Gun Control:

 

Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals and Radicals

 

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

 

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

 

 

The Libertarians

The libertarian view on gun control is that there should be none at all, i.e., total absence of gun control is the only effective way to control crime.  This point is made most succinctly by Rick Henderson, who states that “carry-permit reform appears not to increase gun violence.”  He further reports that, “while Florida’s homicide rate was 36 percent higher than the national average in the years before the [the conceal-carry-permit] law took effect, the rates dropped to 4 percent lower than the national average in 1991.”  (Henderson, 15)

The Conservatives

The conservatives agree with the essence of the libertarian viewpoint on gun control.  However, the conservatives have added some more dimension by including not merely the effects of gun control on crime, but also how this follows the trends indicated in other areas of crime control, and what it would take to cut and control crime, including removing gun control restrictions.  Further, conservatives tend to emphasize economic factors.  This point is particularly by Ernest Van Den Haag, who claims that “[t]he blunders of our political system have made crime a virtually risk-free enterprise.”  (Van Den Haag, 48)

The Liberals

The contemporary liberal stance essentially began in 1911 with New York’s Sullivan Law, the premise of which is that strictly controls on the possession, sale and use of firearms will create a corresponding drop in gun violence.  This position is the on reservedly take by Matthew R. DeZee, whereby he claims that three of five positions on gun control – viz., Second Amendment, self-protection and power of the gun lobby, where the other two are efficacy of gun laws and firearms violence – “are based more on ideological assumptions than verifiable fact.”  His reservations are that no one’s research at that time (1977) was sufficiently free from ideological bias, so that he does not feel comfortable suggesting that the latter two positions on gun control are the correct ones.  (DeZee, 135).  He does, however, clearly articulate the liberal belief that the Second Amendment is not about individual right to bear arms, and that individual gun ownership more often results in mishap rather than prevention of crime.  In regard to the latter, liberals feel that only strict controls can avoid tragedy.

The Radicals

The radicals are an interesting group int hat they are split into two camps.  One camp holds with the liberals; this same camp holds responsible for the dangerous militia groups of today the crazed, individualistic desire for total and complete freedom regarding individual gun ownership – it has become such a mania that these people must be stopped, and the proliferation of armed citizens must be brought to a grinding halt.  (Ross, 26-7).  The other camp feels similarly about today’s militia groups in particular, but notes that, to enact and enforce restrictive gun control laws would have the effect of “protect[ing] the interests of corporations and the wealthy,” since these fnance, and therefore control, the military, whereas the average citizen would not have access to arms.  (The Nation, 779).

[Author’s 2003 note:  My friend Linus was in an interesting conversation in college.  A former Marine was railing against the liberal anti-gun stance, and at Linus in particular when the latter entered the common room.  (The Marine was overdoing it just for fun, but read on.)  Linus then espoused the latter radical view on guns (he is an avowed socialist) by saying he was all for individual gun ownership – so that when the revolution comes, fascists like him (the Marine) could be lined up and shot.  The Marine was left in a speechless rage while Linus continued on his way and everyone else laughed.]