This is the punchline of a pithy truism usually accredited to Mark Twain that started with “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble…” and then ended with this post’s title. I think this phrase (although probably not first said by Twain) aptly sets the tone for this entry, particularly in relationship to gun ownership.
Among the various justifications for having guns I mentioned before, there’s a couple of statements I want to address, because I see them on the bumpers of pickup trucks all the time:
- “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
- “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”
While these might make catchy bumper stickers, the logic in each is flawed. First of all, it is incorrect to start with the presumption that the only option is outlaw all guns, nor to imply that that is even what is being proposed. And second, the opposite of the statement is actually true; the fact that guns are so readily available is the very reason outlaws can get them so easily.
People hunt for pleasure, sport or to put food on the table. While I don’t see how killing an animal is fun, nor even for that matter a legitimate sport (with the possible exception of bow hunting or spear fishing), I am certainly not advocating for “outlawing guns” as a solution to our current problem. And I don’t see a complete weapons ban in any of the proposals either. What is being proposed is to put some kind of limits or restrictions on those guns whose only purpose is to kill other human beings. Assault rifles are not useful for hunting. Handguns with “fingerprint-resistant grips” have no place in our society. Technology exists to track each spent bullet back to its source (where, when and to whom it was sold). Background checks on gun should be mandatory. This is not only supported by most citizens; it is even supported by most gun owners in the US. Currently background checks are required in some instances but not universally.
The majority of crimes involving use of a gun are committed with handguns rather than assault rifles. One of the main reasons why so many criminals have handguns is simply that there are so many handguns out there. It’s trivially easy to get a gun legally; inevitably a significant number of them will work their way into the illegal underground. The first step in reducing availability of illegal guns is to reduce the total number of guns in society. I am not suggesting this would be easy, but I believe it is a necessary first step. In Australia a few years back the prime minister pushed through a law that did exactly that, and the amount of gun violence dropped dramatically.
The response to the first statement then is to make handguns extremely difficult to get, and only after thorough background checks and significant training. And any crime committed with a handgun should carry much more significant penalties than they do now.
The next statement is even more flawed. It’s the same as saying “Nuclear bombs don’t destroy cities; people destroy cities.” Not true; nuclear bombs give people (or more accurately, governments) the capability of destroying cities much more thoroughly and easily than before. Of course guns by themselves don’t kill people, but that’s not the point. People provide the intent, but guns make the killing of someone much more likely. A moment of anger becomes deadly when you add a gun to the equation. If a person is intent on killing another human being and a gun was not available, I suspect they would find another way; beat them over the head with a rock if they were motivated enough, but that takes a lot more work and there is a high probability that the other guy is going to put up a fight. A person can be stabbed, but using a gun is much more likely to lead to killing someone than using a knife (I think the actual multiplier is 8 times). So the proliferation of guns means that situations that would otherwise have ended in a fistfight or even a knife fight now makes it much more likely that someone will die.
Those two statements make catchy bumper stickers, but they just ain’t so.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
“It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
This is the punchline of a pithy truism usually accredited to Mark Twain that started with “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble…” and then ended with this post’s title. I think this phrase (although probably not first said by Twain) aptly sets the tone for this entry, particularly in relationship to gun ownership.
Among the various justifications for having guns I mentioned before, there’s a couple of statements I want to address, because I see them on the bumpers of pickup trucks all the time:
While these might make catchy bumper stickers, the logic in each is flawed. First of all, it is incorrect to start with the presumption that the only option is outlaw all guns, nor to imply that that is even what is being proposed. And second, the opposite of the statement is actually true; the fact that guns are so readily available is the very reason outlaws can get them so easily.
People hunt for pleasure, sport or to put food on the table. While I don’t see how killing an animal is fun, nor even for that matter a legitimate sport (with the possible exception of bow hunting or spear fishing), I am certainly not advocating for “outlawing guns” as a solution to our current problem. And I don’t see a complete weapons ban in any of the proposals either. What is being proposed is to put some kind of limits or restrictions on those guns whose only purpose is to kill other human beings. Assault rifles are not useful for hunting. Handguns with “fingerprint-resistant grips” have no place in our society. Technology exists to track each spent bullet back to its source (where, when and to whom it was sold). Background checks on gun should be mandatory. This is not only supported by most citizens; it is even supported by most gun owners in the US. Currently background checks are required in some instances but not universally.
The majority of crimes involving use of a gun are committed with handguns rather than assault rifles. One of the main reasons why so many criminals have handguns is simply that there are so many handguns out there. It’s trivially easy to get a gun legally; inevitably a significant number of them will work their way into the illegal underground. The first step in reducing availability of illegal guns is to reduce the total number of guns in society. I am not suggesting this would be easy, but I believe it is a necessary first step. In Australia a few years back the prime minister pushed through a law that did exactly that, and the amount of gun violence dropped dramatically.
The response to the first statement then is to make handguns extremely difficult to get, and only after thorough background checks and significant training. And any crime committed with a handgun should carry much more significant penalties than they do now.
The next statement is even more flawed. It’s the same as saying “Nuclear bombs don’t destroy cities; people destroy cities.” Not true; nuclear bombs give people (or more accurately, governments) the capability of destroying cities much more thoroughly and easily than before. Of course guns by themselves don’t kill people, but that’s not the point. People provide the intent, but guns make the killing of someone much more likely. A moment of anger becomes deadly when you add a gun to the equation. If a person is intent on killing another human being and a gun was not available, I suspect they would find another way; beat them over the head with a rock if they were motivated enough, but that takes a lot more work and there is a high probability that the other guy is going to put up a fight. A person can be stabbed, but using a gun is much more likely to lead to killing someone than using a knife (I think the actual multiplier is 8 times). So the proliferation of guns means that situations that would otherwise have ended in a fistfight or even a knife fight now makes it much more likely that someone will die.
Those two statements make catchy bumper stickers, but they just ain’t so.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.