Part V: Gun Problem Myths
October 26, 2002
1:24 PM CST
There was / is a write-in feature on the BBC News website, whereby people could write in about the gun “problem” in the United States. Here’s how the piece opens (with a lie):
“Public outcries at a series of high profile shootings across the US have led to repeated calls for a tougher line against the country’s prominent gun culture.”
Outcries from whom? Sarah Brady? The Violence Policy Center? The New York Times editorial committee?
Sorry, the people in and around the Maryland Shooter’s little playground didn’t respond to the attacks by calling for stricter gun control: they bought guns, 300% more than the previous year.
Leaving aside the issue of the BBC sticking their fat noses where they don’t belong, it became clearer than ever to me just how little people in Britain (and more than a few in Europe) seem to understand the principles of American government. Let me illustrate with just a few examples (and I’ll paraphrase the arguments).
1. “The U.S. doesn’t need the archaic Second Amendment anymore.” This is a simple one to answer. As I pointed out to the writer, there are three considerations revolving around private gun ownership. They are:
a.) freedom from foreign invasion
b.) freedom from government tyranny, and
c.) freedom to protect oneself, one’s family, and one’s property from the depredations of others.
All three of those considerations were specifically addressed by the authors of the Constitution, and by the Founding Fathers themselves (scroll down to see their actual words). When all three of those considerations become themselves archaic in the human condition, then we can talk. Until then, forget it.
2. “The U.S. needs to repeal the Second Amendment.” I always love this suggestion, because there are so many issues surrounding that simplistic statement that it becomes risible. Okay, for the benefit of any Brits or Euros who don’t have a clear picture:
a.) The Bill of Rights (that would be the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) enumerate, but do not guarantee, the freedoms contained within. Why do they not guarantee them? Because those freedoms are regarded as “God-given” (or “natural”, if you’re an atheist), and they can no more be repealed than breathing can be declared against the law. But:
b.) The Bill of Rights was included with the Constitution as part of the Federalists’ reassurance for the states, to enumerate the protections of the citizens of those states from an overbearing federal (ie. central) government. Call it the underlining, bold-type statement which would allow the states to ratify the Constitution in good faith and join together to create the republic. Repealing all or part of the BoR could, by changing the terms of the agreement, possibly negate the original ratification and allow secession from the United States—the Civil War, all over again. Unlikely, but not altogether impossible.
c.) Any politician submitting a bill calling for the repeal of any of the freedoms in the BoR would not make it past the next election—and he would, in all probability, face impeachment and recall by the voters of his state and/or district. [Yes, if the voters don’t like their representative, they can recall him outside of the election process.]
d.) The mechanics of repealing any part of the Constitution (never mind the BoR) are daunting. Assuming the repeal of the 2A made it out of the House with a two-thirds majority, it would still have to make it through the Senate with the same (two-thirds) majority, and then be ratified by a super-majority (ie. three-quarters) of the fifty states’ legislatures (or 38 out of 50). (Note for the populists: a plebiscite or referendum wouldn’t count—it’s a states-only business.) The amendment of our Constitution is, by design, a steep hurdle to overcome, and we undertake it with extreme reluctance.
e.) Even assuming the 2A was repealed, a huge number of Americans would simply ignore the repeal, and continue to carry and own their guns (and I am one of those). The expression “from my cold dead hands” is often said, but would not be universally followed if the Gun Police came knocking. Nevertheless, if only 2% of all known gun owners did respond to gun confiscation with extreme violence, that’s over a million really angry, and armed, citizens. That’s the ugly reality that faces any would-be gun confiscators. Americans are not docile citizens. Our nation was born by rebellion and bloodshed in the name of freedom, and we’re not that afraid of doing it again, if we have to.
3. “The politicians are in thrall to the NRA.” Actually, even if every single member of the NRA, all four million, did exactly what the NRA told them to do, it would be insignificant, vote-wise. In point of fact, the NRA (and all the other 2A organizations combined) represent the beliefs and sentiments of well over seventy million gun owners—and on the issue of guns or gun control, gun owners vote. So the NRA is really only a mouthpiece for gun owners—and truth be told, a considerable percentage (myself included) think the NRA are a bunch of compromising weasels.
4. “How can Americans NOT support greater gun control, when tens of thousands of people are killed by gunshot each year?” Actually, the “tens of thousands” of casualties is largely a myth (and by the way, as more and more states have accepted the rights of citizens to carry handguns, the homicide rate has dropped each year. Conspicuous among the places where homicide rates are rising, are places with no such rights, such as Chicago, New York and Washington D.C.).
Anyway, the latest actual statistics (for Y2000) read as follows:
Leading causes of death:
Heart Disease: 710,760
Cancer: 553,091
Stroke: 167,661
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 122,009
Accidents: 97,900
Diabetes: 69,301
Influenza and pneumonia: 65,313
Alzheimer’s Disease: 49,558
Kidney diseases: 37,251
Septicemia: 31,224
Suicide: 29,350
Liver disease: 26,552
Hypertension/renal disease: 18,073
Homicide (all causes): 16,765
Pneumonitis: 16,636
All other combined: 391,904
Total deaths by gunshot: 28,663
Circumstances of gunshot deaths:
1. Suicide: 16,596 (53%)
2. Homicide: 10,806 (38%)
3. Accident: 774 (2.7%)
4. Police: 258 (0.9%)
5. Unknown: 229 (0.8%)
As a percentage of the total U.S. population:
-- Gunshot homicide deaths (10,806) : 0.0036%
And for comparison purposes:
-- Death by alcohol (19,358): 0.0062% [excl. alcohol-related accidents]
In other words, you’re almost twice as likely to die of alcohol poisoning than by gunshot-homicide. Far more likely if you’re not a drug dealer disputing your “turf”.
Yes, incidents such as Columbine and Maryland grab headlines. It should be remembered that such isolated incidents, horrible as they may be, are not comparable to the bleak future of an entire nation of people permanently enslaved by foreign or local tyranny, or by a citizenry too frightened to venture out of doors for fear of criminals.
Remember George Orwell’s gloomy description of totalitarianism: “To imagine the future, imagine a boot stepping on a human face—forever.”
For as long as We The People are armed, this will never happen. And no amount of wailing by foreigners, peoples or governments, will count for anything in this “debate”, because there is no debate.
Our Bill of Rights is not negotiable—not one single part, not ever.
