I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support strenuous gun control. Recently, I engaged in an argument with a friend regarding gun rights. My friend attacked college campus gun bans, and his argument ran like this: Perpetrators of gun violence only shoot up locales that lack guns (like college campuses); thus we should allow guns everywhere, because such a policy would decrease shooting rampages; and finally, the existence of more guns at more locales would not increase violence because permit & licensing laws limit possession to the responsible citizens among us.
There are many flaws with this argument, but I will consider only one here -- my friend's suggestion that the permit process curtails gun-related violence enough to justify permitting guns on campuses and other non-carry spots.
First, this argument presumes that the permit process is strenuous; it is not. Second, this argument wrongly presumes that permit- and license-holders must renew their permit/license so frequently that the renewal process will revoke permits/licenses from those that are initially sane but that soon turn crazy. Third, this argument fails to understand that even the most sane among us can make serious, serious errors, and that such serious errors will be amplified if Americans are allowed to carry guns around all the time, no matter the locale. Fourth, this argument inappropriately assumes it is possible to test for the type of crazy that brings about gun rampages; after all, will permit testers conduct a psychological exam on applicants? The gun lobby would never allow it!
Point in case: The New York Times reports that the shooter at the Immigration Center in NY yesterday (04.03.09) "had a New York State pistol license that listed two pistols, a 45-caliber Beretta and a 9-mm Beretta." The shooter killed thirteen.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Do Guns Make Us Safer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would suggest that the incident yesterday demonstrates only that the firearms regulations of the state of New York do not enhance the safety of the citizenry.
ReplyDeleteDimensio,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment, and you make a good point, but I disagree. Gun permitting laws can only be so strict; at a certain point, they will become an unjustifiable burden and, presumably, violate the Second Amendment.
Thus, in my opinion, NY has the law right: require a relatively strict permit process, but don't make it an impossibly difficult process. Then, create zones -- such as banks and schools and universities -- where guns are impermissible. It is a compromise solution that strikes the proper balance between public safety and 2d Amend rights.
Then, create zones -- such as banks and schools and universities -- where guns are impermissible.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the management of private banking institutions not be permitted to establish their own policies regarding the possession of firearms on the premises?
Dimensio,
ReplyDeleteBecause the government has a significant interest in preventing bank robbery, particularly in light of the fact that the Fed is insuring every deposit.
Because the government has a significant interest in preventing bank robbery, particularly in light of the fact that the Fed is insuring every deposit.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying, then, that you believe that an individual predisposed to committing bank robbery will be deterred from such a criminal action by a legal prohibition upon carrying firearms upon a banking facility? Can you show that individuals legally licensed to carry firearms in states that issue such permits on a "shall issue" basis that do not also prohibit, by law, the carrying of such firearms into banking institutions commit a disproportionate percentage of bank robberies within those states?
Dimensio,
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, you are not permitted to take a gun into any bank in any state. But most important here is that your argument is rotten and unstable at its foundation -- you have wrongly presumed that the government can only ban firearms in banks if the action acts as a deterrent. That is clearly incorrect, both as a legal and as a prudential matter. Such prohibitions serve many purposes: (a) deterrence; (b) mechanisms for prosecution; (c) promotes a feeling of safety among depositors entering those banks that house their entire life savings; (d) provides police with grounds for making an arrest prior to the commission of a robbery; (e) and many, many others. Also, there is a more common sense argument that you have failed to recognize: isn't it a good idea to keep guns and our nation's money separate?