I'm getting tired of politically based paralysis. I am referring in this case (as there are so many these days) to gun legislation. Guns have been commonly compared to cars. The argument is that cars kill many more people than guns, but when a car crash occurs no one wants to limit cars or their use, or their size. Well, let's take a look at that. In starting I will say up front that I still think the NRA has the best comrephensive recommendations about gun use, licensing, training and safety.
Gun owners commonly make the above argument, but it is a straw man argument. We think of driving as an American freedom and right just behind the right to own a gun. One of the iconic images of American self-reliance and expansion is the gun-toting cowboy. Right next to it as an evocative image is a person driving into the sunset (west, get it?) to find 'something'. It is readily argued that guns and cars are both mechanical extensions of our ego and force, and both are tied up in western imagery and as such are a mechanical iamge for Manifest Destiny, which of course no one can or does talk about now.
Our Constitution was written before there were cars, and so we have a specified right to bear arms but not one to drive. Given our values today it is not hard to imagine a Constitution that enshrined the right to own a car unless you were a felon. Further, the right to own a car might be couched in National Guard terms; viz, that since it is important for our National Guard to respond to emergencies the right of Americans to own a car shall not be infringed. All this sounds vaguely sacreligious, the recasting of constitutional language to justify something we all take for granted. But gun ownership was much the same- a utilitarian item any person could have and most did. And owning one meant the government, suspected of much and given little power, could not force its way into your home without bloodshed. Owning a car means you do not have to rely on another person or society for physical mobility.
Should use of a car be without regulation? Well of course not. We have numerous regulations about cars. There is an age limit for a license. All vehicles have to be registered. You cannot buy one without showing proof of insurance, so that the very most dangerous drivers are, at least theoretically, kept off the road. And we cannot own any car at all. It is easy to buy a T55 tank from Romania or the Czech Republic- 50,000.00 plus shipping and you get a fully functional T55 with the barrel spiked. But it is illegal to own that vehicle- it damages roads terribly. Like multi-round magazines, a tank is a military weapon, not a personal use item.
We also have speed limits. While technically one may drive as fast as they like, in practice speed limits and troopers prevent the worst trouble. And, in addition to banning tracked vehicles on our roads we do not allow private purchase of cars without exhaust systems, airbags and throttle limiters. But no one takes these rules as an infringement upon civil loberties, Instead there is a broad consensus of the limits on cars for everyday use.
With guns we have no such consensus. That is reflected in both the range of state laws and the failure of regulatory legislation to pass Congress. We depend on cars more for our freedom than we do on guns. Yet we can regulate our use of cars but not that of guns. That is not reasonable. Like cars, I think it is reasonable to limit size and power, and thus lethality.
Ted
Gun owners commonly make the above argument, but it is a straw man argument. We think of driving as an American freedom and right just behind the right to own a gun. One of the iconic images of American self-reliance and expansion is the gun-toting cowboy. Right next to it as an evocative image is a person driving into the sunset (west, get it?) to find 'something'. It is readily argued that guns and cars are both mechanical extensions of our ego and force, and both are tied up in western imagery and as such are a mechanical iamge for Manifest Destiny, which of course no one can or does talk about now.
Our Constitution was written before there were cars, and so we have a specified right to bear arms but not one to drive. Given our values today it is not hard to imagine a Constitution that enshrined the right to own a car unless you were a felon. Further, the right to own a car might be couched in National Guard terms; viz, that since it is important for our National Guard to respond to emergencies the right of Americans to own a car shall not be infringed. All this sounds vaguely sacreligious, the recasting of constitutional language to justify something we all take for granted. But gun ownership was much the same- a utilitarian item any person could have and most did. And owning one meant the government, suspected of much and given little power, could not force its way into your home without bloodshed. Owning a car means you do not have to rely on another person or society for physical mobility.
Should use of a car be without regulation? Well of course not. We have numerous regulations about cars. There is an age limit for a license. All vehicles have to be registered. You cannot buy one without showing proof of insurance, so that the very most dangerous drivers are, at least theoretically, kept off the road. And we cannot own any car at all. It is easy to buy a T55 tank from Romania or the Czech Republic- 50,000.00 plus shipping and you get a fully functional T55 with the barrel spiked. But it is illegal to own that vehicle- it damages roads terribly. Like multi-round magazines, a tank is a military weapon, not a personal use item.
We also have speed limits. While technically one may drive as fast as they like, in practice speed limits and troopers prevent the worst trouble. And, in addition to banning tracked vehicles on our roads we do not allow private purchase of cars without exhaust systems, airbags and throttle limiters. But no one takes these rules as an infringement upon civil loberties, Instead there is a broad consensus of the limits on cars for everyday use.
With guns we have no such consensus. That is reflected in both the range of state laws and the failure of regulatory legislation to pass Congress. We depend on cars more for our freedom than we do on guns. Yet we can regulate our use of cars but not that of guns. That is not reasonable. Like cars, I think it is reasonable to limit size and power, and thus lethality.
Ted
Agreed. Well put.
ReplyDelete-D-
But in my mind, the real issue is ‘what are we trying to accomplish with more / new gun laws’? Certainly not safety, as [despite the fact that it is a cliché] the statement that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns is absolutely true. My friends in the police will tell anyone who will listen that we have more than enough laws on the books and that enforcement of these laws is for the most part vigourous and efficient. There are a plethora of laws on the books currently addressing every conceivable type of gun or gun-related crime, including the wonderful catch-all “possession of the instrument of a crime”. Banning possession of something that COULD be used for a crime but has not in fact been ACTUALLY used in a crime is just silly. Here the analogy with cars works. If you can drive your car at high speed into a crowd of pedestrians with the intent of killing as many of them as possible, is this not precisely the same thing as walking up to the same crowd with a firearm and shooting those same people?
ReplyDeleteEvery time something horrific happens – Aurora, Newtown, Columbine – the politicians and the press jump around yelling for more gun laws, but when you look at what they are proposing, typically they are not addressing the causes of the particular incident nor even inquiring as to what the root causes of the incident were. The current bill in Congress targets the dreaded “Assault Weapons” – first, technically, any firearm is an assault weapon, but never mind – without any attention to the fact that none of the weapons on the to-be-banned list were involved in the particular incident or incidents of the sort generally. An example of this is the “Mini-14”, essentially a civilian version of the M-16. On the list are the versions of this weapon with either / or the pistol-type grip / folding stock. NOT on the list is the standard “rifle” configuration. Only the “scary-looking” versions of this weapon are to be banned and no others. Also, the Bill in Congress bans ONLY selected long-arms, not handguns. Police and statistics will tell you that more people are beaten to death each year in the US than are shot with long-arms, so once again, the Bill is about politicians being able to thump their chests and proclaim that they are “doing something” than ACTUALLY making anybody safer.
Personally I fully agree with you on the silliness of the cars / guns analogy as it is being used in the current “discussion”. Sadly however, the bill in Congress addresses neither the size, power, nor lethality of the listed firearms; it only addresses appearance: “military-style” assault weapons. Once again we are confronted by grandstanding politicians and nothing more.