"Society has only a few tools in its toolkit to solve public-health crises. Perhaps the most powerful of these tools is legislation." (Photo: David Becker/Getty Images)
The (Current) Gun-Control Debate Is Not Really About Gun Control
The Second Amendment got us into this mess. So we can hardly expect it to get us out of it.
It has been a little over a month since the Stoneman Douglas mass shooting, a week since hundreds of thousands of high school students walked out of class to protest government inaction on gun control, a few days after the shooting at Great Mills High School, and a few days before the national March for Our Lives.
Having vigorously debated the gun-control issue with my Advanced Criminal Law classes at LSU Law School and having read extensive commentary from both sides - both the pro-gun-control crowd and anti-gun-control crowd - I only recently arrived at a crucial insight. While I used to believe that they disagreed only about how to solve the gun-violence problem in the U.S., I now believe that one side doesn't even think that there is a gun-violence problem to solve in the first place.
In full disclosure, my own position is not only that there is indeed a significant gun-violence problem in the U.S. but also that the Second Amendment is the main culprit; that it lies at the very root, both legally and culturally, of the United States' pathologically high rates of homicide, suicide, serious injuries, and PTSD.
The more common view, of course, is that the Second Amendment is overall a good thing, that it is necessary to protect our natural or "God-given" right to self-defense, especially now that there are over 300 million guns in circulation. The problem with this position, however, is that it is strangely circular. The entire reason we have 300+ million guns to defend against is because decades-long efforts to stop this proliferation (mostly by Democrats) have been defeated by public officials (mostly Republicans) insisting that these efforts conflict with the Second Amendment. In this way, the Second Amendment is being used to solve the very problem that it was instrumental in creating.
This is not unlike a cybersecurity firm hacking into otherwise fully protected computers in order to drive up demand for their software - or the gun lobby proposing to help us defend against all the guns out there by putting even more guns out there. In what other context is the proposed solution to a problem simply to exacerbate the problem? And in what other context do so many people passionately support this counterintuitive logic? The Second Amendment got us into this mess. So we can hardly expect it to get us out of it.
In the end, Second Amendment "absolutists" just don't seem to agree with the majority of Americans that there is in fact a gun-violence problem in the U.S. To be sure, they concede that mass shootings of innocent people, for example, are wrong. But deep down, they believe that these harms are not nearly as bad as the harms - at least graver injustice and possibly more deaths - that would be caused by any government efforts to restrict the Second Amendment's application.
By analogy, I suppose, 30,000 car fatalities every year is terrible, but even more terrible would be the harms wrought by government effsorts to restrict the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of cars. Unfortunately, this analogy is not very persuasive. The government has quite successfully reduced car fatalities by pressuring car manufacturers to install safety mechanisms such as auto-lock brakes and stiffening penalties for drunk driving, reckless driving, and failure to wear seatbelts (all on top of requiring drivers to have reached a threshold age, demonstrated training and competence, and maintained a valid license). So why should guns be treated any differently? If anything, guns should be regulated even more rigorously than cars because, given their relatively small size and potent design, they are capable of killing many more people in many more places.
Society has only a few tools in its toolkit to solve public-health crises. Perhaps the most powerful of these tools is legislation. While laws don't always successfully solve the problems that they target - and occasionally make things much worse (for example, laws against marijuana possession and use) - they usually do. Murder laws, for example, have not come even close to preventing murders. But they most certainly have dramatically reduced the number of murders that would otherwise have occurred if they didn't exist at all. There is no reason to think that additional laws restricting access to guns, and to the most dangerous kinds of guns, would not - and actually do not - similarly reduce the great number of homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and injuries in the U.S.
This commonsense assumption, however, is a non-starter if one side doesn't believe that the number of homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and injuries in the U.S. should be reduced in the first place. So if we are ever to have any rational dialogue with Second Amendment absolutists - that is, most Republican politicians - the question we must first address is not whether banning bump stocks or requiring universal background checks or any other particular legislative reform will help reduce gun violence. It is whether there is even a gun-violence problem worth solving to begin with.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It has been a little over a month since the Stoneman Douglas mass shooting, a week since hundreds of thousands of high school students walked out of class to protest government inaction on gun control, a few days after the shooting at Great Mills High School, and a few days before the national March for Our Lives.
Having vigorously debated the gun-control issue with my Advanced Criminal Law classes at LSU Law School and having read extensive commentary from both sides - both the pro-gun-control crowd and anti-gun-control crowd - I only recently arrived at a crucial insight. While I used to believe that they disagreed only about how to solve the gun-violence problem in the U.S., I now believe that one side doesn't even think that there is a gun-violence problem to solve in the first place.
In full disclosure, my own position is not only that there is indeed a significant gun-violence problem in the U.S. but also that the Second Amendment is the main culprit; that it lies at the very root, both legally and culturally, of the United States' pathologically high rates of homicide, suicide, serious injuries, and PTSD.
The more common view, of course, is that the Second Amendment is overall a good thing, that it is necessary to protect our natural or "God-given" right to self-defense, especially now that there are over 300 million guns in circulation. The problem with this position, however, is that it is strangely circular. The entire reason we have 300+ million guns to defend against is because decades-long efforts to stop this proliferation (mostly by Democrats) have been defeated by public officials (mostly Republicans) insisting that these efforts conflict with the Second Amendment. In this way, the Second Amendment is being used to solve the very problem that it was instrumental in creating.
This is not unlike a cybersecurity firm hacking into otherwise fully protected computers in order to drive up demand for their software - or the gun lobby proposing to help us defend against all the guns out there by putting even more guns out there. In what other context is the proposed solution to a problem simply to exacerbate the problem? And in what other context do so many people passionately support this counterintuitive logic? The Second Amendment got us into this mess. So we can hardly expect it to get us out of it.
In the end, Second Amendment "absolutists" just don't seem to agree with the majority of Americans that there is in fact a gun-violence problem in the U.S. To be sure, they concede that mass shootings of innocent people, for example, are wrong. But deep down, they believe that these harms are not nearly as bad as the harms - at least graver injustice and possibly more deaths - that would be caused by any government efforts to restrict the Second Amendment's application.
By analogy, I suppose, 30,000 car fatalities every year is terrible, but even more terrible would be the harms wrought by government effsorts to restrict the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of cars. Unfortunately, this analogy is not very persuasive. The government has quite successfully reduced car fatalities by pressuring car manufacturers to install safety mechanisms such as auto-lock brakes and stiffening penalties for drunk driving, reckless driving, and failure to wear seatbelts (all on top of requiring drivers to have reached a threshold age, demonstrated training and competence, and maintained a valid license). So why should guns be treated any differently? If anything, guns should be regulated even more rigorously than cars because, given their relatively small size and potent design, they are capable of killing many more people in many more places.
Society has only a few tools in its toolkit to solve public-health crises. Perhaps the most powerful of these tools is legislation. While laws don't always successfully solve the problems that they target - and occasionally make things much worse (for example, laws against marijuana possession and use) - they usually do. Murder laws, for example, have not come even close to preventing murders. But they most certainly have dramatically reduced the number of murders that would otherwise have occurred if they didn't exist at all. There is no reason to think that additional laws restricting access to guns, and to the most dangerous kinds of guns, would not - and actually do not - similarly reduce the great number of homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and injuries in the U.S.
This commonsense assumption, however, is a non-starter if one side doesn't believe that the number of homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and injuries in the U.S. should be reduced in the first place. So if we are ever to have any rational dialogue with Second Amendment absolutists - that is, most Republican politicians - the question we must first address is not whether banning bump stocks or requiring universal background checks or any other particular legislative reform will help reduce gun violence. It is whether there is even a gun-violence problem worth solving to begin with.
It has been a little over a month since the Stoneman Douglas mass shooting, a week since hundreds of thousands of high school students walked out of class to protest government inaction on gun control, a few days after the shooting at Great Mills High School, and a few days before the national March for Our Lives.
Having vigorously debated the gun-control issue with my Advanced Criminal Law classes at LSU Law School and having read extensive commentary from both sides - both the pro-gun-control crowd and anti-gun-control crowd - I only recently arrived at a crucial insight. While I used to believe that they disagreed only about how to solve the gun-violence problem in the U.S., I now believe that one side doesn't even think that there is a gun-violence problem to solve in the first place.
In full disclosure, my own position is not only that there is indeed a significant gun-violence problem in the U.S. but also that the Second Amendment is the main culprit; that it lies at the very root, both legally and culturally, of the United States' pathologically high rates of homicide, suicide, serious injuries, and PTSD.
The more common view, of course, is that the Second Amendment is overall a good thing, that it is necessary to protect our natural or "God-given" right to self-defense, especially now that there are over 300 million guns in circulation. The problem with this position, however, is that it is strangely circular. The entire reason we have 300+ million guns to defend against is because decades-long efforts to stop this proliferation (mostly by Democrats) have been defeated by public officials (mostly Republicans) insisting that these efforts conflict with the Second Amendment. In this way, the Second Amendment is being used to solve the very problem that it was instrumental in creating.
This is not unlike a cybersecurity firm hacking into otherwise fully protected computers in order to drive up demand for their software - or the gun lobby proposing to help us defend against all the guns out there by putting even more guns out there. In what other context is the proposed solution to a problem simply to exacerbate the problem? And in what other context do so many people passionately support this counterintuitive logic? The Second Amendment got us into this mess. So we can hardly expect it to get us out of it.
In the end, Second Amendment "absolutists" just don't seem to agree with the majority of Americans that there is in fact a gun-violence problem in the U.S. To be sure, they concede that mass shootings of innocent people, for example, are wrong. But deep down, they believe that these harms are not nearly as bad as the harms - at least graver injustice and possibly more deaths - that would be caused by any government efforts to restrict the Second Amendment's application.
By analogy, I suppose, 30,000 car fatalities every year is terrible, but even more terrible would be the harms wrought by government effsorts to restrict the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of cars. Unfortunately, this analogy is not very persuasive. The government has quite successfully reduced car fatalities by pressuring car manufacturers to install safety mechanisms such as auto-lock brakes and stiffening penalties for drunk driving, reckless driving, and failure to wear seatbelts (all on top of requiring drivers to have reached a threshold age, demonstrated training and competence, and maintained a valid license). So why should guns be treated any differently? If anything, guns should be regulated even more rigorously than cars because, given their relatively small size and potent design, they are capable of killing many more people in many more places.
Society has only a few tools in its toolkit to solve public-health crises. Perhaps the most powerful of these tools is legislation. While laws don't always successfully solve the problems that they target - and occasionally make things much worse (for example, laws against marijuana possession and use) - they usually do. Murder laws, for example, have not come even close to preventing murders. But they most certainly have dramatically reduced the number of murders that would otherwise have occurred if they didn't exist at all. There is no reason to think that additional laws restricting access to guns, and to the most dangerous kinds of guns, would not - and actually do not - similarly reduce the great number of homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and injuries in the U.S.
This commonsense assumption, however, is a non-starter if one side doesn't believe that the number of homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, and injuries in the U.S. should be reduced in the first place. So if we are ever to have any rational dialogue with Second Amendment absolutists - that is, most Republican politicians - the question we must first address is not whether banning bump stocks or requiring universal background checks or any other particular legislative reform will help reduce gun violence. It is whether there is even a gun-violence problem worth solving to begin with.