In the first part of this piece concerning the Second Amendment I concentrated on the right to keep and bear arms as it pertained to liberty and national freedom. We closed that part by stating that America has allowed its own disarmament in the interest of safety. But, why?
Isolated instances and big numbers are used to tell us that we are unsafe as long as anyone can buy a gun. But really, a small percentage of people abuse guns or are even killed by guns. The US population is over 300 million. Gun violence claims 30,000 lives[1] in America, that is .001% of the population each year. Which is extraordinarily good odds for survival by any standard. For comparison, the risk of getting pregnant with proper condom use is the same rate of .001%. However, the risk of getting AIDS with proper condom use is much higher at 15%[2] and by the hype, you would think condoms are really safe. Isn't it interesting that condoms are comonly viewed as protection while guns are viewed as risky?
I understand that, to victims, .001% doesn't seem like a small thing. But to be honest, it is more likely for you to die in a car accident than in a gun related crime. Yes, the gun is used intentionally to harm and the car has other uses, but again, gun violence is not happening on every street corner, as some of the more rabid gun control advocates seem to be saying. The vast majority of the population live their daily lives directly unaffected by gun death. We could have a school shooting once a week for a year and this would still be true. I'm sure at least one person who reads this will oppose my views because of their personal experience. I'll tell you right now, you're projecting your experience as valid for everyone else. Stop it.
While gun control advocates say they are only after "sensible" gun laws, with regards to gun control, Janet Reno supposedly said in 1993, "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Also in '93 Democrat Charles Schummer said on NBC that, "We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!". Gun control advocates are not using sense in any way other than emotionally. Logical sense will show that more guns do not equal more crime. In fact more guns, responsibly used, cuts down on crime, for the same reason the Cold War never got "hot". The threat of reciprocation prevents sensible people from initiating violence. If you want to stop or prevent a bully of any age or group from harassing you, you must demonstrate that it is not healthy for them to do so. No sane person messes with someone who they know is armed. Nor does any sane government mess with a generally armed populace. You can see a direct correlation between the expansion of government power and the shrinkage of gun ownership. If one looks at states with high legal gun ownership one sees less government control. And unlike those who believe the government is a benign entity that exists to care for and protect the population, I view less control as a good thing.
The question still remains: does banning guns and trusting safety to the police make one safer? Rudy Giuliani did make New York safer by being very aggressive, some might even say Draconian, in his anti-crime and anti-gun policies. In the Presidential debate at the University of New Hampshire in 2007, he said that while he was mayor, the chances of being a crime victim was 59% higher in Boston than in New York. This statistic is very interesting to me, and possibly to anyone who knows weapon control laws, because Massachusetts has some of the most stringent weapons control laws in the entire country. In addition, Los Angeles has a serious gang violence problem. This is in California, another state with extensive weapons control laws.
Now, let's look at Britain. In 1997 Britain completely banned handguns. This move was hailed as potentially reducing violent crime, and done in emotional response to a school shooting. But has it really reduced crime? According to Iain Murray in his article, "Did British Gun Control Work?"[3], in 2001 there were an estimated 300,000 illegal handguns in Britain. According to an article by David Bambers in the National Telegraph[4], the number of illegal, imported handguns has gone up significantly as has the number of gun related crimes. And to top it off, a 1999 survey cited at www.sweetliberty.org[5], says that Crime in Britain was actually higher percentage-wise than the US.
Well that was then, what about now? According to Britain's Home Office website, gun violence went down in 06/07, but the statistic is misleading (I think intentionally so, because no one wants to look like a fool). Reading the actual report[6] those levels are indeed down from the previous year and a surge that started in '99, but they are still higher than 1996 (pre-ban) levels by 5,000 incidents and 10 homicides. This is significant considering the relatively low British population. Actually, the levels across the board are mostly above pre-ban levels. Although, general wounding by gun has gone down which may be good, but it's probably because armed criminals do not have to fire a weapon to commit a crime against the unarmed. Gun homicides have only been at pre-ban levels once in the last 10 years the ban has been in place. Basically what happened is precisely what so called "gun nuts" say will happen if you ban weapons. The only people with the guns are criminals and crime will go up. Gun control laws affect the law abiding, not the lawless that they supposedly target. The only way to effectively reduce crime while enacting gun control laws is to move towards a police state, as NYC demonstrated under Rudy Guiliani, and Britain demonstrated by expanding their police force, issuing portable metal detectors[7], and finally issuing guns to regular officers, a move they did not do until October 2000[8].
Let's seriously ask ourselves some questions. Since when has banning anything made the use of it stop? Why would someone who is committing a violent act, which is already illegal, be afraid to use an illegal weapon? Harsher punishment? Is that really going to affect a career criminal, or a gang member? Are they going to use inflated bladders when weapons are banned? Did we not learn from Clue that the gun is only one of many potential weapons? Britain just started talking about banning the sale of katanas because they have now been used in assaults. Are we realizing that maybe guns aren't the problem? Will this trend continue to the point where only licensed chefs can buy kitchen knives? At what point will we start to need a legal reason to pick up rocks? Are we really that stupid? The last is a rhetorical question, before you answer it.
Of all the shootings that have happened in recent months, one comes to my mind as unusual. In the shooting that occurred at New Life Church in Colorado, a gunman was stopped in his killing rampage by a volunteer security guard. Did you catch that? A volunteer. No police, no military, no official government agent, the gunman did not stop himself with suicide after the rage was spent. Nope, it was a volunteer. The bottom line on police protection is that police are usually the clean-up crew. Barring placing police on every street corner in the country, police will rarely be able to prevent a crime; they are mostly there to punish someone who has committed a crime after figuring out who they are -if they can. And of course use traffic laws to raise revenue for their township, let's not forget that valued community service. People willing to volunteer and protect themselves and their neighborhood are the ones who can stop violent crime. The following story has been exaggerated in urban legends, but Snopes.com has verified the core facts[9] that on February 3rd, 1990, David Zaback, whose sanity must be seriously questioned, tried to rob a gun store near Seattle. He was, of course, the only person who did not survive the encounter. Here in America, there are less people willing to be responsible for their own defense and it shows.
Every unarmed, untrained person is a potential victim and their status as such is their own choice, either consciously or otherwise. Every horrifying shooting takes place in the presence of unarmed, supposedly government protected people. That's the bottom line. Those who fear for their safety are usually the ones who have no idea how to protect themselves and think that someone else is supposed to do it for them. Show me someone who is trained for self-defense or who is armed and knows how to use their weapon and I will show you someone who is not overly worried about their safety. As I said, bullies do not mess with people who can stand up to them. And let's think of the children. According to Aaron Zelman of the group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, "Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children."
Every dictator in the history of the world has feared an armed populace. In ancient times, slaves had little access to weapons and combat training. Gladiators were a definite exception to this and, as can be seen with regards to Spartacus and his rebellion, armed and trained slaves are very capable of resisting enslavement. In modern times, dictators use extreme measures of violence and demonstrably suppress private ownership of weapons. I am absolutely not saying the US Government is actively controlling weapons for the purpose of establishing a tyranny. What I am saying is that an unarmed populace is ripe for takeover by a tyranny. This, our founding fathers were well aware of. Whether Federalist or Anti-Federalist, they understood that tyranny cannot survive or grow with a generally armed population. Unfortunately, in the long term, the Anti-Federalists showed far more prophetic accuracy. The limitation of the Federalist view is that they thought there was little chance of the Federal Government overreaching its authority and felt the danger of mob rule outweighed what they saw as an unlikely problem. A viewpoint that, in the long run, has become increasingly wrong.
In this country, the problem I see with gun control and our current trend of federalization is we become vulnerable on two fronts. One potential problem is the idea of our current government becoming fully corrupted. Corruption is a gradual problem. What is gotten away with today is a foundation for what will be gotten away with tomorrow. This is human nature and happens with government and power in general. For those who think the North American Union is some conspiracy theory, just look at The Larry King interview with the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox[10]. He stated that he and President Bush and had discussed this as a long term plan. The introduction of the "Amero" was referred to as a long, long term plan. Once we have gotten used to the idea, I assume. Hugo Chavez, oddly enough has become the biggest stumbling block in that process according to Fox. And lest we forget, Adolph Hitler was elected to his position. Germany had become very vulnerable and they elected someone who offered a solution. And of course Hitler made sure to expand Germany's gun control laws[11].
The second vulnerability America could face is that with more and more power located in a central government, the susceptibly to takeover is more localized. The single headed dragon is more easily defeated than the multi-headed hydra, so to speak. With an increasingly powerless and unfortunately complacent populace, the power in Washington DC becomes a target that is very strategic. The states do not operate as well independently as they once did. There was a time when the loss of the Federal government would have done little to destroy American life. Now it would do far more damage, as the states depend more on the Federal Government to coordinate and fund programs and commerce. In the future, with our seemingly incessant calls for federal laws and programs to protect and provide for us, an attack on the federal government could cripple us even further. Basically, most of us are out of practice being self-sufficient. If we look at the case of Switzerland, they have managed to maintain neutrality by not only being a secure financial institution for the world, but by being well armed. One could postulate that the first reason is dependent on the second. And they require military service of all their citizens. Despite the fact that it has one of the largest concentrations of the world's wealth, no one has tried to invade Switzerland. Again, a well armed and trained population is not something any aggressive force wants to deal with.
Now do I think my opinion is valid? Yes. Do I think it will be widely understood or agreed with? No. Or more accurately, only in hindsight. I believe one day we will regret that we gave away our liberty in exchange for security. Security that was actually guaranteed to us by the very Amendment we will allow to become "obsolete" because we thought it was too dangerous. Speech is great, dialogue is essential, and diplomacy and compromise are very noble. The reality is that words only work if everyone agrees not to go past words. No such guarantee has ever existed, nor will it ever. Our Founders knew this and attempted to guarantee that our rights would not be abused by anyone when they gave us the Second Amendment.
I leave you with a final quote attributed to the Founding Father of one of the most brutal tyrannies we have seen in our modern era:
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ...
Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."
-V.I. Lenin
Footnotes:
[1 http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/phil.html
[2] http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/research/topics/STI/pdf/condomreport.pdf
[3] http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/22/63817.shtml
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml
[5] http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/britishcrimerates.htm
[6] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf
[7]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/violent-crime-action-plan
[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1871230.stm
[9] http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGrn0hZlCQ
[11] http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
©2008 Taliesin, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, February 24, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Taliesin only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Taliesin is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Taliesin of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Taliesin |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Aguila1
Date: 2008-02-25 07:45:52
Excellent and well-researched article. My only point of contention is the 56,000,000 statistic. Maybe triple that would be a closer number. "In sum well over 100,000,000 people have been murdered by their governments since 1900, several times greater than the 35,654,000 battle-dead from all the foreign and domestic wars fought in these years, including World Wars I and II."
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-25 08:27:53
"Isn't it interesting that condoms are comonly viewed as protection while guns are viewed as risky?"
Great quote. Here's another one:
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- inaccurately attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but still a damned good quote.
Posted By: Ray
Date: 2008-12-14 20:07:06
From; The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991. http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html By statutory definition, the National Guard is "that part of the organized militia of the several States" that is "armed ... wholly or partly at Federal expense" and "is federally recognized."[319] "In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State ... may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces."[320] The U.S. Government issues arms to the National Guard, but not to the states' defense forces.[321] "So far as practicable, the same types of ... arms ... as are issued to the Army shall be issued to the Army National Guard ...."[322] The availability of uniform arms to a portion of the state militias pursuant to the National Defense Act of 1916 greatly enhanced defense capabilities. As explained in Maryland for the Use of Levin v. United States:[323] From the days of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World War I, the various militias embodied the concept of a citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve force of the United States Armed Forces .... Pursuant to power vested in Congress by the Constitution [Art. I, section 8], the Guard was to be uniformed, equipped, and trained in much the same way as the regular army, subject to federal standards and capable of being "federalized" by units, rather than by drafting individual soldiers. In return, Congress authorized the allocation of federal equipment to the Guard ....[324] The states are entitled to require members of their defense forces and reserve militias to provide themselves with the same arms which are used by the National Guard. The ideal of a uniformity of arms for all militia members has been recognized since the Constitution was framed. Based on the above, Congress has no power to prohibit possession of such militia arms as the states are entitled to require that its citizens or a part thereof furnish themselves with and keep in their homes. The states' concurrent power to organize and provide for arming their militias is a reserved power which (p.204)federal legislation may not contradict.