A Case for Logical Weapons Control

My Friday was spent reading and watching updates from Newtown, and I think a lot of people felt fear, anger, and tremendous sadness at the news.  On The News Hour that evening, Mark Shields gave an impassioned review of gun laws in the United States, a view he started formulating as a Marine.  David Brooks suggested that we need a more rounded approach.  My brother sent me a text comparing American's reaction to gun violence, to the Kiwi's reaction when a bus load of children died on their unsafe roads, short-lived sadness, followed by apathy and acceptance as part of the price of living t/here.

Over the weekend, there were vigils, some political, some religious.  Others said it was not the time for politics, and I think many people were surprised, myself included, at how political President Obama's Sunday night speech was.  The funerals have begun, and I think now is the time for discussion.  Rather than letting the victims suffer in vain, the best memorial we can give the families of the slain is action to ensure that the Founding Father's vision of this country is upheld.

Many blog posts on the internet are full of anger.  If you want those, please look elsewhere.  Many are educated perspectives on what this type of violence does to the image and idea of America.  The New Yorker has several wonderful pieces, including a fantastic perspective from China. Though I do not want to recreate rants about where we are, I cannot resist a few chiding remarks.  I think they establish my position, and I think it is most fair to say them at the beginning.  It may not be the most persuasive way to write, because some readers will become angry with me, and I think that is probably okay.  If you just want my thoughts on the solution, please feel welcome to skip the next two paragraphs.  

It seemed everyone had condolences to offer the families of the victims, except the NRA.  The NRA backed by just over 1% of Americans has an official policy to refuse to discuss gun violence.  So stubborn are they in this policy that they very nearly refuse to acknowledge that firearm violence happens at all.  So reckless are they in their acceptance of the deaths caused by firearms, their supporters attack the CDC for keeping track of mortality rates in this country.  I expect more from the NRA and its members.  It is your right, as and American, to argue that the slaughter of 20 children is a fair price to pay to be able to saunter into a "show," and buy a device designed solely for the killing of people any day of the year.  It, however, is completely unacceptable to remain silent when so many are suffering.  The NRA could have posted a statement that read something like this; "Our thoughts are with the people of Newtown today.  It is reprehensible that people behave in this manner, and we offer our support to those suffering."  Later they could tout that their firearms safety programs help make responsible firearms owners, they could create a program that made gun locks and safes affordable to people who feel they can afford a several hundred dollar weapon, but not a ten dollar lock for its trigger.  The NRA could be part of the solution to violence and death, but instead, through their silence, they choose to condone murder.

Accusations also went spewing from the minions of the weapons lobby that someone with a concealed weapon was at the Oregon shopping mall.  Some even went as far as calling this person a hero.  First, details about this person are unclear in the media, so I may have some details incorrect, but it would seem that he did not turn his weapon into the police as evidence, nor turn himself in as part of the crime scene.  He, according to him, drew a weapon in public, this requires a police investigation of its own, no matter his motivation.  Second, it would seem, according to police, that a weapon malfunction, not some guy hiding behind a pillar, caused the Oregon gunman to retreat.  Third, a hero risks their own life and safety for the benefit of others.  Their bravery goes beyond expected, and becomes altruism.  Thankfully, the individual in question had the good sense not to add to the violence, but carrying a firearm in public does not make you a hero.  I go into public with the bravery given to me by the knowledge that as a civil society, we pay taxes to have a body of protectors.  Those who carry weapons in public are not heroes, they are not brave, they are cowards.

The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Over the years, society has expanded what this means, and the Founding Fathers cite many examples of how the King had been denying them these rights.  One of them does not read, "He has failed to protect children from harm by refusing to enact laws that show some effort to ensure their safety against wanton violence," but I think it probably would have if there were (essentially) unregulated weapons that enabled people to commit mass murder in school houses at the time of writing this document.  I doubt that there is an American alive, or who has ever lived, who would disagree when I say that those children were denied the unalienable Rights that this country was founded upon, principally, Life.

It is difficult to talk about laws in this country without some discussion of the Constitution.  The Constitution is a document, drafted by the Founding Fathers, to outline how they thought the country should work.  Like a club's by-laws, it was the very best guess at how a functioning government should work.  In the last 200 years, much has been changed, but like a club, the motivation has not.  The Founding Fathers did not want a strong central government, but a weak central government caused more problems than it solved, so we changed it.  The existence of a standing army was deemed necessary, but the Constitution forbade it.  That change occurred in the form of an amendment.  While an amendment, in my opinion, can change the rules on governing processes (e.g. how senators are elected) it should not change the reason we have the Constitution, and that reason is clearly outlined in the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

One will notice that the preamble does not contain mention of the amendments, nor does it state that the provisions or amendments there of are of greater importance than the ideas of domestic Tranquility or the general Welfare.  Note the capitalization, Tranquility, Welfare and Liberty are clearly primary to defense.  In these United States of America, no amendment is paramount to the basic rights contained in this preamble.  The First Amendment does not protect those who speak hate, as that damages general Welfare.  The Second Amendment does not protect weapons designed to cause mass murder, as that is contrary to domestic Tranquility.  Making logical changes to protect the lives of children is not contrary to the Constitution, but is in keeping with the guiding thoughts of the Founding Fathers.

Before I delve into the "gun" debate, I think it should be begun with a lexicon.  I attempt to stick with these definitions, because I do not think it does much good for people to shout about guns when one side means Uzis, and the other means hunting rifles.  Gun is slang for a handheld device that performs a task.  It is, essentially, meaningless.  Firearm is a device that uses an explosive charge to propel a projectile.  Rifle is a rifled (spiraled grove), long-barreled firearm, intended to be fired from the shoulder.  Sidearms are small weapons intended to be worn at a person's side, these are generally more easily concealable, and for the purpose of this post, generally refer to a firearm.  Shotguns, revolvers, and muzzle loaders/muskets are other types of firearms, that can be easily defined through a Google search.  Weapon is a device with a primary purpose of killing people, or causing destruction.  

For those bored or confused, the important point here is that not all firearms are weapons, and not all weapons are firearms.  Perhaps, a weapon flowchart, without the word firearm would be useful, see below.

With this flowchart in mind, I want to advocate not "gun control," nor even firearms control, but rather weapons control.  Firearms are the most deadly (I think) weapon commonly available to US citizens, so will there be laws regarding firearms?  Yes.  Swords, nun-chucks, throwing stars, hand grenades, and land mines are other types of weapons.  Explosives are pretty regulated, but swords, nun-chucks and throwing stars are not.  BB guns are also not very regulated, and one can buy a fully automatic BB gun on the internet, as a BB gun is not a firearm, but an air rifle (though lacking a rifled barrel).  Is the primary purpose of a fully automatic BB gun killing people?  No, but I would say it is destruction (amusement through destruction is still destruction), and it is therefore, a weapon.  These are all things that should be regulated, but rather than start with nun-chucks, which the incidence of death by nun-chucks is too low to be known, we should probably start with the most deadly weapons.

People claim that no firearms are not deadly weapons, but I think there are some basic tests that prove this false.  First, assault weapons were designed with the intention of killing people.  The design purpose is killing people, maybe "guns don't kill people," but assault weapons, like the Bushmaster M4, which can be purchased at WalMart, enable people, by design, to kill people, lots of people.  A single-shot, bolt action rifle made for hunting is not a weapon by definition (though it can be used to kill people).

The first step in weapons control laws is to ban the most dangerous weapons, and restrict ownership of the next most dangerous types.  Those already in private ownership will be highly regulated, and the cost of proper registration should be borne by the manufacturers.  The most deadly mass murder at a school (that I am aware of) was perpetrated by the use of explosives.  Explosives have been used to commit horrible acts, and are therefore regulated quite stringently.  Explosives are an important part of many businesses, but they are inherently weapons (can be used to kill people, and are designed to cause destruction).  Since they are weapons, they are regulated, and I hear very little about how explosives should not be regulated because they are "fun," "antiques," or because "explosives don't kill people."  We acknowledge the danger associated with explosives, and regulate them accordingly.

I also acknowledge that not all firearms are weapons.  Some people have excessive fear, and their cowardice makes them want firearms for protection.  If a shotgun with a three shell magazine is insufficient for protection you need more training with firearms, and you should consider speaking with someone about your anxiety.  Some people like to hunt, and a single shot rifle is an excellent choice for game, and a simple shotgun for fowl.  Some workers in bear country, despite the proven superior effectiveness of pepper spray, prefer a shotgun or sidearm, a revolver is sufficient for animals, but the slower reloading makes them less suitable for mass shootings.  These can be used as weapons, but they can be made for specific purposes that makes them not inherently weapons, and would thus be regulated as the tools they are, not the weapons they could be.

I agree with the firearms lobby that banning firearms will not solve the problem.  If it was that simple, then there would be no question, and this country would have taken the logical step that nearly every other nation has taken, and banned firearms.  To support the argument that banning firearms is not the answer this group will argue that there are other weapons.  But, I argue, that we should regulate those too.  Then the arguments start to reach.  There is the outlaws owning catapults argument, to which I say, let them be outlaws.  Perhaps my favorite is the comparison to cars.  Automobiles can be used as weapons, but are not weapons (see flowchart).  To drive a car though, you need to be licensed.  The more dangerous or liability associated with the vehicle, the more difficult the licensing (this includes ships and aircraft).  I have on many occasions argued for more strict regulation of driver's licenses, but the point remains, that it is more difficult to legally drive an automobile than it is to legally discharge a firearm.  Further to the point, to legally drive a car, one must carry liability insurance.  I actually like this argument because it is a wonderful solution for the anti-tax, anti-weapons control folks.  They are, in fact, arguing that to own firearms you should be required to have years of training and supervision, repeated testing of aptitude, regular license renewal, carry costly private insurance, and that the design of the firearm should comply with stringent safety laws (vehicles must be "street legal").  On this, I agree with the NRA.

Enough, I think, about the firearms themselves.  In this no-tax frenzied society I am astonished every time the firearms lobby argues that society needs mental health care for the mentally ill.  I find I agree with them.  Mental health care should be free to everyone.  My suggestions to pay for this is to raise taxes, since they seem to so adamantly support it, I can only gather that people who favor addressing the mental illness in this country rather than limit availability of firearms (an essentially no-cost solution) also favor raising taxes.  No further need to debate the fiscal cliff, nor to discuss cuts to social programs, the supporters of the NRA are advocating higher taxes for all, and again, I agree!

A solution I do not agree with is that there should be more firearms.  People had the collective insanity to suggest that if the teachers at Sandy Hook were armed, the death toll would have been lower.  First, the cost of training and arming every teacher in the US would be staggering.  Second, the answer to the evils of firearms is not more firearms (cf. two wrongs don't make a right).  Third, what does the police response look like when rather than the perpetrator(s) with weapons, everyone has weapons?  The firearms and weapons already in society make it so police cruisers are up armored, and police wear expensive protective equipment.  How would they deal with increased weapons, and entering public places that are filled with plain clothed people wielding firearms.  This seems like it increases the likelihood of friendly fire incidents, and increases the number of firearms accessible to people who should not have them (I think firearms plus children is contrary to all safety courses I have taken).

The last part of the equation to me is controlling access to ammunition.  No firearm functions without ammunition. First, buying ammunition should be at least as difficult as buying pseudoephedrine (which the last time I bought it included having my driver's license scanned into a police database).  Second, a user fee should be added to each projectile.  I predict a little nonsense in this, because one can reload their own rounds, and as David Brooks pointed out, many of the people who commit these crimes are convicted in their actions.  To ensure even the most dedicated individual are found in this, I recommend primer control.  Primers (to include caps) are what the firing pin (or cock) hit in almost all firearms (yes, flintlock and similar muzzle loaders will slip past).  To purchase a primer, one should have to have their identification scanned against a police database (like purchasing over-the-counter drugs), and a usage fee should be added to offset the cost of access to mental health, police services, administrative costs, and recompense for the deaths and damage caused by firearms.  Chris Rock suggested something like $100 for a bullet, that might be excessive, how about we start with $1/primer.  While that is a shocking raise in the cost of ammunition, I think it is a fair start to offset the cost of ammunition to society, the CBO would be a better group to ask though.

Will all of this stop mass murder tomorrow?  Of course not, and I do not think anyone is suggesting that it would.  I have read many people (right and left) argue that Americans are inherently violent.  I would like for such unpatriotic nonsense to be dropped.  People are violent, but generally good spirited, and it does not matter what country they are from.  People who commit violent acts are either mentally ill, suffering from the effects of a substance (e.g. alcohol), or feel that they are without option.  We need to honor those who have suffered from violent acts by improving ourselves, and improving society, not by bickering, or excusing ourselves by saying we are a weak nation.

What I see in politics in this country is that political movements (e.g. the TEA Party) are bought and paid for by the wealthy (the grass-roots of the TEA Party grew straight from the bank accounts of the Koch brothers).  What I see in the gun lobby is the wealthy preying on the fear and cowardice of the masses.  Unlike these wealth-backed politics, those who support sensible weapons control measures are the victims.  Ronald Reagan had an attempted assassination, resulting in the Brady Bill, and Nancy Reagan supporting weapons control.  I feel sad when I see this, because America has been hijacked by the wealthy, and we must build support to end firearm violence one, or in the case of Sandy Hook Elementary, 27 victims at a time.