from the Israeli models? Go hunting for models from Scandinavia, Russia, Greece, Italy, and Spain.
Funny thing about your organ donation example…The ‘Free State’ of Maryland is proposing just that this legislative session.
http://legiscan.com/MD/text/SB40/id/671968/Maryland-2013-SB40-Introduced.pdf
Rationing ammo sales to three boxes per Customer is okay with me. I’d rather more people could shoot a bit, than a bunch of OFWBHAG’s sitting on tens of thousands of rounds they won’t live long enough to shoot.
I’ve heard tales of new (first time) gun owners getting one box of ammo for their new treasure at the time of sale, then not yet being able to get any more. You can’t learn to shoot with only fifty rounds, and if you use all fifty, what are you going to do for home defense?…throw the effing gun at your assailant?…try to “pistol whip” him?… You’d be better off to have bought a spear and sword….
Ranges should be pro-rating their Range Fees for anyone with only fifty rounds to shoot, and I have been to Ranges who will only sell one pack of fifty for each different caliber centerfire gun the shooter has brought with them when using the Range, but refusing to sell anything to anyone who’s just trying to buy ammo.
Will be interested to see what RF finds out from the Manufacturers. The ammo shortage is effectively disarming many Citizens…another argument for no new gun prohibition laws.
You know what, I’m totally OK with this. Every gun shop in my area is doing this to some degree or another to prevent the same 5-6 yahoos from raiding the store shelves every 2-3 days. While it won’t fix the problem entirely, it gives the other couple hundred thousand of us around here a more even shot at it (because my schedule does not allow me to be at Wal-Mart at 6 AM when their shipments come in).
I suppose screaming “Assault weapon is a made-up word!” at them would have little effect.
THANK YOU, soldier. MUCH APPRECIATED. If we ever have to meet in the bloody streets of America, I’ll be proud to have you alongside.
I have not been using E-bay for a while, but may start again.
Every single listing will contain the disclaimer – “The proceeds of this sale will be applied directly to firearms related activities and pursuits, including purchase of firarms, ammunition, firearms components (including but not limited to AR-15 and other semi-auto) and my contributions to various organizational support of Second Amendment rights.”
Imagine turning used books, clothing, and other crap into firepower and 2A support.
Practice invading the local areas of the US in the US, practice makes perfect!!! But perfect what??? I gotta go to the store and buy a couple boxes of ammo, oh wait its all gone, ok maybe a few boxes of tin foil
The whole point of this nation is so the majority, no matter how insignificant or large, cannot dictate to the minority.
I wonder if all these “majority rules” goofs would come out for gay marriage bans.
Majority rules when it’s convenient.
Financial markets (any asset class) behave the same way. Human behavior hasn’t changed the past several thousand years….only the products and technologies.
So if you are so gung ho on rights. Then why do most gun owners, who are predominantly conservative, refuse to recognize the right for two consenting adults to get married? you are full of It. !! really the fact of the matte is, you don’t feel like you have to worry about your fellow man, as long as your precious right to use a lethal weapon isn’t infringed. ABSURD !!