| Chapter 31 | |
| Guns | |
| Few topics are as polarizing as guns in American politics. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S., totaling roughly the same as traffic accidents. Then you must add in the gun injuries that are several times more. There is roughly a gun per person in the USA. | |
| Background checks, often proposed, are an ineffective solution. An awfully high percentage of the population has pretty good control of themselves nearly all the time. ItÕs that ÒnearlyÓ part where the fatalities mount up. Too often, also, the buyer is not the user. | |
| Hunting | |
| Even if you endorse hunting for food or for sport, how can we make sure that little Johnny doesnÕt take that sporting gun to school? Leaving it home doesnÕt work, so letÕs keep it at a sporting club. An owner could Òcheck it outÓ on their way to the duck pond and bring it back before going home. With GPS tagging of the car, the shooter, and/or the gun, we can have a pretty quick notion of the gunÕs likelihood for being used for something other than sport. | |
| Home Defense | |
| LetÕs solve the Òhome defenseÓ use case with non-lethal weapons. Statistically, itÕs far more likely that a family member will be shot than an intruder. From [Kellerman 1998], ÒFor every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.Ó When Johnny accidentally shoots his sister with a mace gun, itÕs a trip to the emergency room, not the funeral parlor. WeÕve got Tasers, sticky foam, various chemicals, bean-bags, stun grenades, slow bullets [Atherton 2015], and more research will yield more options. | |
| Some gun owners might think they need a gun for defense against animals. One of the above non-lethal technologies might be appropriate. Perhaps not as convenient as a gun, but way more convenient than a funeral. | |
| Some might also imagine that guns would have a use in defense in public gatherings. Imagine you were at the rally where US Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot. Imagine that lots of people there had concealed handguns to Òprevent such things from happeningÓ. You hear a shot and everybody pulls out their gun to shoot the bad guy. Hmm, which of those people now brandishing a gun was the original shooter? | |
| Car defense | |
| A driver might be legitimately concerned with car-jacking. Our transportation solutions minimize this. One alternative for cars is a hidden Òkill switchÓ. This might make the car-jackers mad enough to harm you. How about if the kill switch lets the car run for a mile, while transmitting the carÕs GPS to the local police? | |
| ThereÕs another use case for a gun in a car: shooting the driver that just cut you off. Given the human psychology of road-rage, uncontrollable anger while driving is all too common. But you donÕt have that uncontrollable anger when you get in the car. Use that wisdom to decide not to take the gun with you. | |
| Police misuse | |
| Non-lethal weapons are also appropriate for police. Police can make mistakes like anyone else. Reducing lethal mistakes will build public confidence in the police. | |
| Defense against the government: militia | |
| A use case cited by some is a ÒmilitaÓ against the government. OK, this ÒworkedÓ in 1776, but note that Canada didnÕt need a war with Britain, and itÕs done pretty well. The ratio of firepower of government to citizen has gone up considerably in the last couple hundred years so ÒmilitiaÓ isnÕt a realistic strategy for the tyranny of government. We propose solutions to abuse of power in the Government chapters. | |
| Anger | |
| Consider: ÒNearly 9 percent of the adult population in the US have impulsive, anger issues, break or smash things and get into fightsÑand have access to at least one firearmÓ [RT 2015]. But it is hard to identify those 9 percent. We need better mental health services, but the surest way to keep guns out of the hands of impulsive people is to keep them out of hands. Period. | |
| Drug dealers | |
| Drug dealers have a tendency to own and use guns. By making drugs legal but regulated, we drastically cut one of the deadliest uses of guns. With a better Justice system and prisons designed for the inmates to constructively re-enter society, rather than just punish them, we reduce gun-ownership incentives even further [Sterbenz 2014]. | |
| Freedom | |
| We agree that restricting ownership is a removal of one sort of individual freedom. But giving everyone easy access to guns reduces everyoneÕs freedom. When youÕve been shot, your freedom drops to zero, rendering this argument self-defeating. | |
| Places with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths. Areas with strong anti-gun laws that nonetheless have a lot of gun violence (such as DC and Chicago) are adjacent to areas where access to guns is easier [Gordts 2015]. | |
| The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is the rallying cry for the National Riße Association, funded by gun manufacturers who profit from death and fear. They treat this amendment as sacrosanct, but why canÕt it be changed, as we repealed the alcohol Prohibition amendment? IsnÕt changeability the very idea of being able to amend the Constitution? Ultimately, though, we need to form a more civil society. ThatÕs the goal of this book. | |
| WeÕre at an impasse with guns in America. Perhaps reasoning framed by a comedian will work where logical persuasion has failed? [Jeffries 2015]. |