Tag: Gun Rights

Gun Control is a Form of Collective Punishment

One of the more disturbing trends found in collectivist ideologies is the concept of collective punishment. Collective punishment is the idea that an entire group should be punished for the actions of a single member of that group. Not surprisingly this idea has generally found acceptance in collectivist ideologies, which view individuals are minor components of the grand social machinery. Socialism was founded on the idea of punishing the bourgeois class. At first the bourgeois class consistent of everybody who privately possessed means of production and, even if a particular member of the bourgeois class did nothing to harm another person, socialist doctrine generally supported punishing that private holder of production. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the bourgeois class quickly became a catchall for counter revolutionaries.

Fascism is another socialist ideology that ascribes to the idea of collective punishment. Nazi Germany is the pinnacle of fascist collective punishment. During the reign of the Third Reich entire groups; including Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals; were exterminated because, it was claimed, members of those groups brought harm to the German people. In German the term Sippenhaft was used to describe the idea of collectively punishing a entire family for the wrongdoing of a single member. Sippenhaft, as a concept, has existed in Germanic law since the middle ages but was made prevalent once again by the Nazi Party in Germany and, later, the Communist Party in East Germany.

The United States inherited the generally individualistic ideology of Britain. Due to the more individualistic nature of those societies the legal system has very few references to collective punishment. At one point in time was unusual to hear a person living in either society to directly call for collectively punishing entire groups for the misdeeds of individual members of those groups. Unfortunately both societies have move away from generally individualistic ideologies and have slowly adopted more aspects of collectivist ideologies. As traditionally individualistic cultures, specifically the United States, have progressed further down the collectivist road the idea of collective punishment has become more acceptable. Unlike collectivists societies that outwardly adhere to ideologies like socialism and fascism, the United States doesn’t not overtly perform acts of collective punishment. Instead of rounding up entire families and placing them in prisons the United States has opted for a more underhanded method of collectively punishing groups, legislation.

When an individual does something to harm others the common response in the United States is to find what groups that individual belongs to. Being social creatures humans are easy to connect to social groups. Once a connection has been made demands are quickly made to legislation against that specific social group. If the wrongdoer is an anarchist cries are made add anarchists to the list of known terrorist groups. If the wrongdoer is a member of the Tea Party cries are made to add the Tea Party, or so-called right-wing extremists, to the list of known terrorist groups. If the wrongdoer is a member of racist group cries are made to enact legislation that prohibits racist speech. Not surprisingly when a wrongdoer is a gun owner cries are made to enact legislation that punishes all gun owners.

Gun control is nothing more than a form of collective punishment. Enacting gun control legislation restricts the liberties of gun owners but doesn’t punish the person who committed the act that resulted in the demand for more gun control. If somebody shooters several people with a handgun gun control advocates start screaming for a ban, or at least tighter restrictions, on handguns. The killer faces multiple charges of murder but nonviolent owners of handguns, that is to say the majority of handgun owners, face future charges of possessing a prohibited weapon or are restricted from buying particular handguns in the future.

From the beginning gun control has been a form of collective punishment. The first gun control laws were implemented to prevent African Americans from obtaining firearms. In that case the entire African Americans community was being punished whether they brought violence against another human being or not. Gun control hasn’t changed much in its long history. From collectively punishing African Americans to collectively punishing gun owners the idea of gun control has always been one of punishing entire groups for the, oftentimes perceived, actions of individuals in those groups. To use the ever beloved car analogy gun control legislation would be akin to banning Ford Fusions because a single man got drunk, drove a Fusion, and killed another person in a collision. Instead of punishing the drunk drive a vehicle prohibition would punish car owns, specifically those who like Ford Fusions.

Collective punishment is a frightening idea. Since we’re all members of various social groups and it’s highly probable that somebody in every social group will commit an act of aggression against another human being it’s likely that every could face punishment under a collective system. I oppose collective punishment and believe only a wrongdoer should be punished.

Something that Amazes Me Regarding Shootings

Something that always amazes me about shootings is the way everybody seems to play fast and loose with the facts. If you’ve been paying attention to the news revolving around Friday’s shooting in Connecticut you’ve probably heard that the shooter use an AR-15 and that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the shooter’s car. You’ve probably also heard that the shooter’s mother was a teacher and was entirely unconnected with the school.

The media, in its frenzy to get ratings immediately after a disaster, is often willing to report rumors as facts and seems unwilling to perform actual journalistic groundwork. Instead of researching and presenting facts the media reports on information obtained through second-hand interviews with individuals whose connection with the events in question are usually questionable.

The media’s coverage of the Connecticut shooting reminds me of their coverage of the Zimmerman case. Immediately after Zimmerman’s fatal confrontation with Martin media outlets were reporting about Zimmerman’s racist statements and stalking of Martin, neither of which panned out to be true. Now we have contradicting information being reported about the Connecticut shooting leaving those wanting facts high and dry.

I really wish the media would take their time and report on facts as they’re confirmed instead of rumors as they’re developed. As it currently stands we probably won’t have an actual picture of what happened for a week or two. This fact won’t stop gun control advocates and politicians from acting though. Already there are calls for a new “assault weapon” ban even though we don’t know for sure if the shooter used an “assault weapon” (better known as a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle). Our society is now based on reactionary policy instead of policies developed around confirmed facts.

You Just Can’t Trust Anybody Anymore

Brace yourselves, I have some rather surprising news. It appears that a couple of politicians have, get this, performed a complete 180 on an issue position. Senators Mark Warner and Joe Manchin, both candidates with “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association (NRA), have come out in support of reinstating the “assault weapon” ban:

Two US Senators became the first of America’s pro-gun advocates to break ranks on Monday night as they called for a ban on assault weapons in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings.

[…]

The two Senators – both Democrats but with “A” ratings and previous endorsements from the powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby group – both spoke out to argue publicly that the death of 20 Year 2 children was a “game-changing” moment for America’s divisive gun debate.

These two senators have demonstrated why the political means can never be a tool to achieve liberty. Politicians cannot be trusted. They may claim to support gun rights one moment but will turn on you the second it stands to advance their political career. Senators Warner and Manchin have demonstrated that they care nothing for gun rights and would prefer to throw gun owners under the bus in order to get their name on headlines and, in all likelihood, advance their political careers. Nothing about this development should surprise anybody though, these politicians are just doing what politicians do.

What Eliminating Gun-Free Zones Can Do

Since the shooting in Connecticut two camps have emerged. The first camp are those who demand stricter gun control laws and the second camp are those who demand loosening current gun control laws. I’m firmly in the second camp. As I’ve continued to advocate for the elimination of legally established gun-free zones I’ve heard many arguments against allowing those who can carry firearms to do so on school grounds. Most of these arguments are rather absurd.

Some proponents of gun control claim that students will wrestle guns from teachers and begin shooting their fellow students. This argument is irrelevant because, as these school shootings have demonstrated, students wanting to shoot fellow students are already brining guns into schools. In addition to that fact it’s unlikely that students will know which teachers are carrying. Another common argument against legalizing carry on school grounds is the concern about negligent discharges. Again this argument holds almost no water because negligent discharges can only happen if a firearm is removed from its holster. What reason would a teacher have to remove their firearm from its holster unless there was an active shooting? It’s not like a teacher is going to pull their gun out to show the kids. Other opponents to legalizing carry on school grounds claim teachers won’t have sufficient training to properly engage an active shooter. This claim, like the previously mentioned ones, is almost entirely irrelevant. If you look at the history of these mass shootings the shooter almost always commits suicide upon meeting any form of armed resistance. In a vast majority of cases a teacher wouldn’t have had to engage the shooter, they would have simply needed to present a firearm and the shooter would have committed suicide.

This brings us to the point I want to make. What would legalizing carry on school grounds do? The first and most important thing it would do is reduce response times. When an active shooting occurs they usually last until armed resistance arrives. Usually armed resistance comes in the form of police officers. Unfortunately police are unable to appear instantly when a shooting begins so the shooter has free reign for several minutes. Arming teachers would allow response times to be lowered from minutes to seconds. Having an individual on site able to present armed resistance would mean an almost immediate response could be available. During an active shooting response time is the most important factor since, as I mentioned above, shooters often commit suicide upon meeting any armed resistance. Furthermore even if the shooter doesn’t commit suicide upon meeting armed resistance their attention will likely be diverted to the armed resister and not directed at the children.

In addition to reducing response times legalizing carry on school grounds would raise the cost of performing shootings on school grounds. Since schools are legal gun-free zones those with murder in their hearts know that they are almost guaranteed several minutes of free reign before armed resistance arrives. This makes schools relatively cheap targets for wannabe murderers. The low cost of performing violence on school grounds is a likely factor for the frequency at which mass shootings occur on school grounds. Most mass shootings seem to take place in legal gun-free zones. Knowing that there could be armed teachers or faculty members on school grounds increases the odds of encountering armed resistance from almost nothing to highly probable. Increasing the cost of performing violence will likely lead to a reduced rate of violence being committed.

Legalizing carry on school grounds stands a real chance of deterring mass shootings at schools. Unlike gun control, which relies on murders obeying the law, legalizing carry on school grounds doesn’t rely on the behavior of murders. Instead legalizing carry on school grounds merely erects a barrier between school grounds and those wanting to commit violent acts on those grounds. It’s a far more intelligent response to school shootings than enacting more laws for murderers to ignore.

Mass Killings Haven’t Become More Frequent

After a mass shooting two things can always be counted on. First the victims will be forgotten while the shooter will live on in infamy. Second politicians will start demanding more gun control. As if on queue a politicians by the name of Jerrold Nadler is claiming that these shootings are becoming more frequent and therefore stronger gun control laws must be implemented:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents portions of New York City, said he was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s statement on Friday afternoon that the mass shooting, which claimed the lives of 20 young children, requires “meaningful action” by Congress, but hopes those words turn into concrete legislation.

“These incidents, these horrible, horrible incidents … are happening more and more frequently. And they will continue to happen more and more frequently until someone with the bully pulpit, and that means the president, takes leadership and pushes Congress,” Mr. Nadler said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz.

Fortunately his statement is unfounded:

Even before Portland and Newtown, we saw a former student kill seven people at Oikos University in Oakland, Calif. We saw gunmen in Seattle and Minneapolis each kill five people and then themselves. We saw the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” at a theater in Aurora, Colo., devolve into a bloodbath, as 12 people died and 58 were wounded; 24-year-old James Holmes was arrested outside.

And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

[…]

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Once again we find those demanding more gun control either playing fast and loose with the facts or deliberately lying in order to advance their agenda. The truth of the matter is that these mass killings aren’t becoming more frequent, they have always been a rather random anomaly. The chances of being killed in one of these mass shootings is very rare as the occurrences of mass shootings themselves are very rare. These facts matter not to the politicians demanding more gun control laws because they know exploiting mass shootings can lead to political gain. By clamoring for more gun control legislation Mr. Nadler is getting his face on television and making it appear as though he cares about the children who were murdered. In reality Mr. Nadler is likely unable to name a single victim of the shooting.

A Matter of Perspective

I’m sure you’ve already heard the news regarding the school shooting in Connecticut. As of this writing 27 individuals have lost their lives. Advocates of gun rights are pointing out the fact that this mass shooting, like so many before it, occurred in a so-called gun-free zone while advocates of gun control are howling for more stringent gun control legislation. It’s the age old debate for which no common ground exists. But what about those who are normally outside of the gun rights debate?

After the news hit I did the thing many gun rights and gun control advocates are apt to do, I hit up the discussions occurring across the Internet. Advocates of gun rights have a phrase for gun control advocates who start demanding more gun control legislation immediately after a mass shooting: dancing in the blood. This phrase comes from the fact that they appear to be overjoyed to see a tragedy that can be used to advance their cause. I’m sure gun control advocates view those of us in the gun rights movement in the exact same way. Meanwhile individuals outside of the gun rights debate usually see it as both sides dancing in the blood. In their eyes both sides are exploiting a tragedy to advance their political causes.

I want to offer a though I had when pondering this over lunch. Being involved in the gun rights debate I spend a great deal of time writing about and discussing issues related to gun rights, including mass shootings. It’s a normal conversation for me to have. Because of this when a mass shooting like this occurs I merely continue the discussion I was having yesterday. I don’t believe I’m alone in this regard. In fact I would venture to guess that most people involved in the gun rights and gun control movements are the same way.

It’s not a matter of exploiting a tragedy so much as continuing an ongoing conversation. Although both sides appear to be insensitive, cold hearted, and exploitative to people generally outside of the conversation most of us involve in the conversation are, I believe, none of those things.

I realize that this thought is unlikely to change the opinions of individuals not normally involved in this conversation, and they very well may be right about both sides, but I feel it’s worth bringing up. In the end it’s a matter of perspective.

The Versatility of Firearms

Guns are very versatile tools. Not only can they be used to hunt and defend yourself against an aggressor but they can be used to politely inform an uninvited guest that were mistaken in believing they had been invited:

Police say about 5:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, a man walked into Modern Nails at 2645 E. Second St. and asked a female employee if she wanted to buy some diamonds. The man walked toward the front desk area and the woman replied that she had no money to buy diamonds.

A witness said the man then reached into his coat pocket and began to take out a silver-colored pistol.

At that moment, a woman who was getting her nails done reached into her purse and got her own firearm. Police say the man never fully raised the gun and left the building after seeing the customer had her weapon out.

The mere presentation of a firearm can, and often does, end potentially violent situations before they manage to become violent. What would likely have been an armed robbery turned out to be nothing more than a foot note in a police report because the intended victims demonstrated an ability to greatly increase the cost of performing a violent crime. I do hope that the salon comped the woman’s nail job.

Firearms can also be used to save lives outside of defensive situations. Consider this story, which chronicles a creative man’s employment of a firearm to save a suffocating man’s life:

Jamaryon Middlebrooks was driving along North Emerson on a Sunday night when a frantic person waved him off the side of the road. Middlebrooks found a chaotic scene, as the tow truck driver went unconscious and witnesses described him turning blue.

“He wasn’t breathing. … They felt a pulse but that was about it,” Middlebrooks said.

Middlebrooks made a split-second decision, grabbing his handgun out of his truck and firing nine shots at the chain, eventually dislodging it. Bystanders rushed to help the driver.

Had Middlebrooks not been armed the tow truck driver would likely have suffocated. Fortunately Middlebrooks was armed and had enough gun to destroy the chain that was strangling the tow truck driver. Another life was saved because an armed individual had the means to properly intervene.

According to gun control advocates these stories could never happen. They claim that guns are only good for killing. Their belief is narrow minded because they fail to see that a gun is nothing more than a tool and, like any tool, it’s uses are limited only by the creativity of the individual using it.

Enforcing the Laws on the Books

When it comes to gun control there is already a veritable library of laws on the books. Some advocates of gun rights and gun control often make quips about focusing on enforcing current laws. Both sides are making a statement that current gun control laws are not stringently enforced. In the case of gun rights activists they are implying that crimes involving firearms can be addressed by stringently enforcing current laws and that new laws are unnecessary whereas advocates of gun control are implying that current laws aren’t being enforced and therefore a higher rate of crimes involving firearms exists than should.

The concern I have with the idea of enforcing current laws, a concern that should be shared by both my fellow advocates of gun rights and my philosophical opponents advocating for gun control, is that laws can be interpreted different by different individuals. Consider the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) latest victory in Illinois where a judge ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago made the individual state’s prohibition against non-state agents carry firearms illegal. This decision was a boon for advocates of gun rights and a defeat for opponents of gun rights but could have had the opposite outcome.

Remember that the federal appeals court decision actually overturned the decision of a lower court, which held a different interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago. One court believed that the Supreme Court’s decision, which allowed for “reasonable” gun control laws, allowed an individual state could prohibit non-state agents from carrying firearms while a different court believed the opposite. If the defense appeals the case we may see it land in the Supreme Court where a third interpretation of the McDonald v. Chicago ruling could be decided.

Utilizing the interpretation of current laws has played out in the quest to advance gun rights and I’m not saying we should abandon this strategy. What I am saying is that advocates of gun rights should be careful about advocating for the enforcement of current laws. I believe it would be smarter to recognize the court system for what it is, a convenient tool to advance gun rights, but not imply that current gun control laws are just. If we imply any consent to current gun control laws we could find ourselves at the wrong end of a court ruling. Were this to happen we would be forced with either consent to the law or make hypocrites of ourselves and claim that the law, in this case, shouldn’t be enforced.

A Reminder About Rule Four

Firearm safety are of the utmost importance. We sometime forget that firearms, although enjoyable for recreation, are weapons. In order to avoid tragedy various rulesets regarding firearm safety have been created, the most prevalent of which would be Jeff Cooper’s four rules:

  1. All guns are always loaded.
  2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
  3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
  4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Failure to abide by rule four lead to a tragedy in Rochester, Minnesota when a grandfather shot his granddaughter after mistaking her for an intruder:

A 61-year-old Rochester man shot his granddaughter at the patio door of his home late Monday night, telling police he had armed himself with a pistol to investigate a suspected intruder, police said.

Authorities are still investigating the incident involving the 16-year-old girl, who lives at the house with her grandparents. Shot in the upper torso, she was taken to the hospital in critical condition but was expected to survive, Police Capt. Brian Winters said.

When the couple went to bed Monday night, the girl was at home, Winters said. When they woke to a noise outside around 11 p.m., the man got a 9 mm pistol and went to investigate while the grandmother called police.

The man saw a figure at the patio door and fired two rounds, striking his granddaughter once, Winters said. He declined to give the family’s name.

Luckily the granddaughter is expected to live but this story should remind us all that it is our responsibility to be safe with firearms. Firearms are mere mechanical devices that are incapable of discerning friend from foe. We must make that decision and making it incorrectly could cost an innocent person their life.

The NRA Taking Undue Credit Again

The National Rifle Association (NRA) does a lot of things that really irritate me. On top of being unable to adopt new strategies in the fight for gun rights now that their strategy of political action has become less effective they also like to steal credit for that accomplishments of other gun rights organizations. Read the NRA’s press release regarding the gun rights victory in Moore v. Madigan. Do you notice anything missing? That’s right, the press released doesn’t mention the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Even though the case was initiated and funded by the SAF the NRA is taking sole credit for the victory.

Being dishonest by omitting due credit is a pet peeve of mine. In fact it irritates me to such an extent that I wouldn’t renew my NRA membership if I could do so and still remaining a member of the Oakdale Gun Club. My NRA membership fees would be far more productive in the hands of the SAF. The NRA is continuing to prove itself to be dishonest and incapable of adapting to changing circumstances. Both are unfortunate but I can at least understand the reason for the latter, it’s easy to become fixated on a strategy that has served you well in the past. What I can’t understand is the NRA’s unwillingness to acknowledge the efforts of other gun rights organizations. Far more could be accomplished through mutual cooperation than going it alone.