
The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control) - jeffwidman
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/1/?single_page=true
======
DanielBMarkham
I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in
here that has to do with our relationship to technology.

Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to
execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy.
Why would we allow individuals to have such power?

But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every
person unprecedented power over his fellow man. DDOS attacks can bring down
banks. Bio-research could unleash a deadly plague. As technology increases,
the powers that one person has continue to grow.

So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology. How
much power should one person have? Every time somebody commits a crime on the
internet, we're going to hear the same cries: why should individuals have so
much power over others?

I don't have a facile or slogan-worthy answer. As a libertarian, I always want
to err on the side of empowering individuals. But I can see a powerful
argument to continue to take freedoms away from all of us. The issue of gun
control was just the first shot fired in the larger war that is now upon us.

~~~
tjic
> Why would we allow individuals to have such power?

Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule
people on such things?

> So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology

Wonderfully said.

Power is a zero-sum game. Either I have the right to { own a gun | duplicate a
file | mix acid and water in a test tube | print a part on a 3-d printer } or
someone else takes that right from me and holds it themself.

There are wonderful deontological arguments as to why it is wrong to take
rights away from me (or you, or you, or you), but even at the utilitarian
level: why should we expect better outcomes if a right is removed from
individual A and given to individual B? Was Germany better off when the Jews
and Gypsies had their right to firearms ownership transferred to the state?
Was China better off under Mao when individuals had their right to plant,
grow, harvest and sell their crops transferred to the state? Was the United
States better off when each person had their right to make decisions about
alcohol consumption taken away and transferred to the state?

I argue that restricting rights is wrong on both deontological AND utilitarian
grounds.

The utitarian argument for these sorts of things tends to be "give me the
power, and I'll make better decisions". The incentives don't usually support
the fulfillment of that promise.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule
> people on such things?"_

The same "we" that has existed since the beginning of our species, when groups
of humans decided to live together.

"We" is an expression of _all people_ \- not biased by East or West, Black or
White. In _all_ societies the price of living in a group, and enjoying the
benefits thereof, are concessions to personal freedom, and the recognition of
some authority that is capable of making the decision.

It's also important to note (because it's so frequently confused) that "we" is
not necessarily a government. In the absence of a government, "we" will
manifest itself in other formats, most frequently tyrannical.

The only way for you to extricate yourself from this (by your implication,
malevolent) "we" is to live entirely without dependency on any semblance of
society.

~~~
grannyg00se
And the difficulty is in determining the limitations that we allow the "we" to
impose on the individual. In most cases agreement is easy to achieve, but in
some cases there is a difference of opinion that is insurmountable. Without
the possibility of agreement, it may be that the only option is to separate
the group into those that believe option A and those that believe option B.
Then individuals can move into whichever group fits their beliefs. This would
be an iterative process.

Given the way that humans have handled one group separating into another, I
think this might be a devastating experiment to try. But in theory, it seems
plausible that after a number of iterations you would belong to a group that
fits your ideals perfectly.

------
daenz
The question posed at the end was interesting. The interviewer said he had
asked a number of people associated with horrible shooting sprees like
Columbine and Aurora if they would have rather have had a gun, and many say
"no." Jonathan Rauch responds with: "Maybe the right question to ask that
person was, 'would you have liked someone else ... someone who is comfortable
with guns ... to have had a gun in that situation?' ... I think you'd get a
different answer."

------
invalidOrTaken
HN is a pretty cold, logical place, so while the topic's raised, I'd like to
ask a question:

A year or so ago I watched a 60 minutes segment on so-called "sovereign
citizens." The segment made them out to be relatively deranged, on my own
cursory research supports this.

One part DID stick in my mind, though: in an interview with someone with weak
ties to the movement (I believe a radio host?), the interviewee said something
akin to: "The Second Amendment is not so that we can go duck-hunting." I took
this to mean, (and in light of the circumstances around the American
Revolutionary War, I think there's a strong case to be made) that the Second
Amendment was _specifically intended to protect the possibility of armed
rebellion._

This is a fairly out-there idea, but then, it's called "Revolutionary" for a
reason.

However, when I hear debates about gun control, this context seems to be
missing. Is it such a...well...revolutionary concept that we now shy away from
it? Or am I completely misunderstanding something?

~~~
ISL
That's the point. It's not an out-there idea.

The Constitution was written by people who had taken arms against a
government. It's reasonable to infer that they thought doing so was important
and might be necessary in the future.

~~~
invalidOrTaken
Thanks to all who've replied. I'm glad to hear confirmation. But I don't get
the sense that this point is present even implicitly in the gun control
debate. If the power to rebel is what's being protected, why limit assault
weapons? Is an armed populace seriously supposed to take on the army with
handguns?

I worry thatI might be coming across as a sock puppet with an axe to grind, so
maybe I should take this question somewhere else. I'd be interested to hear
any and all responses though; thank you in advance.

~~~
rdl
An intent-of-founders-based reading of the 2A would seem to support ownership
of military weapons more than handguns or hunting weapons. There are several
groups (GOA, vs. NRA) who support this. Yes, I think the "Sovereign Citizen"
people on TV tend to be loons, but that doesn't mean everything they believe
is necessarily unreasonable.

(Personally, I think our experience in Iraq shows that any real insurgency or
attempt to overthrow a government would take the form of "fuck guns, bring
IEDs". Most of the time, an insurgent would actually want to be unarmed
entirely so as to blend in with the population. It might sometimes be worth
having offensive weapons for specific tasks, but generally unless it was truly
open warfare on every citizen, you would want to blend in. Small arms,
especially personal weapons vs. crew-served, are basically defensive weapons,
or are used to fix the enemy in place for larger weapons to destroy.)

~~~
invalidOrTaken
Thanks for taking the time.

------
001sky
Urban dwellers are about as qualified to talk about guns as rednecks are to
talk about affirmative action in Ivy league schools. For both good and bad.
While everyone has a right to an opinion, the opposing sides of each issue
view the other side with Ad-hominem dread. And while we should not pre-suppose
from where the best ideas will come from, the fact of the matter is that
neither side is likely to really respect the opinions of the other either. In
the absence of true dialogue, the options are (1) do nothing; and (2) steam-
roll the otherside, not taking their view into consideration. Arguably (1) is
both easier and more intelligent, in that is likely to be "less wrong".

------
k-mcgrady
> "According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of American adults keep at
> least one gun at home or on their property, and many of these gun owners are
> absolutists opposed to any government regulation of firearms. According to
> the same poll, only 26 percent of Americans support a ban on handguns."

This amazes me. I wonder how many of those 47% have had training? Or how many
regularly practice firing the gun? This is one of the main reasons I'm opposed
to people being allowed to own guns. Most probably don't know how to use them
and in a situation where the weapon could be useful an untrained person will
probably make the situation worse either by shooting another civilian or
losing their cool and firing the gun and making a situation worse (e.g. in a
robbery where everyone could come out safe if the thief gets the money - but
some idiot with their own gun decides they will 'save the day', the thief
freaks out and suddenly their are dead people).

Another reason I think guns should be make illegal in the US is the incredibly
obvious evidence throughout the world that easier access to guns leads to more
gun related crime. Coming from a country where guns are illegal it's very rare
to hear or anyone being shot dead. Violent criminals obviously turn to other
weapons such as knives but I would rather be up against a man with a knife
than a man with a gun.

~~~
jlgreco
I am willing to bet a _very_ sizeable percentage of that 47% fall into a _"Has
a shotgun in the attic which they were given 20 years ago and forgot about.
Does not own any ammunition."_ category, or similar.

Still going to be a very large number that are more "active" gun owners, but I
think 47% is likely something of an overstatement.

~~~
rdl
I could train someone with no prior knowledge of firearms, who was fairly
intelligent, responsible, etc. to use a shotgun effectively for home defense
in about 15 minutes on a range, and maybe an hour or so on use of
force/escalation of force at a table. That's both the most morally defensible
firearm ownership and the most likely positive use for a firearm, at the
lowest overall cost (risk, financial cost, training time, etc.).

Concealed carry of a handgun, use outside the home, precision rifle, etc.
would be a lot harder, but I'd be quite happy if most people just learned
minimal home defense with a shotgun and nothing more.

~~~
jlgreco
Certainly shotguns are good for that. Most people I know that own guns were
given shotguns (usually as wedding gifts or whatnot) for that reason. The only
two firearms that I know of in my extended family are gifted shotguns in a
locked gun-rack with a trigger lock and no ammunition. And my extended family
is pretty much a bunch of hawks... Most firearm ownership in the States is
similar to this I think. Both sensible and safe.

When we hear figures like 47% ownership, we may tend to think that all of that
47% is of the irresponsible sort that news stories eventually are made about.
The reality is very boring and mundane though.

------
klrr
Feels like a cheap solution, there is countries where guns are very hard to
get, and in those countries guns are way less used in crimes compared to USA
for example. This will result in even more guns and probably a even bigger
problem in the future.

~~~
ef4
On the contrary, the cheap solution is "assume there's a way to make guns hard
to get in America. See, isn't that better?" Yes, maybe it would be better, but
you assumed away the hard part.

There are already 300 million guns in America, and a deeply entrenched culture
in favor of keeping them. That is the initial condition we have to work with.
Saying "just be more like country X" isn't a solution at all.

~~~
klrr
Totally true, one solution though could be to pay people to turn in guns, this
won't work in practice probably though.

~~~
ef4
Local police departments do gun buybacks all the time in the US.
[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=gun+buyback)

Sometimes with amusing results: [http://www.ammoland.com/2011/03/29/pro-gun-
activists-outbid-...](http://www.ammoland.com/2011/03/29/pro-gun-activists-
outbid-police-in-gun-buy-back/#axzz2Du9Tnoql)

