In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and countless other massacres it seems that yet again, the American political machine has awoken to unleash its wrath on gun legislation and in part gun owners alike. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the legislation that's going to be passed in these next few months will be legislation that significantly limits gun owners' access to their second amendment right. However, it's important to emphasize that limit and deny aren't the same thing. From the chatter that has been surrounding legislation and with the current legislation passed in NYS, gun owners aren't going to be denied their right to bear arms, they are only going to be restricted in the way they can access it. But instead of there being any meaningful dialogue concerning whether some provisions that are being suggested/passed are effective or not, both camps (gun enthusiast and everyone else) have firmly planted their feet down, refusing to make any compromise. This makes slight sense for gun enthusiast, who for the most part have no way of stopping originally strict anti gun states from going down even harder on current gun legislation. Everybody else however have what I can only gather as an emotionally induced stubbornness, that has stopped any meaningful conversation surrounding what policy will be most effective to help prevent a massacre like Sandy from ever happening. In this post, I'm going to touch on all sides of the debate. First, I'm going to put forth my view of a Gun enthusiast's gripe, affirming their rights in some cases, while completely disagreeing in others. Second, I'm going to touch on where new legislation (mostly using the NYS example) is significantly failing and what provisions could be made to better to address the shortcomings. I've got to be honest, I'm incredibly anti- gun, especially in regards to my home, NYC. However, spending time in University of Michigan has shown me that there are, in my opinion, semi legitimate claims to the access of weapons.
In animo legis
You can't have any meaningful conversation concerning gun control without joining the conversation surrounding the second amendment and what it meant. While I don't pass myself off as an expert, I am an undergraduate majoring in Political Science, so I know something concerning the constitution and its "proper" application. When we look back at the second amendment the commonly cited reasoning behind the amendment was to prevent the unlawful take over of government, specifically alluding to the tyranny of the British. The amendment itself first starts off with no mention of citizens' rights to bear arms and instead talks of a state's right to a well regulated Militia (a right that has probably been restricted more so than one's right to bear arms). Then the amendment enumerates the part of the amendment that gun enthusiast cling on for dear life. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This statement has been debated by political scientist and law professors alike for decades. One common argument (an argument I vehemently disagree with) is that the right to bear arms is situated in the context of a militia and that the founding fathers never intended for all individuals to bear arms. Another argument is that amendments, such as the second amendment, can grant several different uses and meanings, forwarding the notion that the amendment both allows for the people to arm themselves individually and as a militia. For the sake of not being stubborn and making an argument that holds little weight in validity, let's assume the second interpretation is the one we'll be using for our preliminary understanding of the amendment.
Even after we've agreed on this interpretation, people still have plenty to argue about when it comes to the language of the amendment. What constitutes as "infringed"? Is restricting akin to "infringing". Gun enthusiast will argue that any limitation is an infringement upon their right to bear arms, and in a lexical sense they're right. But when we see the application of such infringement in the law, clearly too many gun restriction provisions still exist for anyone to honestly argue that infringement is an all or nothing condition. Furthermore, there is argument over what constitutes the right to "keep and bear arms". One can argue that the decision to make a distinction between "keeping" and "bearing" applies that it's unlawful to restrict one's ability to carry a weapon anywhere. Others can argue that this was just semantics and that one's ability to have arms in their house and public property is sufficient in meeting both provisions.
While, I have opinions on both of these debates, I think both are superseded by an even more important question. I mentioned before the commonly cited reasoning behind the law. I think the animus legis (for those of you who are not versed in latin or legal jargon, this means "spirit of the law") is the most essential part of a law. If the law isn't functioning to carry out what it was intended for, then it should be revisited (insofar that it should be given a new animus) or it should be scrapped. The animus legis of the second amendment was a safeguard against tyranny, that supposed an armed population cannot be forcibly coerced by an unjust government. The question that I think most people on both sides don't want to bring up is whether this safeguard is a facade in the 21st century. Are people truly safer from the unfair abuse of the government with these weapons at their side or are they just giving themselves false reassurance? The truth of the matter is that the military complex that is the United States can at anytime, wipe out our entire population (if it ever fell into such disarray). No amount of assault weapons or semi automatics will stand a chance against the American legion. So when people describe their owning of guns as a civic duty to protect their country from the abuse of government, I begin laughing. The government can wipe out entire city populations, militia or no militia. I would never expect it to do so and I hope others don't either because if we did believe there was a legitimate fear behind the U.S. governments propensity for tyranny, then we shouldn't be arming ourselves, we should be pushing for the disarming of the army that has a significant fire power advantage over us.
A more sensible strain of argument that could be forwarded as a critique is the use of fire arms as a protection from a police state. Sure the army can kill us, but we don't frequently get invaded by our own army. The police on the other hand, can become incredibly corrupt and violent. This argument to an extent is legitimate, too bad most of the people griping about gun control don't fit into the category of those who have a legitimate bone to pick with the police. In fact, the group that has consistently in our history had their rights infringed upon by the police are minorities, often people of color. This is primarily a problem in inner cities (in modern day America), where gun laws are the most strict. Minorities frequently have to defend themselves from corrupt cops and do have a legitimate claim to defending themselves in the animo of the second amendment. And there are some minority driven gun lobby groups that are complaining. But the NRA, which is the major player in the gun lobby, is reflected primarily through the mouthpiece of their director: a white upper middle class male. Their claim to arms is that of the delusional citizen, who believes he is making his country safer by urging everyone to carry dangerous weapons.
Legitimate uses and restrictions
So to be able to move forward on the gun debate, we need to stop acquiescing these ridiculous claims to the second amendment. This blanket protection of the right to bear arms is impractical (since there is no way one can protect themselves from the tyranny of government with arms) and potentially immoral (if you're using your arms only to maintain the delusion of upholding freedom). After we've gotten rid of the second amendment hoopla, the gun question becomes more tangible and therefore more open to reasonable discussion regarding restrictions and legitimate uses. If we think of legitimate uses of guns, we'll find that the list is pretty bare. The only two I can realistically think of are defense and hunting. I'm defining legitimate as something that provides a tangible benefit to an individual. One might think I'm over simplifying the usefulness of guns, but I really don't think I am. If you could give me a good example of any other use for guns besides hunting and defense, then please tell me. What's unfortunate is that while one of these legitimate uses is very effective on what it sets out to do, the other might be detrimental to its overall goal. Let's begin with defense since that is most frequently engulfed in debate.
The claim to using guns for self defense is a swiss cheese argument that on paper might seem to make sense, but in practice is ignorant of how ridiculous it really is. Plenty of studies show that a gun is effective in being able to deter criminals at the scene of a crime. This makes sense, people don't enjoy getting shot. However, a question of how many crimes are perpetrated due to the access afforded by the personal use of guns is a more important question. What does it matter if Matt can save himself from getting robbed if Mary and Mike both end up getting robbed in the process? Furthermore, this "arm yourself" initiative essentially undermines what should be the first legitimate line of defense for citizen, the police. This was explained best in a NYT opinion article by Jeff McMahan when he states,"
So when the question of personal defense comes up, we need to have the debate surrounding this crucial tradeoff. The way I view it is that the main purpose of society is to avoid the devolution into self armament. But there is some legitimacy in the opinion of heralding personal access to self defense over society's defense. Self preservation should be sought by individuals in the manner they think best. This is why the debate surrounding guns for personal use is so hostile. Both sides are in the business of preserving themselves and their families and anyone threatening their ability to do so, in their minds, is inadvertently threatening their life.
The final argument for guns is hunting. This is by far the most legitimate claim to weapons. People enjoy hunting and they deserve to be able to engage in the recreational practice as long as they don't harm others in the process. Ways that this could be effectively implemented without gun ownership is the creation of hunting lodges that houses guns at places where people can hunt, designating more stringent hunting areas and putting limits on what kind of guns can be used for hunting. Among hunting culture, often the most powerful guns (i.e. powerful in the sense of effective at taking out human targets) aren't necessary or at times useful for hunting. This means that hunters are probably going to be the easiest group of gun enthusiasts to incorporate in future restrictions. This is the group that gun control supporters need to target. Not all hunters are ardent supporters of assault rifles. Many of them just want to be able to use their bolt action rifle in peace. If there is anyone that can be accommodated in future policy it's those who use guns for recreational purposes (this includes but isn't limited to hunting, skeet shooting, firing ranges, etc).
The need to engage in the debate
Many might consider this entire exercise pointless. What's the purpose of debating? The conservative response to your arguments are clear: 1. The Founders intended the 2nd amendment to be for personal defense (a historically incorrect assertion, but one that will be made nonetheless). 2. Guns make people safer, regardless of what you say. I know that I can protect myself with my gun. 3. There are plenty of hunters who use assault rifles, making your restrictions hurt them the most. But I think even in the face of such staunch disagreement, engaging in this conversation makes it so that the debate around gun legislation has actual tangible talking points that can be supported by fact. One can easily refute my claim that guns make you less safe with studies that show otherwise. I can then engage with that material and look it over myself. This process of giving tangible speaking points by which people can exchange information allows the debate to take on a substantive nature, which will hopefully lead to a better end result. Regardless, it's better than what is occurring now. Meaningless semantics that are emotionally charged and irrationally driven. We need to be able to ask the tough questions.
In animo legis
You can't have any meaningful conversation concerning gun control without joining the conversation surrounding the second amendment and what it meant. While I don't pass myself off as an expert, I am an undergraduate majoring in Political Science, so I know something concerning the constitution and its "proper" application. When we look back at the second amendment the commonly cited reasoning behind the amendment was to prevent the unlawful take over of government, specifically alluding to the tyranny of the British. The amendment itself first starts off with no mention of citizens' rights to bear arms and instead talks of a state's right to a well regulated Militia (a right that has probably been restricted more so than one's right to bear arms). Then the amendment enumerates the part of the amendment that gun enthusiast cling on for dear life. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This statement has been debated by political scientist and law professors alike for decades. One common argument (an argument I vehemently disagree with) is that the right to bear arms is situated in the context of a militia and that the founding fathers never intended for all individuals to bear arms. Another argument is that amendments, such as the second amendment, can grant several different uses and meanings, forwarding the notion that the amendment both allows for the people to arm themselves individually and as a militia. For the sake of not being stubborn and making an argument that holds little weight in validity, let's assume the second interpretation is the one we'll be using for our preliminary understanding of the amendment.
Even after we've agreed on this interpretation, people still have plenty to argue about when it comes to the language of the amendment. What constitutes as "infringed"? Is restricting akin to "infringing". Gun enthusiast will argue that any limitation is an infringement upon their right to bear arms, and in a lexical sense they're right. But when we see the application of such infringement in the law, clearly too many gun restriction provisions still exist for anyone to honestly argue that infringement is an all or nothing condition. Furthermore, there is argument over what constitutes the right to "keep and bear arms". One can argue that the decision to make a distinction between "keeping" and "bearing" applies that it's unlawful to restrict one's ability to carry a weapon anywhere. Others can argue that this was just semantics and that one's ability to have arms in their house and public property is sufficient in meeting both provisions.
While, I have opinions on both of these debates, I think both are superseded by an even more important question. I mentioned before the commonly cited reasoning behind the law. I think the animus legis (for those of you who are not versed in latin or legal jargon, this means "spirit of the law") is the most essential part of a law. If the law isn't functioning to carry out what it was intended for, then it should be revisited (insofar that it should be given a new animus) or it should be scrapped. The animus legis of the second amendment was a safeguard against tyranny, that supposed an armed population cannot be forcibly coerced by an unjust government. The question that I think most people on both sides don't want to bring up is whether this safeguard is a facade in the 21st century. Are people truly safer from the unfair abuse of the government with these weapons at their side or are they just giving themselves false reassurance? The truth of the matter is that the military complex that is the United States can at anytime, wipe out our entire population (if it ever fell into such disarray). No amount of assault weapons or semi automatics will stand a chance against the American legion. So when people describe their owning of guns as a civic duty to protect their country from the abuse of government, I begin laughing. The government can wipe out entire city populations, militia or no militia. I would never expect it to do so and I hope others don't either because if we did believe there was a legitimate fear behind the U.S. governments propensity for tyranny, then we shouldn't be arming ourselves, we should be pushing for the disarming of the army that has a significant fire power advantage over us.
A more sensible strain of argument that could be forwarded as a critique is the use of fire arms as a protection from a police state. Sure the army can kill us, but we don't frequently get invaded by our own army. The police on the other hand, can become incredibly corrupt and violent. This argument to an extent is legitimate, too bad most of the people griping about gun control don't fit into the category of those who have a legitimate bone to pick with the police. In fact, the group that has consistently in our history had their rights infringed upon by the police are minorities, often people of color. This is primarily a problem in inner cities (in modern day America), where gun laws are the most strict. Minorities frequently have to defend themselves from corrupt cops and do have a legitimate claim to defending themselves in the animo of the second amendment. And there are some minority driven gun lobby groups that are complaining. But the NRA, which is the major player in the gun lobby, is reflected primarily through the mouthpiece of their director: a white upper middle class male. Their claim to arms is that of the delusional citizen, who believes he is making his country safer by urging everyone to carry dangerous weapons.
Legitimate uses and restrictions
So to be able to move forward on the gun debate, we need to stop acquiescing these ridiculous claims to the second amendment. This blanket protection of the right to bear arms is impractical (since there is no way one can protect themselves from the tyranny of government with arms) and potentially immoral (if you're using your arms only to maintain the delusion of upholding freedom). After we've gotten rid of the second amendment hoopla, the gun question becomes more tangible and therefore more open to reasonable discussion regarding restrictions and legitimate uses. If we think of legitimate uses of guns, we'll find that the list is pretty bare. The only two I can realistically think of are defense and hunting. I'm defining legitimate as something that provides a tangible benefit to an individual. One might think I'm over simplifying the usefulness of guns, but I really don't think I am. If you could give me a good example of any other use for guns besides hunting and defense, then please tell me. What's unfortunate is that while one of these legitimate uses is very effective on what it sets out to do, the other might be detrimental to its overall goal. Let's begin with defense since that is most frequently engulfed in debate.
The claim to using guns for self defense is a swiss cheese argument that on paper might seem to make sense, but in practice is ignorant of how ridiculous it really is. Plenty of studies show that a gun is effective in being able to deter criminals at the scene of a crime. This makes sense, people don't enjoy getting shot. However, a question of how many crimes are perpetrated due to the access afforded by the personal use of guns is a more important question. What does it matter if Matt can save himself from getting robbed if Mary and Mike both end up getting robbed in the process? Furthermore, this "arm yourself" initiative essentially undermines what should be the first legitimate line of defense for citizen, the police. This was explained best in a NYT opinion article by Jeff McMahan when he states,"
The logic is inexorable: as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. When most citizens then have the ability to kill anyone in their vicinity in an instant, everyone is less secure than they would be if no one had guns other than the members of a democratically accountable police force." McMahan NYT 2012He explains in the following paragraph that the entire process is akin to a nuclear arms race. The comparison couldn't be any more spot on. And since the shot of one gun won't cause mutually assured destruction, there's a high likelihood that deterrence won't be effective.
So when the question of personal defense comes up, we need to have the debate surrounding this crucial tradeoff. The way I view it is that the main purpose of society is to avoid the devolution into self armament. But there is some legitimacy in the opinion of heralding personal access to self defense over society's defense. Self preservation should be sought by individuals in the manner they think best. This is why the debate surrounding guns for personal use is so hostile. Both sides are in the business of preserving themselves and their families and anyone threatening their ability to do so, in their minds, is inadvertently threatening their life.
The final argument for guns is hunting. This is by far the most legitimate claim to weapons. People enjoy hunting and they deserve to be able to engage in the recreational practice as long as they don't harm others in the process. Ways that this could be effectively implemented without gun ownership is the creation of hunting lodges that houses guns at places where people can hunt, designating more stringent hunting areas and putting limits on what kind of guns can be used for hunting. Among hunting culture, often the most powerful guns (i.e. powerful in the sense of effective at taking out human targets) aren't necessary or at times useful for hunting. This means that hunters are probably going to be the easiest group of gun enthusiasts to incorporate in future restrictions. This is the group that gun control supporters need to target. Not all hunters are ardent supporters of assault rifles. Many of them just want to be able to use their bolt action rifle in peace. If there is anyone that can be accommodated in future policy it's those who use guns for recreational purposes (this includes but isn't limited to hunting, skeet shooting, firing ranges, etc).
The need to engage in the debate
Many might consider this entire exercise pointless. What's the purpose of debating? The conservative response to your arguments are clear: 1. The Founders intended the 2nd amendment to be for personal defense (a historically incorrect assertion, but one that will be made nonetheless). 2. Guns make people safer, regardless of what you say. I know that I can protect myself with my gun. 3. There are plenty of hunters who use assault rifles, making your restrictions hurt them the most. But I think even in the face of such staunch disagreement, engaging in this conversation makes it so that the debate around gun legislation has actual tangible talking points that can be supported by fact. One can easily refute my claim that guns make you less safe with studies that show otherwise. I can then engage with that material and look it over myself. This process of giving tangible speaking points by which people can exchange information allows the debate to take on a substantive nature, which will hopefully lead to a better end result. Regardless, it's better than what is occurring now. Meaningless semantics that are emotionally charged and irrationally driven. We need to be able to ask the tough questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment