Gun Control – Analysis of Philosophical Issues

 

< -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

 

Home     Back to Gun Control Index     Back to Class Notes & Papers Index

 

 

The ideological positions of each of the libertarians, conservatives, liberals and radicals are interesting in light of the consistency of interpretation afforded the issue of gun control by the judicial branch of the government.

Jacob Sullum, writing in Reason, approached gun control exclusively from the position of one who wishes to control crime rates.  He states, “supporters of gun control . . . use the threat posed by violent, lawless people to justify banning inanimate objects,” (Sullum, 27), taking the position that inanimate objects cannot be evil in themselves, because they cannot act volitionally; rather, we must control the actions of individuals who commit crimes, rather than those who engage in otherwise lawful activity with innocent inanimate objects.  Sullum further holds that many gun control laws are in fact racially motivated, spurred on by fear of blacks and other violence-prone minority groups.  (Sullum, 27).  Gun control laws are in no way justified by the rise in violent crime: “supporters of gun control are always quick to seize upon sensational acts of violence to justify more regulation,” (Sullum, 27), meaning that either the molehill is being made into a mountain, or that in either case this indicates more control of criminal behavior rather than invention of more criminal behavior.

This view is further articulated by Don B. Kates, Jr., who points to findings by Gary Kleck, in the latter’s 1991 book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  “Broadly speaking, these findings are: 1) Gun possession by ordinary citizens is not a problem; the perpetrators of gun crime and accidents are aberrant individuals with histories of substance abuse, violence, felonies, and other dangerous behavior.  2) While outlawing possessing of guns by such people is plainly sensible, it can bring at best marginal benefit as long as the fundamental determinants of their behavior remain unchanged.  3) Because guns empower the weak against the strong, and because victims are generally weaker than felons, widespread gun ownership is a net benefit for society.”  (Kates, 49-50).  Kates goes on to demonstrate that felons as well as police and criminologists all agree that prohibiting firearms would benefit the criminals.  “Indeed, felons have consistently said that banning handguns would make their lives safer and easier by disarming victims without affecting their own ability to obtain weapons.  ‘Ban guns,’ said a typical convict interviewed by New York University criminologist Ernest Van Den Haag in the mid 1970’s.  ‘I’d love it.  I’m an armed robber.”  (Kates, 49-50).  The idea that everyone is entitled to freedom, equality and opportunity, enshrined by the liberals in programs such as affirmative action, is placed by Kates in private gun ownership whereby the weak can prevail over the strong, a generally liberal theme to which the liberals do not adhere when it comes to gun ownership versus criminal behavior because the criminals are most often members of disadvantaged minority groups, i.e., the politically correct.

What is even more interesting is Sullum’s views on civil liberties, which is sharply contrasted with that of conservative Ernest Van Den Haag.  Sullum notes that, “[gun control] policies aim to control things that individuals buy and sell voluntarily . . . [involving] government intrusion into private lives.”  (Sullum, 28).  Further, Sullum excoriates those such as Karen Grigsby Bates, who suggests we should be willing to trade a little freedom for more security from crime.  (Sullum, June 1994, 6).  Van Den Haag, on the other hand, advocates severe erosion of constitutional guarantees by allowing extended fisking of possible suspects, regardless of the reasonableness of suspicion; destruction of the exclusionary rule, thereby allowing complete violation of the Fourth Amendment; and permitting juries to hold against a defendant his invocation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination.  (Van Den Haag, 35).  Yet Van Den Haag’s fellow conservative Alan W. Bock finds it a violation of some of these same rights when it comes to prosecuting gun violations.  (Bock, 39-41).

It seems, then, that the conservatives either don’t really think alike, or adhere to serious inconsistencies when it comes to Constitutional guarantees.  Libertarian Sullum at least tries to maintain civil liberties through and through; he points to Japan as an example: “The effects of gun control on civil liberties (aside from the right to keep and bear arms [Endnote 2]) is less obvious, because the restrictions are less severe.  For an idea of what life would be like in the United States if the government got really serious about gun control, take a look at Japan, where private possession of firearms is very rare.  Not coincidentally, the Japanese accept a level of police surveillance and intrusiveness, including searches at will, that would be intolerable to most Americans.”  (Sullum, 29).  Sullum fails to note, however, that while America has a history and tradition of civil liberties and individualism, Japan does not; its culture is very different, and it would be impossible to really compare them at this or any other level.

The libertarian view is influenced by several factors endemic to U.S. history.  One is the laissez-faire capitalism idea, viz., that government governs best which governs least.  Another is the rampant misunderstanding of the Second Amendment to mean that individual firearm ownership is what protects liberty.  Admittedly, state militias could not exist without private gun ownership; yet this is a matter for the states to deterine, according to Constitutional interpretations.  Another is the idea that true security, in the individual sense (and thereby flowing over to the social), is promoted by private firearms ownership by deterring or preventing crime.

There is one libertarian viewpoint which seems to parallel that of the radicals, however.  Liam T. A. Ford reports that a Chicago alderman, William Beavers, in desiring to end handgun bans in that city, stated, “It’s easy for people with wealth and political power to push stricter and stricter gun control laws . . . The wealthy . . . can afford to pay a detective agency or some kind of police agency to act as security.”  (Ford, 48).  This view parallels that of Clifford Brookins II, commander of the Detroit Constitutional Militia, which, despite being a militia, is actually a radical organization formed upon the belief that it is their best bet in combatting racism.  (McHugh)  Compare with an editorial in The Nation, which reads, “President Clinton declares the militias “un-American” because they “despise your government.”  But suspicion of elite power is a long American tradition, and with good reason.  Laws most often protect the interests of corporations and the wealthy.  Politicians and generals send teenagers to be killed in pointless military adventures.  Long before Waco, the police were known to murder citizens, like the Black Panthers’ Fred Hampton, in their beds.”  (The Nation, 779).  Both Ford the libertarian and the anonymous radical editor believe that the United States is characterized by opposition between two economic classes in society: the wealthy and the rest of us.  In point of fact, Beavers, whose opinions and actions are the object of Ford’s article, advocates a truly radical viewpoint by his statements; yet the fact that this was reported by a libertarian in a libertarian opinion journal suggests that either the two viewpoints are not too far apart on the issue of gun control, or that the libertarians will use anything to support their views.  I must admit I suspect the former rather than the latter.

A further radical viewpoint indicated in the same editorial in The Nation is that the Clinton government, despite claiming to want more and more gun regulations, in fact is not very interested in enforcing those laws, but is merely pandering to the public.  The anonymous editor says of the administration’s response to militia groups, “[F.B.I. chief Louis] Freeh told Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, the F.B.I. doesn’t even collect publicly available news clippings. . . . Evidently gun-toting weekend warriors are one thing and nonviolent AIDS activists another, because last week the Center for Constitutional Rights made public an F.B.I. file on peacefully provocative ACT UP.  Most of the twenty-two pages released under the Freedom of Information Act (another 177 remain classified) consist of precisely what Freeh claimed he didn’t collect: news clippings and leaflets.”  (The Nation, 777, 779).

It is necessary to return to the issue of militias, which issue is central to the current problems regarding gun control.  Loretta J. Ross, in The Progressive, cites the radical viewpoint which opposes that of The Nation, viz., that militias are dangerous and evil and need to be eliminated.  “Extreme right-wing groups [such as militia groups] pose a serious threat to our society.”  (Ross, 26).  She finds that [militia groups] are attempting to form a citizens’ army to overthrow the United States government” (Ross 26) and “what unites them . . . is the belief that peaceful democratic processes are not a viable solution. . . .  They prefer to say it with a gun.  They are also united by some bizarre conspiracy theories, which include that the United States is at risk of invasion by the United Nations [Endnote 3]; and that citizens, unless armed, will be rounded up and herded into concentration camps if they disagree with the government.”  (Ross, 26).  [Author’s 2003 Note:  There are current fears about current laws – like the USA Patriot Act – working toward this on behalf of the Bush administration, to whom the right-wing does not generally object.  Had the same things been done under a Gore (or even Clinton) administration, the right would be screaming bloody murder, a point lost on those very people whose laws detract from civil liberties far more than liberal gun laws ever did.]  Presumably the NRA may be included in such dangerous groups, with Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre referring to the government as “jackbooted thugs.”  Ross appears to realize that all of these fears exhibited by right-wing militia groups are ridiculous at best, having no basis in reality, and that it is there that the danger lies.  Though she does not say so explicitly, her article strongly implies that the movement to end gun control laws begins with these extremist groups; and that, in order to oppose these groups, the gun control laws must not only remain firmly in place, they must be strengthened, less we fall victim to organized paranoid idiots brandishing machine guns.  The last two paragraphs of her article sum up her observations quite well:

“There will be further violence.  Several militia leaders want to provoke a confrontation with law enforcement.  Many do not pay their taxes and barricade themselves in fortresses, tactics guaranteed to bring government attention to them.

“Unless we treat the growth of the far right as a serious problem, enforce laws against paramilitary activity that are already on the books, and counter inflammatory rhetoric, the Oklahoma City bombing may be seen by future generations as a beginning, not an end.”  (Ross, 27, emphasis added).

 

As to the issue of laws that are already on the books, William P. Cheshire wrote in The Arizona Republic that “[w]hen people talk about the need for gun control, they fail to notice that 231 federal firearms statutes are on the books already.”

It is interesting to note that Ross’s tone is that of censorship – the far right is so dangerous that anything and everything must be done to destroy them, with no regard to Constitutional principles or civil liberties.  This is less a true radical viewpoint, which originates with the discrepancies between society’s economic classes, than a far left viewpoint, which arises to oppose the far right, and which characterized the Clinton administration’s response to the Waco and Ruby Ridge situations.  Ross has really taken on a “us against them” attitude, noting that, since the far right objects to being in the minority, they will become a new majority by force.  [Author’s 2003 Note:  Some actions by Republicans in the last 5 years have appeared to be a legal method of doing the same thing – law is, after all, merely the legitimate use of force.  Examples:  Clinton impeachment, ’98; Bush-Gore election, ’00; Colorado & Texas legislative redistricting of U.S. Congressional districts, ’03; California recall, ’03.  These all essentially have the effect of attempting (and succeeding) to undo or reverse democratic elections in which the Republicans lost.]  Her version of the left is one characterized by true democratic principles – majority rule with respect to minority rights, which means the right to attempt to become the majority through proper procedural processes – versus her version of the right, which is majority rule period end of story, without respect for anyone else.  The dividing line is a thin one, however, and one that is described more fully by Alan W. Bock.

Bock examined the contemporary militias in detail, and in terms of the Second Amendment.  He notes that “many people . . . are disturbed by the idea of private armed groups engaging in organized military training.”  (Bock, 39)  and admits that the Second Amendment’s references to bearing arms is unclear as to “whether the right is individual or corporate.”  (Bock, 39).  Further, he questions the “legal status of militias that resemble private armies,” (Bock, 42), without acknowledging and judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment.  He concludes that, while the generally status of militias today are highly questionable as regards the Second Amendment, the behavior of the government, both Republican and Democrat, is not only reprehensible but irrational in denying civil liberties to the Weaver family and the Branch Davidians.  However, Bock’s conservative standpoint is tainted by the assumption that the government is wrong, an assumption to be expected of libertarians, who desire as little government as possible (e.g., coin money, national military, but almost nothing more); but conservatives have typically been no more advocates of less government than liberals – they just disagree as to what things government shall do, and what it shall avoid.  All in all, it seems that the conservative stance on gun control is the least internally consistent (although the radicals have not the advantage of the libertarians in that the latter are united and the former are divided sharply into two camps).  The liberals, however, have taken a position unique to the four categories: while radicals, libertarians and conservatives have all stated philosophical foundations for their positions, the liberals have remained surprisingly low-key in that regard; instead, they come from a point of view of no longer needed to establish such foundations.  Rather, their discussions, with the exception of the study by DeZee regarding how ideology rather than facts have shaped current thought on gun control, seems to focus almost exclusively on specific gun control policies, defending them against conservative attacks.

Weston Kosova discuss the Clinton crime bill, prior to its actual passage when it suck in the House and Senate before being revived:  “It was no puzzle why the measure had sunk: opposition to its ban on assault weapons.”  (Kosova, 10).  Kosova goes on to establish that Gingrich’s claim that “there’s pork in this bill” was unfounded – there was one major swinish provision in the bill for then House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks – but the bill was actually rather free of pork generally.  Kosova flatly stated that, “pork in the new [Republican] parlance, is any portion of the bill the Republicans find disagreeable,” (Kosova, 10), as opposed to simply stating their disagreement and leaving it at that.  He concludes that Republicans were simply pandering to the gun lobby when they opposed, and sank, that bill, thought DeZee would have argued that the gun lobby is surprisingly ineffective in successfully opposing gun control legislation.

Jeffrey Rosen also accused the Republicans of attempting to sink the crime bill, specifically referring to the amendments sponsored by Senators D’Amato, Gramm and Hatch “that would federalize virtually any state crime committed with a gun and impose a series of new mandatory minimum federal sentences.”  (Rosen, 22).  Rosen notes that federalization not only is ineffective, since the federal law enforcement system is not designed to handle mass criminals in the same way that the fifty states are, but is also therefore an attempt to avoid making any real dents in gun-related crimes, which would have the essentialy effect, desired by the Republicans, of preventing passage of any further gun control laws.  (Rosen, 22-3).

Interestingly enough, William P. Cheshire observed, “You think the Crime Bill prohibited ownership of specified assault weapons?  It didn’t.”

The essence of the liberal standpoint, then, is that it is a foregone conclusion that gun control laws are necessary – it is just the evil conservatives (and I believe it to be conservatives rather than libertarians, since the former are more in the political arena than the latter) trying to avoid the issue to satisfy an evil and powerful lobby.  It is unusual for the liberals to offer any real justification for finding gun control laws necessary, except in the manner described by DeZee in his study, demonstrating the shallowness of all of the points of view since they are ideologically rather than factually based.

Finally, not everyone is taking gun control quite so seriously.

Jeremy Rabkin suggest a rather novel, but hardly new, approach to curing crime which does not depend directly on gun control laws.  Rather than enact such laws, a crime victim should be permitted to sue the government.  (Rabkin, 16-19).  Such liability would be focused on “offenses involving the use of guns,” (Rabkin, 19), but should not be limited thereby.

Stephen Kroninger, who regularly contributes a political-type cartoon to The Progressive, drew one which parodied the American Flag in terms of the gun control controversy.  The red stripes are shown dripping blood from them; and where the stars would normally be are guns of every description.  [Author’s 2003 Note:  The cartoon is not available online; the magazine’s online archives are only available back to 1998, and the cartoon is from 1995.]  A rather amusing picture considered in light of the recent controversy over the Flag exhibit at the Phoenix Art Museum.  [Author’s 2003 Note:  Click here to read an article about the Flag exhibit.  An interesting line from the article is, “[m]illions of people have died for the rights of that flag,” the speaker apparently forgetting that inanimate objections, including flags, have no rights; only people have rights.]

Last, but not least, Michael Feldman drew up a “Republican Bill of Rights” for The Progressive, including all the amendments.  [Author’s 2003 Note:  I cannot find the entire article online.  Upon request, I will email it, or even post it.]  He had this to say about the Second:

“The second.  Guns.  See, that should be first.  People assume these things are prioritized.  It might be helpful to say “rifles and guns” or specify barrels and bores, automatic, semi-automatic, magazine sizes, etc.  I’ll mention it at the NRA Donor.  If there’s some way of writing it so it’s not ambiguous, you know, the militia part – you clearly don’t have to join a militia to “keep and bear Arms” – that needs to be cleaned up, but I love the capitalization.”  (Feldman, 12).