If you go on the web, you can find claims that the use of guns for self-defense number in the thousands of episodes per year. However, these surveys are suspect -- often carried out by pro-gun organizations, using questionable methodologies.
More reliable studies, some conducted by the FBI, suggest that few criminals are shot by law-abiding citizens; most criminals are shot either by the police or by other criminals; and firearms reported to have been used in self-defense are, most of the time, used against members of a family or erstwhile friends during arguments.
Nonetheless, gun advocates refuse to consider this side of the argument. Take for instance the response to the 2012 Colorado movie theater massacre issued by Luke O'Dell, a spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association. His response reflected the fallacy that the answer to gun violence is more guns: "Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry [a gun] in the theater [in Colorado], it's possible that the death toll would have been less." One might more plausibly argue that if the shooter had not been able to procure a rifle, a shotgun and two handguns "to carry" into the theater, the death toll would have been zero.
The notion that more guns would actually make the U.S. a safer place is counter-intuitive and lacking in evidence.
Excuse number three: An armed citizenry is a safeguard against a tyrannical government.
Those who argue this point consider any gun regulation whatsoever as a first step down a slippery slope. So you take away someone's semi-automatic assault-style weapon today and tomorrow you are confiscating their hunting rifle. This is an assumption often tied to a paranoid distrust of government (read: any sort of officially imposed regulation). It goes along with the claim that the only defense against tyranny is the unregulated "right" to acquire unlimited arms.
There is something pathetically naive about this attitude. Even if you have a private militia armed with military-grade weapons, you are not going to stand up to the tanks, aircraft, missiles, drones and battalions of armed and trained soldiers that would be deployed against a serious rebellion.
Excuse number four: If guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns.
This assertion is, again, based on the belief that it is all or nothing when it comes to gun ownership. Maybe it should be, ideally. But, given American culture and history, that is not how this issue is ultimately going to work out. And, all but the paranoid understand this. Rational gun control is not synonymous with criminalizing all guns.
Part III -- A Flawed Political Process
It has often been pointed out that national polls show that most Americans want stricter gun control. For instance, recent polls suggest that between 80% and 90% of Americans favor stronger background checks for gun purchases. But, politically, this seems not to matter. Why?
Perhaps because most Americans are not sufficiently focused on this single issue to politically compete with the organized minority who are -- that minority who errantly believe that owning a gun (almost any gun) is "a birthright and an essential part of the nation's heritage." In other words, for these folks, being armed with a gun is a cornerstone of American freedom.
Isn't this somehow a corruption of the democratic process? Shouldn't that process demand that in matters of national security -- and this certainly is such a matter -- the safety of the citizenry should prevail? And, if almost unregulated gun ownership has been, prima facie, demonstrated to be a threat to that safety, should not more stringent gun control follow?
Unfortunately this is not the American way of democratic politics. In truth the U.S. is not a democracy of individual citizens, but rather one of competing interest groups. The interest group that is the NRA is better funded and more politically influential than its opponents, and so, at least to date, in the matter of gun legislation, it wins. That is why we can find the following recent article entitled "Still Little Interest in U.S. Gun Control" in the Philadelphia Inquirer of 22 July 2012. "Despite periodic mass shootings"the political calculus seems locked down. Most Republicans adamantly oppose tighter gun controls, and most Democrats would prefer to focus on other issues."
Part IV -- Conclusion
The American political system is in need of multiple reforms. As it now stands, too few people can command too much power in the name of relatively small minority groups. We need campaign finance reform and much more transparency when it comes to the operations of special interests. We need shorter election campaigns and limits on how much it can cost to run for any office. We need honest and open regional and national debates on both domestic and foreign policies that affect large numbers of our citizens -- whether those citizens know it or not.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
