Gun Control; Or, One of the Issues where I'm not a Consequentialist

Recent incidents in Cumbria show that very strict UK-style gun control can not reduce the number of shooting sprees to zero. One of the typical American conservative responses is that this is an example of criminals getting guns anyway. I do think this response might overlook something. The UK has a very low rate of gun-related deaths. In England and Wales in 2002, this rate was 0.38 gun deaths per 100,000 of the population per year. In the U.S. in 2004 this rate was 11.66. (That figure does include suicides and accidents as well as homicides.) The UK laws might not have prevented this latest shooting spree, but if we compare the rates of gun fatalities there does seem to be room for the idea that the UK's gun laws may have prevented a whole lot of other deaths.

There's also the standard conservative line that if you ban guns, murderers are going to use knives, or some other object. And this might be why the UK also strictly regulates the possession of knives. If we look at the rates of homicides in general, regardless of killing tool, we'll find that the UK still has many fewer killings than the U.S. In 2006, the number of homicides per 100,000 per year was 1.61 in England and 4.55 in the U.S. Maybe gun laws aren't the whole picture. Maybe there's a broader cultural issue. The UK might just be a much more peaceful country that the U.S., despite its notably higher rate of alcohol consumption (in 2003 the UK had a higher alcohol consumption rate than Russia). When we include other violent crimes, though, the UK looks a little more violent than the U.S.

The UK does have a reputation of being a Nanny State. It is possible that its multi-layered web of protections makes it virtually impossible for the regular guy to cause a violent death. Maybe this is a desireable and commendable feature of their society. After all, the right to live is the most precious right. If a legal system should make a mistake, it should - as the lawyer for Terry Schiavo's parents puts it - make the mistake on the side of life.

Every political issue can be approached in at least one of two ways - through consideration of strict moral duties that must be respected no matter what, and through consideration of the most desireable consequences. A lot of people use both these methods at the same time. Sometimes I use both at the same time. Some libertarians like to believe that both of them can always be used at the same time, should always be used at the same time, and are inseparable.

When it comes to gun control, libertarians bring up two things: first, they say that the mere possession of a particular object is not in and of itself a violation of anyone's rights, and so banning it is a violation of personal freedom (the moral argument), and secondly, they try to scrape together some stuff about unarmed civilians being made prey to abusive police, invading armies, and common criminals (the consequentialist argument).

As far as abusive police and common criminals are concerned, an honest consequentialist approach would give a whole lot of weight to the pro-gun control side and very little weight to the gun freedom side. Yes, gun bans disarm the law-abiding civilians; but here in the U.S., and even in California, gun ownership is still legal. And despite that legality, very few of us know how to use a gun, much less own one. Heck, there's a gun store and shooting range right here in my home town in the San Francisco Bay Area. Any time I want to I could go start practicing, and I haven't been in a shooting range since the first time I went to one, in August 2008.

Even though guns are legal here, we really don't have a gun culture. If a guy pulled a gun on someone, almost no one would take advantage of their 2nd Amendment right. And even if you had your gun with you, once someone else pulls their gun on you it's too late for you to pull out yours. So even though there are instances of people successfully using weapons to deter crime, I think bye and large the vast majority of crimes that involve guns would have been committed anyway.

Civilian ownership of guns won't deal with abusive police, either. Have you ever tried shooting a cop and getting away with it? I dare you to.

So of the consequentialist arguments that might help the libertarian/conservative side, the only one left is foreign invasions. And that doesn't seem especially strong. The best way to defend yourself and your family when your country gets invaded is to leave the country. Hopefully whatever country you flee to would allow you to cross their border without a visa.

Despite all this, I still do believe in the right to keep and bear lethal weapons. I think that the moral argument about personal freedom still stands, despite the derth of strong consequentialist reasons. I cannot violate any one else's rights merely by keeping and carrying around a piece of metal with me. Whether I violate someone's rights with it depends on how I use it.

It seems that libertarians, especially the cosmopolitan and erudite types, constantly reach for statistics out of an effort to not look bull-headed. I don't think this always works. There's always going to be some issue, somewhere, where an honest and "open-minded" look at the numbers gives weight to the wrong side. Maybe you can go get more numbers and try to show that the states in the U.S. with the highest gun homicide rates are the ones with the strictest gun laws, or show that the rate of gun deaths in the UK was already very low before the complete gun ban went into effect. And your opponents are going to go get more numbers and try to counter that. But at the end of the day, what it all boils down to is that those of you on my side are fervently pre-convinced that any act or object that does not itself intrude into or trample upon another's life should be legally permitted. I hurt no one by carrying a gun, so I have the right to carry a gun. Case closed.