|
OK. First off, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a libertarian and believe that -any- controls on private weapons ownership are illegitimate. I say this so you'll know my biases right out of the gate.
The paradigm espoused by proponents of Victim Disarmament (a more accurate term, IMO) is that if firearms are forcibly removed from society that crime, especially violent crime committed with firearms, will be reduced. Measures espoused from this position usually include at very least the registration of weapons, licensing of owners, and the banning of certain scary-looking weapons incorrectly known as "assault weapons*." Many Victim Disarmament advocates, possibly a majority, also propose the banning of pistols, standard-capacity magazines, various types of defensive ammunition commonly carried by both police and civillians, large-calibre target rifles, and laws requiring "safe" storage. A sizeable and noisy minority (at least) call for the banning of all or nearly all civillian gun-ownership, disallowing even self-defense or sporting use as legitimate. Such advocates point to Japan as an example of a relatively crime-free society which has enacted strict Victim Disarmament measures: while true, this neglects the fact that Japanese police can search homes and buisinesses without warrant or warning, and that accusation is unofficially regarded as proof of guilt in the Japanese court system. The Pro-gun/rights counterpoint to this is that Japan is safe because police states generally are. Victim Disarmament advocates routinely advise persons who are attacked to defend themselves with less-lethal means (which routinely fail), by running away, or by calling the police (who can take half an hour to arrive.) Proponents of such measures also routinely espouse closing a "gun show loophole" which does not exist, and the banning of private, not-for-profit sales of firearms between individuals.
The paradigm espoused by pro-gun/rights proponents such as myself is that while honest people may comply with such laws, the great majority of violent criminals will not, and that the result will be that the law-abiding are left at the mercy of the lawless, and the weak at the mercy of the strong. Furthermore, we believe that the right of self-defense (and the right to acces to the means thereof) is absolute and inviolable; ie not to be mucked about with. We believe that firearms and other weapon exist and may be utilized to protect individuals and their lives, liberties, and properties from unlawful encroachment, whether by freelance criminals or an out-of-control Government entity. We also believe that "sporting purpose" is an illegitmate means of determining a weapon's suitability for civillian ownership, as many people keep weapons for non-sporting purposes such as self-defense or to maintain themselves as part of the Unorganized Militia, defined in Section 311 of the US Federal Code. Pro-gun/rights proponents point to Switzerland, Norway, and the Czech Republic as examples of nations which range from relatively gun-friendly to downright gun-enthusiastic and yet enjoy low violent crime. Contrariwise, they point to the example of the United Kingdom (most violent nation in the developed world according to the United Nations) as an example of what can happen when law-abiding citizens are disarmed by government fiat. They furthermore point out that rampage shootings such as Columbine and VA Tech have universally occurred in "Gun Free Zones" such as schools and posted workplaces; never at shooting ranges, police stations, gun-shows, etc. It is telling, IMO, that Victim Disarmament advocates have never been able to explain why, if firearms and access thereto is the problem, this is the case. The pro-gun/rights position is based upon a Rights-centred paradigm, while the Victim Disarmament position is based typically on a paradigm of poorly-understood utility. Pro-gun/rights advocates also make a utilitarian arguement, pointing out that the heavily-armed Swiss have been left alone or the better part of the last thousand years, and point to a number of instances in 1930s America wherein armed bodies of citizens stood down or removed corrupt and brutal local governments, most commonly in the coal-mining country of Appalachia.
*"Assault Weapons" are semiautomatic (one pull of the trigger, one round fired) weapons which have an appearance similar to their fully-automatic (gun fires as long as the trigger is depressed) counterparts. Despite being used in less than 10% of firearms-violent crime, they are routinely touted by the Brady Centre and others as "the weapons of choice" for drug-dealers and gangsters, and as threats to police officers; neither of which assertions is borne out by evidence.
|