Guns 'R' US: Part 2

Despite the movement that survivors of the Parkland shooting are attempting to start, and despite what appears to be a growing demand from the public that the government “do something” about gun violence, I am not optimistic that anything constructive will be done.  Perhaps the anti-gun forces will manage to enact some sort of ban of something or other, but this is unlikely to do much beyond stimulating the black market.  Perhaps the gun fetishists will manage to get more guns into the hands of teachers, but this is unlikely to do anything but set the stage for a subsequent school shooting.  

     The primary obstacle to reasonable and sensible regulation of firearms is not the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.  (If you don’t understand this, I suggest reading Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority in DC v Heller.)  It is, rather, the ideological fervor that so many people bring to this issue.  In the hope that we will eventually get past this to some more constructive discourse, I suggest three steps we could take.  None will prevent the next mass shooting, or the one after that.  But I think that all of them have immediate practical and philosophical value. 

     First, and most practical, we can make a much more serious effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who show a clear proclivity toward violence.  Our current procedures for doing so are a model of dysfunction.  The national database that handles background checks is woefully incomplete and doesn’t handle the data that it does have very well.   There are no consequences for failing to report individuals to the database.  And the criteria for inclusion in the database are far from clear.  We could approve this situation if we were of a mind to.

     Second, we can attempt to expand our knowledge.  We can insist that the manufacturers and sellers of firearms keep scrupulous records concerning inventory and sales.  This helped to reduce the amount of pharmaceutical-grade speed on the streets in the 70s.  By some accounts, as much as half of the methedrine and dexedrine produced disappeared directly into the black market.  By some accounts, the same is true of the gun industry.  Although many mass shootings involved guns that were purchased legally, much gun violence involves firearms obtained outside the system of regulations.  It behooves us to know all that we can about this market.

     Along the same lines, we can allow the CDC to begin research on gun violence.  The CDC currently does extensive research on virtually every cause of death except gun violence.  But Congress, bowing to pressure from the NRA and other gun lobby groups, effectively prohibits such research now.  Again, it behooves us to know.

     Finally, we can prohibit concealed carry.  This prohibition was common enough during the founding era; the idea was that you only needed to conceal your weapon if you were up to no good.  And it wasn’t until around 1970 that anyone seriously tried to invoke the 2nd Amendment to question the constitutionality of this and the myriad of other gun control regulations that were common during the founding era.  (The emergence of the modern gun rights movement is an interesting story for another post.)  The immediate practical benefit of this clear:  individuals would be able to make a much better assessment of the potential threats in their environment.  And the philosophical benefit would be greater public awareness of just how pervasive guns are in the United States.  Maybe everyone would go buy a few.  Or maybe they would do something else.  Again, it behooves us to know.

     Meanwhile, here is some pro-gun propaganda that looks like it might be entertaining.

Guns 'R' US: Part 1

It’s been over a week since the Parkland shooting, and it is still getting considerable attention in the media.  This is due in no small part to the efforts of some of the surviving children to raise some hell.  They are young and powerless, but some of them are quite intelligent and articulate, and they seem determined.  Maybe this will inject some new energy into our public discourse about firearms.  Or maybe not.

     So far, public discourse about guns continues pathetically along well-trodden paths.  The right tries to move discourse away from guns toward issues of mental health or failures by responsible authorities or whatever.  Of course, there is a clarion call for more guns everywhere.  Since this was a school shooting, there are the usual demands that we reconstruct our schools as maximum security prisons.  And let’s not forget how necessary all the gun-toting citizens are to protect us from tyranny or criminals or each other.

     The left tends to be more focused on efforts to ban various firearms and magazines and such.  It strains my imagination to think what it might mean to ban something that millions of US citizens already have.  (And I cannot help but wonder why so many people who call for ending the war on pot smokers because bans don’t work also seem to think that banning firearms is a good idea.)  Of course, the left never misses the chance to call for more funding for various social programs which will, I guess, discourage people from wanting to kill a bunch of their fellows.  

     Certainly, there are sensible things coming from both ends of the political spectrum, as well.  Trying to improve our responses to mental health issues or improving the background check system are excellent ideas.  But mostly, the sensible ideas get overwhelmed by the ideological fervor that grips so many of us whenever we have to confront the issue of gun violence.  If the sensible ideas are to get any traction, we have to make fundamental changes in the way we think about this issue.  Here are three suggestions.

     First, we have to change the scope and focus of our thinking.  Too often, we focus on how to prevent specific sorts of violence—the next Parkland, the next Las Vegas—or on which sorts of weapons we need to ban.  These are exactly the issues that dominate the discourse sparked by the carnage at Parkland.  But it is not at all clear that there is any reasonable and constructive way to address these issues directly.  Mass shootings are just one of the many forms of carnage perpetrated with guns, and the US citizenry is well-supplied with every form of firearm.  The problem is much bigger than any of its specific manifestations.

     Second, we must understand what is really at stake here.  The mantra of gun fetishists is that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  This is true.  The problem the US faces is that so many of us have such a passion for shooting people—ourselves and others—with guns.  That is because the use of guns carries such deep cultural meaning in the United States.  They are the source of our freedom and the last defense against tyranny, the great equalizer that allows the weakest to stand against the strongest, the instrument by which we exercise the sacred right of self-defense.  They are what allows the “good guy” to dispatch the “bad guy.”  When we give up our guns, we give up our very humanity (or, perhaps, our manhood).  No effort to curb gun violence will seem reasonable and sensible when viewed through this lens.

     Third, we need to recognize that our leadership mostly isn’t going to do squat about the carnage.  They are, or at least believe themselves to be, insulated from the violence, the gun lobby is very generous with politicians who support its agenda, and gun fetishists are conveniently dispersed throughout the electorate.  The very large problem of gun violence intersects with the even larger problem of dysfunctional government.

     So…philosophy is nice if you enjoy thinking about how we should think (which I do).  And I have written about various philosophical issues raised by guns here, here, and here.  But what should we do?  That is for Part 2, which I will post tomorrow.