Thanks everybody who points this out-- great point. It's so clever and well thought out.
But I can't stop thinking about the gun regulation debate from an objective, reasoned point of view. I know, I know-- I'm obnoxious, but I'll try to keep my liberal whining to a minimum and focus on facts here.
Couldn't the same thing be said about vehicles? Something along the lines of, "Cars don't kill people, people kill people"? It's actually quite a relevant comparison since the death rate (deaths per 100,000 population) for vehicle deaths in the U.S. in 2010 was 10.65, where gun violence came in around 10.20.
"So, what's your point, Dylan?" Well-- it's strange that we, as a nation, take no issue in the load of regulations that we pile onto owning and operating vehicles (registration, licensure, insurance, usage laws, etc.), but as soon as we discuss something as simple as more stringent background checks or government oversight on owning and operating a firearm we start screaming foul play. Why do we regulate vehicles so intensely? Safety. It's always been about safety. The motorized vehicle was introduced to humanity in the late 19th century, and it quickly became very clear that when used irresponsibly vehicles were incredibly dangerous to the whole of the population. So the government decided to do what it is supposed to do: protect its citizenship.
How did the government accomplish this? The government began regulating who, how, where, and when the population could operate a motorized vehicle. Since then, more stringent operation laws have come into effect; most notably the requirement for all operators to carry insurance in case of any damage the operator may cause whilst operating their vehicle.
So why is not my God-given right to operate a vehicle that I OWN at any speed, any place, and however I want? I mean, the damn thing's primary purpose isn't even to be used as a weapon (which, by the way, is exactly what a firearm's primary purpose is)! In fact, only in the rarest of cases have vehicles been used intently as weapons! Most vehicle deaths are the result of accidents since motorized vehicle's base purpose is that of simple transportation and convenience, yet we allow those socialist government bureaucrats to regulate the hell out of them without a peep of activism from anyone.
STAND UP FOR YOUR BASIC RIGHTS, FOLKS! CARS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! KEEP YOUR GRUBBY GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY RIDE! YOU CAN PRY MY KEYS AWAY FROM MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS!
Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? I am 100% willing to subject myself to incredibly thorough regulatory bureaucracy so that I may drive a vehicle that I paid for with my own hard-earned money in the name of safety and the greater good. Here are some of the regulations that we place on operators of vehicles in this country:
- Age Restriction - The pinko-liberal government has determined that you cannot drive until you're 16 years of age. Probably because you're ridiculously irresponsible and may endanger the lives of many prior to that age (even 16 is pushing it).
- Licensure - You must pass driver's tests in order to operate a motorized vehicle in all states. They're so thorough, that they also require medical records in some instances so that they can be as confident as possible that you won't end up killing someone...before you're allowed to operate a vehicle.
- Registration - If you operate a vehicle, that vehicle must have a public record attached to it, and it must be updated (typically) on an annual basis. That means that the government gets to know exactly where the owner/operator of these vehicles live, while providing a way to instantly access the owner's background and information while monitoring use (which we'll explore shortly). And this Big Brother machination gets updated annually.
- Insurance - So you're of age, you passed the tests, and you've made your information available to most government entities (and typically the public as a whole with a little digging)...what if you still end up damaging property, hurting, or killing someone? Insurance! It protects the financial interests of the victims (or their families) around you and your irresponsible vehicle operation! Aaaand it's required that have it and pay for it, no matter the cost! You want to drive a car? Sure! Buy some insurance so I don't have to suffer financially for your incompetence.
- Usage Monitoring (or "Policing" if you're nasty) - When you are operating a vehicle, you are subject to Policing. You are subject to the government being able to take punitive measures for acting in an unsafe manner; manner that is, in turn, determined by said government. Why? So the whole of the population can go about their daily lives and not have to worry that most of the people on the roads can drive however they want to.
All of these regulatory measures boil down to safety and the greater good. They are intrusive, they are incredibly costly, and sometimes these regulations are abused by those that control them. But one thing is clear: we accept them because we know they work.
So I ask all of you "guns don't kill people" folks to ask yourselves why it is that you can't even entertain a discussion regarding thorough and strict regulations for firearms, while you go through all of the bureaucratic motions to enable yourself to operate a motor vehicle. Is it only because there is no amendment protecting your "inalienable" right to operate a motor vehicle? Or is it something more than that, like the safety and greater good of the bulk of the population?
Think on that.
Most, if not all of these regulations already exist upon the proper ownership of guns. And like the cars in question (needing un-insured motorist insurance) many people ignore a lot of these regulations. My thought, is the government slathering another layer of bureaucracy on top of the current gun laws on the books wont help anything but inconvenience upstanding citizens who want to buy guns. Now, inconveniencing gun owners in the name of safety is no big woop, inconvenience beats crooks having guns any day, but i think it would further convince your typical thug/criminal type to ignore any of the rules and buy his gun out of a van, or from Eric Holder.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely true. However, people abusing or working around the "unnecessary" bureaucracy of registering a vehicle, licensing themselves, etc. doesn't prohibit us from taking the regulatory step. In fact, it typically puts pressure on more enforcement!
DeleteSo again, why is there such a disconnect from that mentality, where regulation is a part of the solution to vehicle deaths, when it comes to gun regulation?
Or in other words-- where is the outcry of those who would stand up for the rights of car owners? I didn't kill anybody in my car, and neither does a huge majority of car owners, so why should I be regulated in the same way as everyone else?!?!?! Especially if people are just going to ignore the regs!
So to add on Dave's comment, the laws and bureaucracy surrounding vehicles ONLY apply to operation of vehicles on public property. You can drive however you want and do whatever you want with your car on your own property with no licencing or restriction.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true for guns now in most places. If I want to carry my gun in public I have to have submit to a background check (and even medical record check where I live) and fill out a ton of paperwork. There are then a whole book of laws I have to follow and abide by or I get my licence revoked or go to jail.
The problem with your analogy is that you are comparing ownership to usage. I would argue there are last least as many laws, regulations, and licencing oversight of gun usage on public property as there are on car usage
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour friendly neighborhood back punch victim. Didn't have my acct set up.
DeleteOK - I see where you are going with that, so allow me to suppose an additional juxtaposition:
DeletePharmaceuticals don't kill people, people kill people.
Are pharmas inherently malicious? No. Are pharmas incredibly dangerous and potentially fatal in the hands of those unqualified or not of stable mental or emotional capacity to use them? Is my personal ownership, not usage, of pharmaceuticals highly regulated as a result?
What about my God-given right to do what I want with my own property, on my own property? Why regulate pharmas? Why the doctoral procedure on procuring pharmas?
Where is the outrage from all of you "basic rights" people about deregulating pharmas?
For the greater good. Is it inconvenient for those that actually need (not want, as in most gun ownership cases) pharmaceuticals to go through the whole process of the bureaucratic nonsense to get access to the regulated drugs? Yes.
Where is all the outrage towards the FDA?
So, to hit a couple of bases, many people DO feel the government has no right regulating private drug use and there is outrage on the matter. A core issue of the libertarian party (the group of people most likely to be very pro gun) platform states :
Delete1.2 Personal Privacy
Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
http://www.lp.org/platform
Outside of this outlook, there is an argument for why this situations with drugs is not analogous. Much of the segment of the population that is very pro gun see gun ownership as one of the checks and balances inherent in our system of government. An armed populace is incredibly hard to oppress. Allowing the government to regulate and be in control of something that is meant to help keep it's power in check seems insane from this point of view. It would be like letting the president fire supreme court judges and congressmen... completely disruptive to the checks and balances. Drug regulation may be restrictive, but it does not interfere with a fundamental checks/balance of power between people and the government.
Now, one could argue (lets not.. we might as well argue religion for all the good it would do) against the need for guns as a check and balance to government power (or their ability to provide it), but hopefully this explains the staunch resistance to ANY further government regulation.
That's great and all, but the FDA regulates pharmaceuticals with ease, and everyone who has to go through the "bureaucratic nonsense" to procure them has done it.
DeleteThere may be a philosophical reservation as to deregulating the industry, but have their lives really been infringed upon in a malicious way by having to visit a doctor, receive a diagnosis, and then procure the correct pharmaceuticals?
Further, we're forgetting one basic fact-- the purposeful use of pharmaceuticals is basically to treat/cure/prevent illness and death. A byproduct of irresponsible use is creating harm.
The purposeful use of a firearm? Well-- initially, it was a distinct advantage in war-making, then it turned into defensive posturing which is where it remains today. The danger is not a byproduct, it IS the product. Whether used for defense or not, a firearm WILL harm another person when used AT them. And don't talk to me about sport-- it's cute and all, but I'm sure all of those that feel so fucking strongly about owning/using a firearm can take the additional bureaucratic steps in order to do so.
Think about this: if we created a flow chart of things, and the first step was "Is it primarily a weapon?", then we follow the non-weapons and ask "is it potentially fatal if used irresponsibly?" the resulting government action if answered "yes"? "REGULATE THE SHIT OUT OF IT".
Most things that are bought/sold/operated/used in the United States that have the potential to result in fatalities are regulated (the only reason I say most is because I'm sure you could find some ridiculous example of something that could be fatal). Most of these regulations are far-reaching, to the point of classifying the goods, controlling the goods, monitoring the use of such goods, etc., etc.
Now following the weapons branch of the flow chart (which inherently means that there is fatal potential, it's what they're designed for)-- "DON'T TOUCH MY GODDAMNED FIREARMS YOU FUCKING GUBMENT!" Why are we soooooo unwilling to apply the same exact safety measures to something so inherently dangerous???
Finally, I'm not arguing for more regulation, and I'm obviously not arguing against it, all I'm doing is attempting to shine some light on why Americans have and maintain such a fucking hard-on for not regulating firearms, when we're completely cool regulating the fuck out of everything else that has the slightest POTENTIAL to kill.
Well written, Mr. Price. I wonder the same thing.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, and due to the fact that I really have nothing intelligent to contribute, When a criminal steals a car is with the intent to kill someone? And/or does that same question hold true for a pistol? Regulating public use is fine when it indeed ads to public safety.. Personal use however is and should be regulated by me within my own home or property..
ReplyDelete