Who Should Have Guns?
Even among people who support a right to keep and bear arms, there is still room for debate on the details, including the following two parameters:
1) Who should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms?
2) What steps shall be taken to make it so?
Most “common sense” answers to #1 are children, criminals, people with mental problems, and lately the villains du jour: terrorists. The answer to #2 varies quite a bit, and usually includes such things as mandatory child-safety devices, background checks, and even outright bans on the villains’ “weapon of choice.” I’d like to examine these in some detail and engender some discussion.
First, take children. Now, I think it’s possible to make the case that children need guns more than ANYBODY. After all, should a child be threatened by an adult (say a criminal or a terrorist), the child is at a serious physical disadvantage. Nothing like an “equalizer” when your attacker is twice your size. I’m willing to concede that giving very young children access to firearms is not a good idea. However, after a certain age, I’d say that most children, given the proper training, could be trusted to use firearms safely and responsibly.
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that children younger than 16 (to choose a completely arbitrary age that just happens to be a common legal driving age) shall, by law, not be allowed to use firearms unless under the supervision of an adult. Now, is it sufficient to pass such a law, or must we also take proactive measures, such as requiring all firearms to be sold with a “child-safety device,” or requiring that all firearms in a home be stored using such a device, with all ammunition locked away separately? To what lengths should we go?
We currently have laws prohibiting the purchase and consumption of alcohol by children (and adults under 21—that’s a topic for another day). Should the government require that six-packs of beer be sold with a “child-safety device?” Should parents be required to store their alcohol in a lock-box? We also have laws prohibiting children under the age of 16 (in many states) from driving on public roads. Should we require that cars, when parked, be de-fueled, with the fuel stored under lock in a separate location?
Yes, yes, analogy is always suspect, but I’m trying to make a point: we wouldn’t accept such micromanagement from the State in our other affairs; why should we accept it when the issue is guns?
All right, that’s a good start for now. I’ll see how this one goes over before I move on.
March 9th, 2004 at 8:09 pm
We don’t accept such micromanagement because it’s overkill. But if there was widespread public perception of a significant number of kids getting drunk and doing each other great bodily harm, people would accept greater age-control of access to booze.
Basically, the greater and more immediate and more likely the potential harm, the greater justification for spending on controls, including proactive controls. And by spending I mean financial cost, effort, inconvenience, etc. In terms of convenience, locking your bullets away is generally less inconvenient than emptying your gas tank every time you stop your car (unless of course somebody is breaking into your apartment) and burdening car travel would arguably harm society more than burdening gun access.
The cost of a child-safety lock on a gun is arguably higher than on a six-pack, but the potential and likely harm of a 10 year-old getting into your Bud Light is pretty low compared to a 10-year-old getting into your AR15. This is why you might keep your beer in the fridge but you lock your guns up.
If your kid gets drunk, usually it can be addressed after he sleeps it off. If your kid is playng with your weapons, post hoc solutions don’t prevent major tragedy. People with kids should take proactive steps to prevent their children’s unsupervised access to guns.
As to when these proactive controls should be mandated as opposed to just encouraged, that’s just more of the same problem. If the justified spending on proactive controls is high enough and the potential for innocent victims is high, people would rather see some of that proactive control be mandatory. Mandatory proactive controls might not get 100 percent compliance, but in many instances they’ll get much higher compliance than completely voluntary setups.
Anyway, that, I believe, is a rough sketch of the sort of thinking many people employ when they say they are willing to accept licensing schemes and trigger locks and waiting periods and the like.
March 9th, 2004 at 9:18 pm
However, after a certain age, I’d say that most children, given the proper training, could be trusted to use firearms safely and responsibly.
*Shudder* We can’t trust them with a beer, or with a car, but we can trust them with a lethal weapon? Gadzooks, man, that’s out there.
And you’re right, the analogy isn’t good. An analogy to cars might be better. Can’t sell cars without seat belts, can’t sell them without air bags, can’t sell them without child safety locks, etc.
March 9th, 2004 at 9:20 pm
off the topic…Doesnt alcohol…”legal alcohol” mind you, sold in all 50 states to anyone aged 21+ without background checks, without fingerprint checks..and at a much lower price mind you…kill more people than all gun related deaths in the United States (including suicides which account for almost half of gun related deaths among adults and children?)
March 9th, 2004 at 9:42 pm
And shouldn’t those suicides involving alcohol and a gun be chalked up to the alcohol (a depressant) column?
March 9th, 2004 at 9:43 pm
One other point of discussion I like to think about is what rights are revoked for criminals? A convicted criminal can’t buy guns or (sometimes) vote. Should they lose 4th amendment protections? Lost the right to assemble with other criminals? etc.
Tom, fwiw, in rural east tennessee I was shooting guns as part of freshmen high school class. So, yeah, at a young age kids can learn. I started shooting at about age 8 before that.
March 9th, 2004 at 9:51 pm
I have the impression from Brutal Hugger’s post that he has fallen for the distortion intended in the popular “12 young people a day” statistic and is unaware that those young people have an average age of 17. One third are suicides, who statistically would find another method if guns are not available, and another third have had previous contact with the police.
The number of young children who die as a result of finding an unsecured firearm and not comprehending its danger is smaller than the number of children who drown in bathtubs and swimming pools.
March 9th, 2004 at 10:39 pm
Good responses as always. I hope to follow up sometime tomorrow.
And to echo Say Uncle: I got my first gun before I entered high school, and I was allowed to use it unsupervised. My brother went hunting by himself frequently before he entered high school. Neither of us has killed anyone so far.
I don’t think that’s so “out there.” That’s par for the course where I grew up.
March 10th, 2004 at 2:22 am
My experience is also similar. My Dad started teaching me to shoot when I was 5, and I was allowed to be on my own from the time I was 11 or so.
March 10th, 2004 at 11:27 am
Uncle:
Tom, fwiw, in rural east tennessee I was shooting guns as part of freshmen high school class. So, yeah, at a young age kids can learn. I started shooting at about age 8 before that.
That’s shooting under controlled circumstances, and I have no quarrel with that. The question, as I understood it, was who should be allowed to “keep and bear” arms (i.e., own and carry them), underscored by his assertion that guns could act as a self-defense equalizer for kids. That’s a different question entirely than what you’ve addressed.
I’m sure that with the proper training (and the right mentality), a lot of “kids” could safely handle guns. I don’t, however, think that this would be sufficient reason for removing all restrictions from them doing so, as Thibodeaux seems to be suggesting.
March 10th, 2004 at 11:48 am
I think you’re misunderstanding my intent, but possibly my post wasn’t clear enough. I certainly didn’t say anything about removing “all restrictions.”
What I want to do is examine the assumptions behind typical “common sense” gun control positions, and their typical legal prescriptions.
This means that I’m not going to take for granted the notion that “children shouldn’t have access to guns” is necessarily true. I’m also definitely not going to assume that, even if such a notion is true, that there’s no limit to what the government should do to enforce that notion.
I’d think you’d applaud this. After all, weren’t you railing against “idiotic, childish, oversimplistic, binary view[s]” in another thread?
March 10th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
I’d think you’d applaud this. After all, weren’t you railing against “idiotic, childish, oversimplistic, binary view[s]” in another thread?
Mea culpa.
March 10th, 2004 at 3:24 pm
I think it depends on where you live and why you’d need the gun. I grew up with guns; got my BB gun at 8 and pump-action shotgun at 13. We hunted, etc. However, I’ve since moved to the city and simply don’t need one.
If I have kids and a gun I’m going to keep it locked simply because I don’t want the heartache of my child hurting himself or others. It’s “common sense” — the same reason you don’t leave a child unsupervised around water.