fightin’ words round this part
by Max Clark
Published: April 8, 2008
I’m not one for abusing national tragedies to use public sympathy to help prove my points; so after the NIU incident, when the debate on the Second Amendment flared up like the barrel of a 357 magnum, I stayed respectively quiet. Then in mid-March, when Heller v. U.S. brought D.C.’s gun ban to the Supreme Court, I respected the tradition of never acknowledging the Supreme Court and any cases they try, and again stayed silent. However, now I can’t avoid it: the leading advocate for gun-rights, Charlton Heston, has implicitly agreed that it is okay to take away his guns.
Long offering the great retort, “You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands,” he has given gun-controllers tacit approval to remove his guns and perhaps even those of his faithful followers in the NRA by dying Saturday. This comes at an interesting time for gun owners, as advocates for and against gun control are keeping a close eye on the D.C. case.
In Heller v. U.S., the no-control side has a rare backer in their corner: evidence. The 30-year-old ban, which forbade handguns and requires rifles to be dismantled, has not reduced crime in our nation’s capital and in fact, crime worsened through the 80s despite the heavenly presence of Ronald Reagan. This could give some credence to their slogan, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
But, first, let’s return a bit to reality for a moment. Guns are not those infomercial knives that can cut through a can - they don’t have a million and one uses, they have one: killing things. People were tired of pulling bow-strings and wanted great efficiency in killing people. That’s why they made guns. People rarely buy guns because they want a more forceful paper-weight. However, here it seems that the law forbidding guns is not having an effect (though it should be noted that currently murder rates are at a low not seen in decades).
Which leads us to the counter-argument: since the events at NIU, the NRA and gun advocates have had universities’ concealed-carry ban in their sites. This follows the arguments that more guns reduce crime and violence. This is one intellectual case I can’t disprove without seeing it in action. If only there were a time in American history where most everyone had a gun for their own protection. Why, then if some hombre were to come riding into town from out west, looking for trouble, we wouldn’t even need to run for the sheriff (or a uniformed police officer) for help - a concerned citizen could just beat him to the draw. It seems like a gun-owning society would keep people in check and lawlessness would be a thing of a wilder past. Hmmm… I wonder what Billy the Kid would say about that?
But now I’m getting carried away. I should make it clear that I don’t have anything against gun owners; I just have never really heard a convincing intellectual argument. Basically, they claim that if campuses allowed concealed weapons there wouldn’t be any more school shootings because those students who engage in mass murder-suicide wouldn’t know who had a weapon and wouldn’t dare try it. Or at the very least, would be taken out by an even-tempered, crack-shot professor.
But maybe gun ownership has no bearing on crime. Maybe those who want guns will get them, no matter what. So what’s the point in criminalizing gun ownership or… heroin, for that matter? But the pro-heroin argument also doesn’t really hold water for me. Why not make it harder? Why not make licenses for guns something that people need to test for?
The counter-argument there is that we can’t “let the government decide who can and cannot have a gun.” I think that the kind of paranoid individual with a backwoods bunker, who fears the government regulating gun ownership is exactly the sort of guy I don’t want packing heat. Gun owners proclaim the case of “responsible gun ownership” but fight against ensuring people do so. The license for people to drive is infinitely more difficult to obtain than any gun license. Critics state that people still have accidents and that vehicular deaths are greater than gun deaths, but I have to say again that driving has another purpose: transportation. No one gets a license to commit vehicular homicide.
Forgive me for shooting off like this, especially if you think I’m off-target, and perhaps it’s beneath my caliber to publish this after a man’s death. My respect to Mr. Heston and his lifetime of work on social causes that fell into his sights.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
April 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
that’s good stuff. You’re wrong, but it was still funny.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:56 am
I disagree with your sentiments and don’t actually see the point of your article other than you don’t think guns are necessary.
I know its been said all so often that the argument is trite but the first thing Hitler did was take guns away. Any government that wants to take away the ability of its people to put it in its place needs to be, by definition.
This is not about some obscure concept or defending yoruself from the indiginous folk who made the error of living where you were before you got there, its about being able to stand up and say “You are wrong, and I am willing to fight for what I believe.”
I firmly believe that under the constitution I not only should be able to by rifles and handguns, but machine guns and tanks as well. yes that is extreme, yes it is paranoia at its finest, but the constitution was made to take into account those extremes and leave the grey areas to everyone to bicker and argue about.
If it makes you feel better pretend its a last ditch defense for when someone finaly gets pissed off and invades us. Far fetched and kind of silly, but still a valid argument.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:01 am
I’ve been told never to poke a bear, but so impressed am I that a bear has found his way to my article, I had to leave a short rebuttal (if you will.)
First, the first thing Hitler did was not take away guns. There was a whole development, puberty, adolescence, hormones, art school, networking, forming a political party, hosting the olympics, invading Poland. In fact, taking away people’s guns wasn’t even in his first million actions, I’d wager.
Second, your definition of “A government that needs to be put in its place” is “A government that wants to take away the ability of its people to put it in its place.” Just thought you should realize that. Also, fortunately, there are other avenues to take to remedy a grievance with the government before resorting to armed conflict, which is considered treason. Cf. The first amendment.
Third, reread your second paragraph out loud.
Fourth, though I am not a constitutional scholar, I understand that the framers of the constitution kinda wanted to preserve the new state they had created and while primary concerned with factions in the leadership, they also didn’t prefer immediate rebellion to…stability. Hence the misguided alien and sedition acts. Also, I’m not sure if a tank counts. It’s a vehicle with a gun on it, you don’t bear it so much as drive it. Also, paranoid people shouldn’t have tanks anyway. There’s an episode of the simpsons that comes to mind where Bart takes a drug called Focusin. Look it up.
Lastly, we have a military to protect us from invasion. A really good military. The best military. And where are they going to invade from, Canada? The checks on our government make an internal coup very unlikely and if you want to dust off any other nutshells to combat my article feel free. I didn’t even use that old case that Kennedy was surrounded with some of the best trained marksmen on the planet when he was killed, and that Oswald in turn was surrounded by armed policemen when he was shot. But I will if you want to get back to me.
Thanks for your interest.