[Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?

[Joe Campbell]

Mike (if I may),

No doubt I might have read more into your first post 
than you intended to say. In any event, sorry for the 
harsh tone and I thank you for both of your careful 
posts on a difficult, contentious issue. However, there 
are some points with which I disagree and I have a few 
comments to make in response to your last post.

First, of course there are benefits to owning firearms. 
What matters is, Do the benefits outweigh the risks? I 
tend to doubt that they do, in general. I won’t say 
that I know that they don’t but, after looking over 
your comments and links, I still doubt that they do.

For instance, you write: “Honest people are very 
unlikely to be killed by guns in their houses.” But I 
would note that honest people are very unlikely to need 
a gun for protection, as well. Certainly some folks who 
would advocate gun control are guilty of forming 
beliefs on the basis of fear. But this is just as true 
about pro-gun advocates. After all, why would the 
average person think that he needed a gun for 
protection unless he had an unrealistic idea of the 
genuine probability of such a threat?

Fear and irrational perception play a big role in 
forming the views of proponents on both sides of this 
debate. I don’t see that one side has any advantage.

Second, of course we have a constitutional right to 
bear arms. I respect the constitution as much as you or 
anyone one else. But you seem to have a misconception 
about the notion of a right. On your view, the second 
amendment provides an ‘unfettered’ right to bear arms 
but there is no such thing as an unfettered right. I 
wrote about this topic in my last town crier piece in 
more detail but here are the main points.

Consider the right to free speech, which is protected 
by the first amendment. Is my right to speech 
‘unfettered’? No; of course not. Libelous or slanderous 
remarks are not protected by the first amendment. 
Neither is yelling ‘fire’ in a crowed movie theatre.

In short, no one has the right to harm another. For 
this reason, there is no such thing as an ‘unfettered’ 
right. We understand this for most rights. Few people 
think that freedom of religion alone allows them to 
formulate Rastafarian churches so that they can pass 
out joints to their friends. (Apologies to any 
Rastafarians in the audience.)

Somehow this rather simple point has escaped the NRA 
and its supporters but collecting guns should be no 
different than speech or religion or other protected 
rights. Thus, the issue of rights doesn’t add a new 
dimension to the debate. It just returns us to our 
original question: For any particular weapon, do the 
benefits outweigh the harms?

Third, I don’t find your ultimate solution to the 
problem of gun violence in the US to be of much help at 
all for the kinds of things that I worry about. You 
write: “we need to hold people responsible for their 
actions. Crimes committed with firearms should be 
punished much more severely than those without. People 
who are careless about allowing untrained people access 
to their firearms should be held responsible.”

But how is holding someone like Hamilton, or the 
Virginia Tech shooter, responsible for his actions 
going to help us to reduce gun violence? Both of these 
men ultimately killed themselves after they killed 
others. It is little condolence to the families of 
those lost that IF these guys had not killed 
themselves, then they would have been punished to the 
full extent of the law. What they might want to know 
is, not Who can we blame? but What could have been do 
to prevent those crimes? What can be done to prevent 
them from occurring in the future?

Likewise, it would be little consolation to me to know 
that, should my son get shot with a gun owned by the 
careless father of one of his friends, that the father 
will be held to the full extent of the law. I want to 
know how to prevent the incident from occurring in the 
first place.

Your ‘solution’ to the problem of gun violence in the 
US is a lot like the following ‘solution’ to the 
problem of drug abuse in the US: Just make all the 
drugs legal – let folks have unfettered access to drugs 
– and then if they commit any crimes while under the 
influence, hold them responsible for those crimes. 
Neither is a serious solution to a serious problem.

Third, my comments about Hamilton were based on news 
reports and first-person reports from folks in the 
emergency room on the night of the attack. I’d be 
interested in knowing whether Hamilton had a semi-
automatic or armor-piercing bullets, so any other light 
that anyone else has to shed on this would be 
appreciated. I’m thankful for your comments, Mike, 
since clearly I need to look into the issue more.

Much of this is beside the main issues of our debate, 
though. My purpose is not to ban firearms or bullets – 
I have no power to do that. My main purpose is to 
explore the possibility of banning certain firearms or 
bullets, in contrast to the “I’ve never met a weapon I 
didn’t like” approach of the NRA and its supporters. I 
picked semi-automatics and armor-piercing bullets 
because they are obvious candidates for banning, IMO. 
The fact that armor-piercing bullets are legal strikes 
me as ridiculous and shows just how far the NRA and 
others have succeeded in spreading the myth of an 
unfettered right to bear arms. 

The fact that Hamilton might not have had a semi-
automatic rifle, and that he might not have been in 
possession of armor-piercing bullets, just makes it 
clear that our current situation is even crazier than I 
at first thought. There are even more guns and 
ammunition that should be considered possible targets 
for banning.

This gets back to one of my original points, e.g., 
about fear on the part of the supporters of unfettered 
gun rights. What do you think the chances are that 
someone might attack your house, wearing armor, and 
that the only way that you could defend yourself is 
with a semi-automatic rifle, or armor-piercing bullets, 
or Hamilton’s AK-47 clone? You yourself said that a 
normal rifle might do the job just as well. So the need 
for semi-automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, and 
Hamilton’s AK-47 clone is exactly what?

It seems that these examples cannot be justified by 
appealing to a need for protection. Nor does the right 
to bear arms, which I’ve argued is not unfettered, 
support them. Someone has to show that these dangerous 
toys do more good than harm and, so far, I just don’t 
see how that argument gets off the ground. 

Of course I might be wrong and I’m open to discussing 
the topic in more detail!

Best, Joe