[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[bof]

Timothy C. Klein wrote:

>I am not really sure where I stand, but I don't think that a licensing
>program does all that much harm.  But I am also not sure that it helps.
>What I really wish we had was more dispassionate logic on the issue.
>The anti-gun crowd thinks that banning all guns would be a panacea, the
>pro-gun/NRA folks think that any regulation whatsoever is horrible.  I
>think in the end, the best solution is a compromise somewhere in the
>middle.
>
This is the crux of the matter. The problem is that licensing grants a 
power to approve and disapprove, which opens a slippery slope as to 
whom, when, how much to charge for fees, what prerequisites are to be 
met, etc., etc. Once any criteria are set, then it is not difficult for 
them to be changed for political convenience to, ultimately, outright 
ban. This has happened again, and again.

New York City's infamous Sullivan Act was original enacted to prevent 
political enemies of the administration from owning guns. Over the 
ensuing 100 years, it has evolved to virtually ban gun ownership within 
the city. In California, "assault-rifle" owners were required to 
register their weapons, and many, many assurances were given at the time 
that this was simply a administrative requirement, and would never be 
used to seize the guns. A couple of years ago, however, ownership was 
declared illegal (by bureaucratic fiat) and owners were told to turn in 
their weapons under penalty of law, and the list used to check that they 
did so.

The problem with any discussion on the issue is that it is so emotional 
that it is impossible to remain logical and, often, civil. Furthermore, 
those who would ban ownership seldom, if ever, have any factual evidence 
to show that a ban or licensing makes society safer and all too often 
base their arguments on simple slogans that Soccer Moms can chant 
outside City Hall (witness the demonstrations against the NRA after 
Columbine), while utterly rejecting any statistics offered by the 
pro-gun groups as to the decrease of in crime in areas where gun 
ownership is not restricted. The issue is not helped by the media, which 
never misses a chance to tar gun owners by implying the acts of isolated 
lunatics are representative of all owners, and who carefully present 
only the worst possible cases, such as school massacres, while almost 
absolutely refusing to publish any information where guns are used to 
prevent crime, such as school shootings where intervention by gun owners 
stopped it.

The problem that I see with compromise is that a group who has the 
concrete, legal right of ownership is required as part of the compromise 
process to give some of it up, while the other side, which starts from 
the most extreme position of no ownership at all gains a little each 
year, and the only thing that they have to give up is that they did not 
get their full demands met THIS YEAR. The process continues until they 
end up with most of what they want, while the gun owners lose something 
they used to have as part of a perfectly legal activity. Time and time 
again, the side that wants outright ban has proven that they will never 
be happy with any compromise except total outright ban. It's not a 
compromise when you agree to something to settle it and the other side 
then restarts the process again when the same position that they 
previously held, where you are forced to start from the compromise 
position and not allowed to go back to your original position like the 
other side is. It's rather like having someone demanding that they want 
to cut off your arm. When you object, they compromise on taking off the 
first joint of your fingers. And then next year, they demand that they 
want to cut off your arm, but compromise by taking off the second joint 
of your fingers. Eventually, they agree that they will stop at your 
elbow. They've lost nothing but you've lost a good deal that you will 
never regain.

And the real problem is that none of the compromised loss of rights has 
really been shown to have any outcome on the safety of society. In fact, 
the evidence is that licensing and ban only leads to more and more 
crime, since criminals, by definition, do not follow the law to begin with.

One would think that, after a while, these findings would be used by 
those who want restrictions of ownership as a basis for reevalutation of 
their position. Unfortunately, this is not so, and they continue to 
repeat their tired litany of outright ban each year.

And, I suspect, that ultimately, that they will win, given the general 
trend in society for the government to assume more and more power as its 
citizens demand that it protect them and show a willingness to give up 
any and all their rights to gain this protection.

Whether it works or not.

BOF


>  
>