"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."
- Th. Jefferson
As with the Vegetarianism Diatribes I'm too lazy and otherwise occupied to formulate these thoughts into a proper essay. For now, you can read the pitched email debates. These contain many of the important ideas, in a reasonably entertaining format.First, a few obligatory links:
- The NRA's Fact Sheets (from which I draw much of this)
- Second Thoughts, The Web Page for the Armed Liberal
- A Nation of Cowards, by Jeffrey Snyder - required reading
- My 1996 letter to the Washington Post
At 11:23 AM 4/24/95, Zorro wrote: >The fact is that [the Branch Davidians] were >stockpiling enough weapons to start a small war down in Waco. So, they were religious nuts with guns? This country was *founded* by religious nuts with guns (as Dave Barry aptly noted). And you should bear in mind that the right to keep and bear arms is not only NOT a crime, but - as with all of the other items in the Bill of Rights - is an inalienable natural right of humankind, which is recognized and protected (not granted) by our Constitution, and of which people may be denied by no majority. >The ATF agents >went in to make an arrest. Last I checked, these agents >didn't ask to get in a firefight and risk their lives, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yeah they showed up with 40 guys in tactical gear toting automatic weapons, surrounded the place, and climbed up on the roof, because they wanted directions to South of the Border. >they just went in to confiscate the weapons >held by the cult and arrest some of them. But the Davidians opened fire. But, unfortunately, those agents didn't feel any need to say, knock on the door and present the warrant first. Instead they went in like Navy Seals. And, in fact, there's a great deal of controversy about who fired first. Unfortunately, we can only take the ATF's word for it, as the Davidians are no longer with us. (Oops.) "L is for Liberty - the right to obey the police." - Bertrand Russell >The doctrine of federal agencies like the ATF and FBI is to go in to a >situation like this with superior numbers and force so that no one has to get >hurt. That's why paramilitary operation. Well, that worked pretty well. And if you (or the Federal Government) ever want to come by my place and avoid bloodshed, I *strongly* urge you to try another tactic. The first time I see guys in black suits and masks with machine guns circling around my home, my immediate reaction is going to be to start putting out rounds. While my general impression of the Branch Davidians is that they were pretty much "cukoo for Cocoa Puffs," in one respect I think their actions were quite common sensical: they defended their property, homes, and families against armed invaders (who may or may not have identified themselves as the government before blasting away). Just in it to get one of those "Is your church ATF-approved?" bumper stickers, Michael Fuchs At 2:24 PM 4/24/95, Macbeth Was Framed wrote: > There's this little part of the 2nd Amendment that its advocates often >seem to forget. It's the first clause, you know, the one that goes something >like "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free >state..." I am not exactly convinced that the gentlemen in the compound at >Waco were mambers of the militia. Okay, good opportunity for a little Constitutional history. Your belief, Evan, that the right to keep and bear arms was restricted to the military is a common misapprehension. I'm assuming you'll stipulate, though, that the Framers are qualified to explain what they meant? Let's ask them: "Excuse me, gentlemen? When you said 'militia,' did you mean, like, the national guard, or other military run by the government?" "The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789 "And that the said constitution be never construed to authorize congress...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August 1789 "Okay, thanks." Here's some commentary by the High Court and Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject, in case you don't like those rabble-rousing patriots: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States." - US Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (Feb 1982) > I am not for gun control, but I AM for people reading the Constitution >when speaking of their rights and not trying to interpret it in their own >way. Agreed. Want to revise your interpretation? "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 Good discussion. Michael Former Gun Prohibitionist At 10:54 PM 4/24/95, Stigmata wrote: >For those that put forth the "Militia" argument, we have one. It's >called the National Guard, the only military force legally (normally) >allowed to be used on American soil. Okay, I thought I covered this. Despite common misconception, the "militia," referred to in the 2nd Amendment is *NOT* the National Guard. If you missed all the quotes by the Framers stating very clearly that the "militia" consists of all able-bodied people in the country, the entire citizenry, then here is the actual law on the subject: United States Code (USC) TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Once again, and with feeling, the "militia" is private citizens. And even IF that were not the case (which it is), please note that the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clause of the 2nd Amendment is a JUSTIFICATION FOR the right to keep and bear arms, not a LIMITATION on that right. If the amendment read "A well schooled populace, being necessary to the intellectual life of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed" would you suggest that books are thereby limited only to "well schooled" people? Every amendment in the Bill of Rights explicity *expands* the rights of indivduals, while *limiting* the powers (governments do not have rights) of the government. Why do so many otherwise well-informed people think that 2nd Amendment rights are somehow different and less important than other constitutionally protected rights? "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Justice Louis Brandeis "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest in inferences." - Thomas Jefferson 1787-12-20 Michael "For the point to be made with respect to Congress and the Second Amendment is that the essential claim advanced by the NRA with respect to the Second Amendment is extremely strong... the constructive role of the NRA today, like the role of the ACLU in the 1920's with respect to the First Amendment, ought itself not to be dismissed lightly." --William Van Alstyne, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law, "The Second Amendment And The Personal Right to Arms," 1994 "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the `collective' right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of `the people' to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." -- Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed (1984). Mandy wrote: >Hmmm. I've seen pretty good stats that say a privately owned gun is more >likely to kill or injure someone accidentally than to be used to thwart an >attacker. No, you've seen very bad stats to that effect. That figure (which I used to be able to quote, back before I understood it) is based on the frequency of attackers *being shot and killed*--not "thwarted" as you say. Your proposed figure would be useful. The way it WAS figured, however, the privately held gun only was useful if somebody caught a bullet--AND died from it. By this logic, alarms, locks, bright lights, and neighborhood watches are no good for home protection, because they don't kill anybody. As I said, in the majority of instances, guns were used successfully in self defense by being used to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone. None of those were included as instances of "thwarting" an attacker. There were two studies that have launched and perpetrated the myth you describe: the first was a Cleveland OH comparison of 148 "accidental" deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by homeowners, over a 17-year period (Rushforth, "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County," 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975)); the second was a 1993 study by a Dr. Kellerman at Emory University (Kellermann, "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993)). They both suffer from fairly serious methodological flaws such as: ALL accidents were included whether they happened in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half of remaining self-defense shootings were excluded on the grounds that the felled attacker *might not* have been a total stranger to the homeowner (reminiscent of the ole chestnut that you *couldn't* have been raped by someone you knew beforehand). Additionally, Kellerman only chose for his studies homes IN WHICH A HOMOCIDE had happened--ignoring the millions of gun-owning households where no one got shot. By that statistical method, one could as easily conclude that those who possess insulin are fantastically more likely to have diabetes. He finally admitted as much when he said, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." A peer reviewer, Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion." To put it in a word, you're quoting yet another commonly accepted wrong thing. I've certainly done it; I'm sure we'll both do it again. >Because you own a gun, you now get to decide who is innocent and who deserves >to die? No, actually, because I own a hammer, I get to decide who is innocent and who deserves to die. You see the point? I could probably bash in the brains of 10 pedestrians in three minutes. But I don't do it, the prospect is utterly morally reprehensible to me; this is a moral decision I make--one which I solemnly believe to be a good one. As you well know, I am a person who quite literally wouldn't hurt a fly. However, if someone was being raped or murdered on the corner, and all I had was a hammer, I'd use it to best effect on the attacker, if I had to. I certainly wouldn't be thrilled about any of it--but my action would be an equally solemn and considered moral decision. In any case, the question is not what I have in my hand, but what I have in my heart. While I acknowledge the highly (I might say lofty) moral nature of your decision that violence is never justified (which you share with King, Gandhi, and others), I think my stance achieves a higher good in an often fucked up world. Some of us can compare Italian restaurants, others need bread; some of us can seek the highest non-judgement, others are still trying to get home alive. You noted that it's easy to sit back after the war and say, "It's the bad guys who died when the Nazis lost WWII, so it's okay." Well, you wouldn't have the luxery of considering such platitudes if the bad guys had happened to win. You might be in an oven. Your incognizance of that fact strikes me as somewhat unrealistic and ungrateful. Luckily (for us) these discussions about violence are purely academic, and probably always will be. But for many they aren't, or weren't. >>2) If your concern is really that fewer >>people get killed, you might consider taking up the gun rights cause. >>There's growing evidence that less restriction of private ownership of >>guns leads to less violence. > > I don't believe that even for a split second. I would *love* to see > some stats on that. Sure. Since Florida adopted right-to-carry legislation in 1987--which allows all citizens without criminal records or history of mental illness (or several other things which can disqualify you) to carry concealed firearms for personal protection--its homicide, firearm homicide, and handgun homicide rates have decreased 36%, 37%, and 41%, respectively. During the same period, the national homicide rate decreased 0.4% and firearm and handgun homicide rates increased 15% and 24%, respectively (according to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics). Citing these, and similar reports from other areas, Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, of the University of Chicago, released a study which concluded that "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right- to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. . . . When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5%, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5% and 7%." ("Crime, Deterrence, And Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns," 1997) I should note that even your revered attackers experience greater safety--in areas where they know they're more likely to get hurt doing it, they choose less often to try and hurt the innocent. I should also note that while there is evidence to the contrary, there is no real evidence that gun control reduces crime or violence. New York City and D.C., which have the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation (including the Sullivan Act, which makes private ownership of a handgun illegal) have some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation (though NYC has been trending the other way, which most observers credit to great law enforcement initiatives). Also, states with right to carry laws have a 21% lower overall violent crime rate, a 27% lower firearm violent crime rate, a 28% lower homicide rate, a 33% lower firearm homicide rate, a 3% lower rape rate, a 33% lower robbery rate, a 35% lower firearm robbery rate, a 15% lower aggravated assault rate and an 18% lower firearm aggravated assault rate than other states (also from FBI Uniform Crime Reports). I do want to stress that the figures in this paragraph are not compelling (the way the numbers in the preceding paragraph are) because they compare a lot of apples and oranges. NYC and Bozeman Montana have a million differences other than gun control laws. I note this to make the following point: > The U.S. is one of the least restrictive Western > countries when it comes to gun ownership and we have more gun deaths > than most (all, maybe?) Western countries. Back when I was a gun prohibitionist (as recently as 3 years ago or so), I used to be very troubled by the above proposition--and cite it frequently. However, it isn't quite so. Israel has a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., and a much lower violent crime rate. In Switzerland, practically every home has an automatic weapon in it--and it has violence rates comparable to the Japans and the Englands of the world (minisculely low), not the U.S. (relatively very high). Moreover, as noted, there are a *million* cultural and social differences between the U.S. and England or Japan. It is impossible to attribute the lower violence rates to a single factor such as restrictions on ownership of guns. Researchers working in this field all recognize that. The (counter-)examples of Israel and Sweden confirm it. No such conclusion is reachable. Banning guns isn't the cause of low violence abroad, and it won't be the cause of it here. (I personally think you're on a better track when you express concern for some of the root causes of crime, such as income disparity.)
