The missing voice in the gun control debates

[BrainGlutton]

For my part, I accept as a fact that America will never in your lifetime or mine or our grandchildren’s be a disarmed society to the extent of the UK or Japan. I do not even have any brief for any particular gun-control regime (though I think Canada’s is at least worth studying and learning from, the culture and conditions being so very similar to ours).

No, my position is simply that gun ownership is not a matter that merits constitutional protection. It should not be regarded as a “right” in the sense that free speech is a right. It does not deserve to be set above-and-beyond the reach of the ordinary legislative/political process in that way. Gun control should be merely a political issue, to be threshed out at the polls and in the legislatures, not in the courts – and, of course, American gun owners and gun-rights activists will for generations to come be very strong at the polls and in the legislatures. So what? Legislatures can look at policy studies, evaluate gun-control efforts on their merits and effects, try things and reject what turns out not to work in practice, and be accountable to the voters for the results. That is good enough, it is how reasonable public policy can and is and should be made. But we do not have any good or rational use for the Second Amendment in this day and age.

My position, also, is that gun control in and of itself is not all that important, compared to other issues facing our society, like the distribution of wealth. It’s like gay marriage – I’m all and unreservedly for it, but, if I were a politician, I would not give it a very high priority compared with a lot of other things. The lack of it is no existential threat to our society, no more than the presence of it; and likewise with guns. They kill a lot of people needlessly, but in terms of the general health of American society, guns are like a flu compared to cancer.

Now, tell me, for purposes of this thread – is that a “missing voice in the gun control debates”? It shouldn’t be.

[Condescending_Robot]

But unless you are proposing a Constitutional amendment, this is a closed issue. The text says what it says, otherwise smart people pretending not to understand dependent clauses notwithstanding, and the Supreme Court has spoken.

[BrainGlutton]

@Condescending_Robot

But unless you are proposing a Constitutional amendment, this is a closed issue.

But I am – or would, if I thought the matter sufficiently important, which it isn’t.

And the point of it all is that proposing the outright repeal of the Second Amendment would not make me a radical-pacifist gun-confiscator, which I am not.

Learn that, and shift the goalposts accordingly.

[BrainGlutton]

Actually, IMO, the most important thing to delete from the Bill of Rights would be the clause of the 5th Amendment that precludes taking private property without compensation. As Daniel Lazare once remarked, every good leftist should be champing at the bit to remove that. Gun-rights are utterly trivial by comparison.

[Northern_Piper]

@BrainGlutton

…(though I think Canada’s is at least worth studying and learning from, the culture and conditions being so very similar to ours).

No, my position is simply that gun ownership is not a matter that merits constitutional protection.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point, BrainGlutton - the presence of constitutional protection for gun ownership in the US, and the lack of constitutional protection in Canada, is a significant cultural difference.

When a country puts X into its list of constitutionally protected rights, the people are saying: “X is a good thing, so important to our society that we have to restrict governments’ powers to interfere with it.”

That is a major cultural and political statement.

In the US, whether you like it or not, individual gun ownership is constitutionally on par with free speech, freedom of religion, right to counsel, and so on. The right of individual gun ownership is part of a theory of political structure entrenched in the US Constitution: that the citizens need guns to protect themselves from the government.

That gives the supporters of private gun ownership very strong cultural, moral and political support in their debates, one that I think the Supreme Court has validated in Heller. Gun ownership is an elevated and publicly valued right in the US, and the constitutional protection gives the supporters of gun ownership a strong bargaining position in the public debates.

That cultural/political/constitutional value is completely lacking in Canada. We made a conscious decision not to include the right to bear arms in our Constitution. That is an expression of a much different cultural and political values system. The idea of needing firearms to defend oneself from the government does not have constitutional underpinnings, largely because in our political and constitutional history, we have achieved responsible government, democracy, and constitutionally protected rights through political means, not by armed revolution.

Signficant portions of eastern Canada were settled by Americans fleeing from armed rebellion, and who lost their property and life-style as a result of it. The armed rebellions that have occurred in Canadian history have failed (the '37 rebellions, the North-West Rebellion), in the sense that militarily they were defeated. (They forced the governments of the day to re-think policies, but the governments stayed in power, unlike the royal governors in the US.)

The lack of constitutional protection in Canada makes it much easier for proponents of gun control laws to advance their positions, and weakens the ability of supporters of private gun ownership to challenge it. The debate plays out as a purely political one, without the spectre of “Founding Fathers” and the legal reality of a constitutional guarantee restricting the scope of options. That is the point I was making in my earlier posts.

And again, I don’t want to de-rail this discussion into the free expression issue raised above; but I agree with Terr that the lack of constitutional protection for private gun ownership in Canada is a significant difference from the US political and cultural situation and cannot be ignored. Bottom line is that on this point, Canada and the US are culturally quite different.

[Condescending_Robot]

And yet, Canada still has guns. A* lot *of them. People like to forget that when waxing on about how great it would be to have no meaningful protections of rights at all and how much of a utopia we would be if we could just be like cool old Canada where the notwithstanding clause lets you outlaw anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. But at the end of the day, Canada is a place where people can, and do, get guns very easily, but doesn’t have the same level of murder as the U.S., which proves for the one billionth time that gun ownership is not the determining factor of murder rates.

[solosam]

@Condescending_Robot

which proves for the one billionth time that gun ownership is not the determining factor of murder rates.

Nothing to add, just thought this bears repeating because it is so true.

We pick on guns because it is the easiest thing to legislate. Things like being nice to people, treating others with dignity, and exercising responsibility for your life are much more difficult to legislate and therefore dismissed out of hand.

[Northern_Piper]

Yes, Canada has guns - but they are much more heavily regulated, including the much greater restrictions on handguns, and on the acquisition of all long-guns. You can’t just look at bare numbers and say that regulations make no difference.

[Terr]

@Northern_Piper

Yes, Canada has guns - but they are much more heavily regulated, including the much greater restrictions on handguns, and on the acquisition of all long-guns. You can’t just look at bare numbers and say that regulations make no difference.

A good comparison of Canada with US would look at adjoining US states and Canadian provinces and their homicide rates.

Centerwall, Homicide and the Prevelance of Handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1991, Vol. 134, No. 11, pp. 1245-1260:

“As compared with Americans, Canadians in the 1970s possessed one tenth as many handguns per capita. To assess whether this affected the total criminal homicide rate, the mean annual criminal homicide rates of Canadian provinces were compared with those of adjoining US states for the period of 1976 to 1980. No consistent differences were observed: criminal homicide rates were sometimes higher in the Canadian province, and sometimes higher in the adjoining US state. Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states. The similar rates of criminal homicide are primarily attributable to underlying similar rates of aggravated assault.”—Centerwall, Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1991, Vol. 134, No. 11, pp. 1245-1260.

And,

Centerwall, Author’s Response to “Invited Commentary: Common Wisdom and Plain Truth”, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1991, Vol. 134, No. 11, p. 1264:

“Finally, is the prevalence of handguns a determinant of the homicide rate? According to the analysis under discussion, evidently not. If you are surprised by this finding, so am I. I did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nonetheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources. In a world of limited funding, that is almost as important as defining the target.”—Centerwall, Author’s Response to “Invited Commentary: Common Wisdom and Plain Truth”, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1991, Vol. 134, No. 11, p. 1264.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/134/11/1264.extract

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Condescending_Robot

And yet, Canada still has guns. A* lot *of them. People like to forget that when waxing on about how great it would be to have no meaningful protections of rights at all and how much of a utopia we would be if we could just be like cool old Canada where the notwithstanding clause lets you outlaw anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. But at the end of the day, Canada is a place where people can, and do, get guns very easily, but doesn’t have the same level of murder as the U.S., which proves for the one billionth time that gun ownership is not the determining factor of murder rates.

It is vastly harder to get handguns in Canada than it is in the US and private ownership of handguns in Canada is vastly lower than that of the US.

Since over 90% of all gun homicides in the US are committed by handguns Canada’s homicide rate is much, much lower.

[BrainGlutton]

@Northern_Piper

I respectfully disagree with you on this point, BrainGlutton - the presence of constitutional protection for gun ownership in the US, and the lack of constitutional protection in Canada, is a significant cultural difference.

When a country puts X into its list of constitutionally protected rights, the people are saying: “X is a good thing, so important to our society that we have to restrict governments’ powers to interfere with it.”

That is a major cultural and political statement.

In the US, whether you like it or not, individual gun ownership is constitutionally on par with free speech, freedom of religion, right to counsel, and so on. The right of individual gun ownership is part of a theory of political structure entrenched in the US Constitution: that the citizens need guns to protect themselves from the government.

That gives the supporters of private gun ownership very strong cultural, moral and political support in their debates, one that I think the Supreme Court has validated in Heller. Gun ownership is an elevated and publicly valued right in the US, and the constitutional protection gives the supporters of gun ownership a strong bargaining position in the public debates.

No doubt; but, nothing of that nature is immutable – constitutionally or culturally.

[Terr]

@Ibn_Warraq

Since over 90% of all gun homicides in the US are committed by handguns Canada’s homicide rate is much, much lower.

Let’s look at some states bordering Canada: (Canadian homicide rate is 1.9)

Minnesota: homicide rate 2011: 1.4 Adjoining Canadian provinces: Ontario homicide rate: Ontario: 1.5, Manitoba 1.3

Maine: homicide rate 2011: 2.0 Adjoining Canadian provinces: Quebec 1.2 Nova Scotia 1.7

New Hampshire: homicide rate 2011 1.3 Adjoining Canadian provinces: Quebec 1.2

Vermont: homicide rate 2011 1.3 Adjoining Canadian provinces: Quebec 1.2

New York - doesn’t really count since NYC is most of the homicide rate and it is not adjoining Canada.

Michigan - same thing, Detroit

North Dakota: 3.5. Saskatchewan: 4.1. Manitoba: 3.3

Montana: 2.8 Saskatchewan 4.1 Alberta 2.8

…

I don’t see a correlation here between gun ownership and homicide rate Canada/US. Do you?

[BrainGlutton]

@Condescending_Robot

And yet, Canada still has guns. A* lot *of them. People like to forget that when waxing on about how great it would be to have no meaningful protections of rights at all and how much of a utopia we would be if we could just be like cool old Canada where the notwithstanding clause lets you outlaw anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. But at the end of the day, Canada is a place where people can, and do, get guns very easily, but doesn’t have the same level of murder as the U.S., which proves for the one billionth time that gun ownership is not the determining factor of murder rates.

Michael Moore noticed that too.

My liberal compatriots will tell you if we just had less guns, there would be less gun deaths. And, mathematically, that would be true. If you have less arsenic in the water supply, it will kill less people. Less of anything bad – calories, smoking, reality TV – will kill far fewer people. And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.

But this, too, has a problem. There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) – and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada’s culture is very similar to ours – the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don’t grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.

So – why us?

I posed this question a decade ago in my film Bowling for Columbine, and this week, I have had little to say because I feel I said what I had to say 10 years ago – and it doesn’t seem to have done a whole lot of good other than to now look like it was actually a crystal ball posing as a movie.

This is what I said then, and it is what I will say again today:

1. We Americans are incredibly good killers. We believe in killing as a way of accomplishing our goals. Three-quarters of our states execute criminals, even though the states with the lower murder rates are generally the states with no death penalty.

Our killing is not just historical (the slaughter of Indians and slaves and each other in a “civil” war). It is our current way of resolving whatever it is we’re afraid of. It’s invasion as foreign policy. Sure there’s Iraq and Afghanistan – but we’ve been invaders since we “conquered the wild west” and now we’re hooked so bad we don’t even know where to invade (bin Laden wasn’t hiding in Afghanistan, he was in Pakistan) or what to invade for (Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11). We send our lower classes off to do the killing, and the rest of us who don’t have a loved one over there don’t spend a single minute of any given day thinking about the carnage. And now we send in remote pilotless planes to kill, planes that are being controlled by faceless men in a lush, air conditioned studio in suburban Las Vegas. It is madness.

2. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes? Maybe we should fix our race problem and our poverty problem (again, number one in the industrialized world) and then maybe there would be fewer frustrated, frightened, angry people reaching for the gun in the drawer. Maybe we would take better care of each other. . . .

Of course, one could still make a case that gun regulation makes all the difference; Canadians can get guns, but are under all kinds of restrictions about keeping them stored securely, etc.

[eno801]

Just one observation on my local weekly ammo hunt. The missing voice is there just not on message boards. Just because you don’t see it does not mean it does not exist. It includes folks like my sister writing our representatives on upcoming legislation. The older black lady I saw yesterday bemoaning the lack of ammo because she can’t get out to practice as much as she wants. The young lesbian couple in motorcycle gear purchasing a pistol and shotgun at the local Academy.
I know it might take some of you guys by surprise,but your view of the typical “gun nut” has changed and is no longer just old conservative/republican white men. Those of you hoping the “gun culture” to die along with them and then we can move to a gun free America are going to be waiting a long time. Like my sister says, “Dammit, Obama I voted for you to try and do something about the economy not this shit!”. i know anecdote is not data, but just my observation. They will start coming out the woodwork if they get pushed enough.

[ExTank]

@eno801

I know it might take some of you guys by surprise,but your view of the typical “gun nut” has changed and is no longer just old conservative/republican white men. Those of you hoping the “gun culture” to die along with them and then we can move to a gun free America are going to be waiting a long time. Like my sister says, “Dammit, Obama I voted for you to try and do something about the economy not this shit!”. i know anecdote is not data, but just my observation. They will start coming out the woodwork if they get pushed enough.

My day-to-day observations of customers at gun stores and gun shows jibes with yours. I’m seeing more (not a lot, but more) blacks*, and asians of various types. I’m seeing guys and girls with spiky red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet hair and more metal studs and rings on their heads than a key shop buying guns. I’ve seen a guy with a T-shirt reading, “I’m Gay! Got a Problem With That?” buying a handgun at a gun show (from a dealer, filling out all appropriate paperwork). I’ve seen hipsters with their natty beards, BCG’s, plaid shorts, and bowling shirts buying guns.

I see this as a Good Thing. Not that more people feel the need for a gun for protection, but that the overall widening of the ethnic/cultural base of the gun culture only makes us stronger.

*Not gang-bagers or gangsta wannabes; just ordinary folks.

[eno801]

You know another group I see quite often, recently naturalized citizens from many nations. Koreans, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Sikhs (I could be wrong very distinct turban and beard), etc. I guess they appreciate the fact they can legally own and purchase arms.

[ExTank]

@eno801

You know another group I see quite often, recently naturalized citizens from many nations. Koreans, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Sikhs (I could be wrong very distinct turban and beard), etc. I guess they appreciate the fact they can legally own and purchase arms.

Let Freedom Ring!

[Paladud]

I am what OP would consider an extremist on the issue, though I do not own a gun at this point, nor will I until I can afford the range fees and ammo to become proficient. I am for relatively unconstrained firearms ownership not on a constitutional basis (it’s just a piece of paper as far as I’m concerned) but 1) because I get a large, positive defense externality from other legal firearms owners and the perception of a high rate of ownership and 2) the desire to learn someday.

Our law enforcement and judiciary system are utter shit compared to other industrialized nations. I would be content with severe restrictions or even an outright ban on firearms if the country had a long and solid safety record like, say, Singapore or Switzerland or even Canada.

[Northern_Piper]

Ex-Tank - what’s a BCG?

[Condescending_Robot]

@ExTank

My day-to-day observations of customers at gun stores and gun shows jibes with yours. I’m seeing more (not a lot, but more) blacks*, and asians of various types. I’m seeing guys and girls with spiky red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet hair and more metal studs and rings on their heads than a key shop buying guns. I’ve seen a guy with a T-shirt reading, “I’m Gay! Got a Problem With That?” buying a handgun at a gun show (from a dealer, filling out all appropriate paperwork). I’ve seen hipsters with their natty beards, BCG’s, plaid shorts, and bowling shirts buying guns.

I see this as a Good Thing. Not that more people feel the need for a gun for protection, but that the overall widening of the ethnic/cultural base of the gun culture only makes us stronger.

*Not gang-bagers or gangsta wannabes; just ordinary folks.

I know and you know that all sorts of people buy guns, but one of the reasons that those populations aren’t visible gun owners (besides the general rhetorical help it provides to the confiscation side to only call upon neo-Confederates bent on a race war to fill the “gun rights guy to be yelled at by talk show host” slot on CNN) is that the NRA has hijacked gun rights to be about some broader conservative bullshit agenda that is very explicitly anti-immigrant and white-supremacist. The best thing we as gun rights supporters could do is make it clear that one can have a principled, absolutist stance on guns without associating with that particular group.