Arming America. . .

. . . is the name of a book by Michael A. Bellesiles that I have just started reading. His theme is that gun ownership in the U.S.A and the pre-U.S.A. colonies was not widespread until the mid-nineteenth century. People didn't have many guns nor use them extensively on the frontier. Arms ownership, widely assumed to have been nearly universal since the settling of the continent by the English, is a fiction.


There are now apparently, according to the FBI, approx. 250 million firearms in private hands with five million new guns purchased every year. More people are killed with guns in an average week in the U.S. than are killed in all of Western Europe in a year. There are no federal standards for American made firearms, nor any voluntary safety standards; by comparison, teddy bears are subject to four different types of safety standards. There are more than 140,000 authorized sellers of firearms in the U.S. There are far fewer bookstores and schools than gunshops.


How likely is it that a society that apparently now worships the gun will even consider suggestions like John Feeney's that we should be looking at ways of conflict resolution that don't resort to violence?

Check where the author got his statistics for gun ownership in the colonies and frontier. There was one study done that has been widely discredited and challenged. That study derived numbers for gun ownership from probate records, which was a bad way to go about it. Additionally, I remember reading that one author (I think the same one) "lost" some of the data he used in a study like the one you talked about so it couldn't be verified. I don't keep up with all the anti-gun or pro-gun studies very well, so I don't have the guy's name handy and don't know if that is the book you have or if the book you have quotes that study. But I'd be interested to know where the numbers come from in your book because I suspect that may be a weak link.


As far as the 140,000 number for "authorized gun sellers" being greater than the number of schools and bookstores, well that one is a bit misleading. What the guy is referring to is people who hold FFL's - federal firearm licenses. These licenses are necessary under the 1968 gun control act to receive guns through the mail and commerce or to run a gun store. All gun stores need an FFL, but many people with FFLs are just collectors or very occasional sellers. The requirements are somewhat onerous now and the number of FFL holders is decreasing. The ATF in the Clinton Administration made life for small gun dealers hell. You also give up certain rights, for instance, the ATF has the right to come search the address listed on the FFL. It's not so great to have your house tossed by the ATF on a bad day, you can ask some people who have been searched. An example of a typical FFL holder is a guy I know who is a cop and likes hunting and old WWII Japanese weapons. He goes to gun shows to buy and sell collectible stuff and occasionally will sell a gun to someone he knows. He is not exactly a big time seller but needs an FFL just the same. Just think if every store that sold a book or magazine had to have a federal book license. Or to order direct from Amazon you needed a book license holder to receive the shipment for you. There would be a lot more than 140,000 federal book license holders. In my opinion the Second Amendment is on equal footing to the First Amendment and protects an individual right. That being the case, I think the requirement to have an FFL is probably unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has given some hints they might rule that way, but we just don't know. Despite what people claim the Miller case from the 1930's says, the issue of the Second Amendment has not been squarely dealt with by the Supreme Court. There is a case in the 5th Circuit now that may go all the way up called Emerson, but we will just have to wait and see.


As for safety, guns are very safe now. Many companies have improved safety designs. Modern guns don't "just go off." They don't go off when they are dropped. Whacking the back of the hammer on a modern gun won't make it fire. (Safety note- DO NOT drop test or otherwise abuse a loaded gun to see what will happen at home - this is common sense!) But guns are designed to be effective. They are supposed to shoot when you pull the trigger. They need to be shot fast- you can't input nuclear launch codes when you are in a gunfight. So yes, they can kill people. So I think there are many voluntary safety standards, but not enough to please people with a political position against guns. But the people who own and carry guns want them to be safe. The reason you have a gun is to protect yourself, so you just don't want it to go off when it's stuck in your pants. Decent quality guns don't unless you pull the trigger. Once you pull the trigger, the bullet is going to go wherever the muzzle is pointed.


It sounds like the book you have is written by someone with a political position against guns. That is fine, but I would take some of the numbers and claims with a grain of salt. I would like to hear where the numbers for the colonies and frontier came from.

"How likely is it that a society that apparently now worships the gun will even consider suggestions like John Feeney's that we should be looking at ways of conflict resolution that don't resort to violence?"


Does this book also draw the conclusion that our society "worships" the gun?


I don't think the problem is guns. I think the main reasons for our gun-related problems are immature idiots, drunks, druggies, gang members, violent criminals, and some avoidable accidents.


The Swiss probably own more guns per capita than US citizens, but they don't have our gun death problems. The problem is our people, and that our average citizen is probably of a lower overall quality than the average Swiss citizen. In fact this is probably true of the US as compared to much of Western Europe as a whole. While we do have some outstanding schools, and some great people and creativity, ON AVERAGE our education is less rigorous even in high school than it is in most other major Western democracies. Our permissiveness, which is something I dearly love and believe in, has also led to a softening of our standards in many ways.


Why do we have so many gangs, drugged out morons, violent low-lifes in our culture? I'm not sure, and it is probably due to a number of factors.

Probate records were indeed one source of information used by the author. (Why would such records be a "weak link"?) He also used census figures about American militia members, records of the state of Massachusetts about private gun ownership, federal government figures about federal arms delivered to the state, newspaper accounts about nineteenth-century murder methods, and a host of other sources, including reports of foreign travelers within the United States. All sources are cited (the book is "scholarly"), which of course does not guarantee that they are accurate or relevant, just that the author's sources can be checked. It is clear to me from the Introduction, that the author is on the "anti-gun" side of the argument. This does not guarantee that the arguments advanced are either sound or unsound.


The author points up that gun ownership was carefully circumscribed in the colonies, as it had been in England. Even if it hadn't been, there was another problem: there were no gun manufactories in North America in the colonial period. Most firearms had to come from Europe.


I agree with you that the 2nd amendment has equal standing with the 1st (and all) amendments. The wording of the amendment is confusing because of the two clauses. I have not gotten to the section on the Constitution as yet, but in browsing through, it appears the author makes the point that the amendment was designed not in order that citizens should have firearms to protect themselves from the government, but rather that the government wanted to insist that citizens have firearms to protect the government from insurrection. The Consitutional Convention felts that the Congress should arm the militia. The language of the 2nd amendment would make sense in this light.

State legislatures, both before and after the Constitution, justified gun regulation as a public safety issue.


I would imagine that this Supreme Court would indeed rule FFL's to be unconstitutional. Scalia believes citizens have the right to own machine guns. And what can you expect from a Court that, on Friday, tells Florida to stop counting ballots because, even though they haven't looked at the case yet, they intend to rule a certain way on Monday? [A cheap shot, I know, and a whole other issue, but I couldn't resist. :-) I did not vote for Al Gore.]


If guns are used to protect, why are more people shot here in a week than in all of Western Europe in a year? The fact is that many guns are used not to protect, but to rob and murder.


Anyway, I suspected this post would be controversial and that the first and one of the most intelligent responses from someone on the other side of the issue (I did not say in my post what side I am on, but it should be obvious) would come from you.

So to remove all doubt, let me say that I am in favor of the repeal of the 2nd amendment, which I know will not happen in my lifetime and probably a long time beyond. I envision a society without guns. It seems improbable, I know. But at one time we had a society based on slavery. It seemed improbable we could do away with it and survive either economically or socially. Yet we did.


By the way, the book is in paperback ($16.00), published by Vintage Books.

I don't think the problem is exclusively guns. There is no question that people kill people. But they use guns to do it quite often. If you have people that are, for whatever reason, prone to violence, wouldn't it make sense to try to limit or regulate the tools used for that violence? We wouldn't worry so much, I would think, about the Swiss gaining nuclear expertise, but we would if, say, the Taliban did.


You say some pretty politically incorrect things here. I'll leave it for others to elaborate.


:-)

I'm not sure what percentage of deaths from firearms are accidental and that might have some bearing on the overall picture. If it is a high percentage then it would be interesting to know similar statistics for the Swiss (I would bet, in the dark, that they don't have very many accidental firearm deaths either).


As for limiting access to firearms because our people are overly violent or are idiots, it is a question of degree. Weren't assault rifles banned from sale to the general populace a while back? Should further steps be taken? Too bad we can't ban violence-prone idiots somehow;-)


Yes, my post is probably "politically" incorrect, but it's probably otherwise correct. Just goes to show how weak "political correctness" really is.

In Switzerland the penalties for the misuse of a gun are very high. Using a gun to rob or murder incurs a higher penalty than using another weapon. (At least, so I've been told).


Chris

So to remove all doubt, let me say that I am in favor of the repeal of the 2nd amendment, which I know will not happen in my lifetime and probably a long time beyond. I envision a society without guns. It seems improbable, I know. But at one time we had a society based on slavery. It seemed improbable we could do away with it and survive either economically or socially. Yet we did.


---------


I live in Australia. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons were completely banned after the Port Arthur tragedy in which a mentally ill man named Martin Bryant used a semi-automatic pistol to gun down 37 people at a historic holiday destination. Licenses are needed to own other sorts of firearms. Mostly they are owned by farmers who need them to kill foxes and other pests which threaten their livestock. Your average Australian citizen would see no need to own a gun and would probably not have thought even once in his/her life about buying one (I know I haven't).


The argument that a citizen needs a gun to protect himself is fatuous and could only be supported by someone who was brought up in a country like America. The protection of citizens is a social responsibility and is carried out by the police force under the rule of law. If this is not so, then why does the police force exist? Why not leave it to citizens to dispense their own protection and justice? Surely the police force represents a restriction on individual freedom of action? Or is the claim that a citizen needs a gun to protect himself from the government and its instruments the police force and the military? Again this is ludicrous. If the government wished to kill or detain you you could not prevent it doing so by owning a firearm. The point of democracy and the rule of law is that the goverment is answerable to the people while at the same time being responsible for their protection.


Our deaths per capita from firearms, both homicidal and accidental, are very very much lower then America and our general homicide rate is also much lower.


If anyone can explain to me in simple terms exactly how the Australian society is worse off than the American society as a result of our gun laws, I'd be interested. (Please spare me responses invoking the sanctity of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers).


Chris

First Andy- You say Scalia believes in the right to own machine guns -well if you believe that the militia clause in the 2d Amendment should be given much force it is clear citizens would have more of a right to own machine guns than hunting weapons. I think the Miller case from the '30's implies this as it hinted a sawed-off shotgun would be legal if it could be shown it could be used by the military. Also, there are fewer restrictions on fully automatic weapons (called Class III weapons because of the laws that govern their licensing) than you might think. Some states have rules against them, but where I live you can have as many as you want and pack them around with you. But there is a law (Unconstitutional :-))prohibiting the sale of machine guns made after 1986. But if you want a pre-1986 machine gun or a silencer or other Class III weapons, you need paperwork from the feds and have to pay a $200 transfer tax. You need various officials from your county to sign off on it and you have to tell the ATF you have it in this process. It is an unattractive process, so very few gun owners bother.


Probate records are bad because very few guns would be listed in the documents. The family rifle or musket was probably just handed to the oldest son or the kid who liked to shoot without being listed in any probate record. I don't think many estates bothered to list the guns, particularly if there were just a couple. I don't doubt that people had fewer guns, because manufactured goods of all kinds were scarcer then and relatively more expensive. I know there was a very flawed study done by using these records, but I don't have the criticisms of it laying around. I might try to research it but probably won't get the chance.


Chris VWH, I disagree that the police can somehow protect everybody or that you must delegate your right of self defense to the police. In fact, at least in America, there are court rulings that say the police do not owe a duty to protect any particular individual - only a very general duty to protect the public. This means if you are attacked you are on your own, at least until the cops show up, IF they show up. From the practical, not legal view, well, the cops just can't prevent many crimes. They can mop-up and investigate afterwards but really don't prevent many crimes. I am very familiar with police investigations and matters in criminal court, so I can say based on seeing thousands of criminal cases that the police cannot protect you. That doesn't mean they are incompetent, it means the job of protecting you ahead of time is impossible.


Also, I disagree that gun ownership is ineffective against an oppressive regime. Now, I don't think we have that in America and I'm not one of the paranoids who is a member of a crackpot militia group, but history shows that an armed populace can cause a lot of problems for an oppressive regime. What would have happened if every Jewish neighborhood in Europe fought back like in the Warsaw Ghetto when the Nazis came around? If every family met the Nazis with one little pistol the cost of the "final solution" would have been very high for the Nazi bastards. But Hitler passed very effective gun control laws. Also, if citizens fight against an oppressive regime, the citizen-soldiers will quickly tire of the fight. Who wants to kill or be killed by people who might have been your neighbor? So the right to keep and bear arms does serve a real political function and the framers of our Constituion understood this.


I don't want to get preachy about the Constitution, as you request, but in America that is the heart of the debate, not the statistics of gun misuse. I posted something along these lines in an earlier thread. Essentially my argument was that you cannot use statistics of misuse to deny a fundamental right of any kind. The freedom of religion is misused. The freedom of speech is misused. Can they be eliminated because of misuse? No. Perhaps regulated to some degree, but not eliminated.


BTW, as to Australia, I did read that violent gang-rape type crimes (I think in Melbourne)have gone way up since guns were banned. I don't know for sure if this is correct though. Very often violent crime goes up when guns are banned.

In America, states that have allowed people to carry concealed weapons as a matter of right (with no criminal record) have seen very nice reductions in violent crimes. Mass shootings are less likely. Home invasion crimes are also less likely where guns are prevalent. And the cops won't get to your house fast enough to protect you when someone comes in. They will do a nice job taking pictures and having an autopsy done on your body though.

"The argument that a citizen needs a gun to protect himself is fatuous and could only be supported by someone who was brought up in a country like America. The protection of citizens is a social responsibility and is carried out by the police force under the rule of law. If this is not so, then why does the police force exist? "


How are the police going to protect someone in time if their house is invaded or burgalized, say at night, when they are asleep?


I think responsible citizens should be allowed to possess firearms to defend themselves from attacks in their own homes. Unfortunately our society probably contains many more violent lunatics and violent criminals than does your society in Australia. I don't think the right of responsible people to defend themselves against violent attack in their own homes should be abridged.