THE TRADEOFFS OF GUN CONTROL
Is There a Way to Reconcile the "Right" of Self Defense with Protection From Violence?
My April 25 post recognized competing rights for the abortion debate. The right to life of an unborn child competes with the rights of the woman who involuntarily endures a pregnancy and delivers the baby at birth. I wrote that both sides of the abortion debate must acknowledge the merits of their opponents arguments if we have any chance of arriving at a non-violent, political compromise.
I want to apply the same methods for resolving the conflicts over gun control.
The Buffalo Shooting by the White Supremacist, The anti-Taiwanese shooting by the Chinese Nationalist, and a myriad of other mass-shootings periodically renew the debate about gun control. The issue gains traction for a few news cycles, and then disappears.
When you listen to debates about gun control, they are usually emotional and laden with ad hominen attacks. Each side views the other as a dangerous threat to their own safety and well-being. Neither side can afford to acknowledge the validity of the other’s concerns.
Pro-Gun Position:
Widespread gun ownership is a protection against state tyranny.
All tyrants disarm their subjects to maintain a police state.
Guns are an equalizer against physically superior threats, and a deterrent to muggings, burglaries, and assault.
You should have the means of defending yourself if the police don’t arrive on time.
History has examples of African Americans in the South defending themselves against white mobs when the white police force refused to offer protection.
Cannot assume that police protection will be offered equally to all citizens.
BLM riots in Portland and Seattle in 2020 is latest example where the political authorities directed the police to refuse to defend of property that was destroyed and thwart the rioters who inevitably killed at least 25 persons.
Under gun control only Criminals will continue to acquire weapons, and law-abiding citizens will remain defenseless against these criminals.
Diaries of Mass Murderers demonstrate that they intentionally target venues where they believe that people are not armed and prepared to return fire.
Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence: Israel, Switzerland, Finland, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. are places with high rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun violence.
Gun Control Position:
More people die from gun violence than number of lives saved using guns for self defense
Much harder for criminals to obtain guns if there is a national ban on private gun ownership.
State by State regulations make it too easy to smuggle in firearms.
Armed individuals cannot thwart a tyrant using military forces against them.
Criminals armed with guns are more dangerous than criminals armed with knives and baseball bats.
The Right of Self Defense Versus Police Defense
For the sake of argument, acknowledge that giving the State a monopoly of gun possession poses three kinds of danger to citizens.
The first is that it lowers the costs of a tyrant using the police and military to impose its will upon citizens. Even when an aggressor can “win,” it won’t engage in conflict if the cost of winning is too high. An armed citizenry is certainly a significant deterrent to tyrannical behavior.
The second danger is that a politicized police force may refrain from offering protection to vulnerable communities. Racial and sectarian majorities will often attack minority groups while the police look on with support or simply refuse to offer protection. This second danger is the more likely than the first danger, and of more immediate concern.
The third danger is the inability of the police to be present to thwart a crime like a burglary, mugging, assault, or murder. If a city maintains a large police force, then that can act as a deterrent to criminals engaged in these crimes. However, if the police don’t have adequate funding or if they have legal obstacles, or an uncooperative district attorney that won’t prosecute many criminals, then unarmed individuals are more vulnerable.
How can we provide the proper political incentives to avoid these three threats against an unarmed citizenry?
My solution:
Whenever the government (federal, state, or local level) disarms its citizens or prohibits them from using firearms to defend their person and property against threats, then it must assume responsibility for payment of all damages for any loss and destruction of property, injuries, ongoing medical care, and death to victims of criminal acts. If the Government refuses to properly compensate any crime victims within one year, then the laws prohibiting gun ownership shall be null and void.
This formula acknowledges the potential authority of the Government to restrict gun ownership, but it imposes a cost for this prohibition. Now the Government has to weigh the costs and benefits of adequately staffing its police forces to deter enough crime to sufficiently reduce the incidence of crime and the resulting payouts to victims of crime.
If you want Gun Control, then you’re going to have to pay for it. If the mayor of Portland instructs the police take a hands-off policy while rioters burn down businesses and buildings owned by disarmed Citizens thwarted from defending their property and themselves, then the taxpayers of Portland (not the insurance companies) should be responsible for restoring the full value of the property and lives that were destroyed.
This formula will certainly upset both poles in this heated controversy, but it moves the debate in the realm of reasonable discussion and weighing of costs and benefits. Instead of ideological pronouncements detached from experience and measured, empirical feedback, we now have a basis for conducting a rational political discussion.
David Barulich