It seems relatively clear now that the shooting of Representative Giffords will not inspire any major changes in gun laws. Even a restriction on magazine sizes. Strange.
This has inspired me to devote some brainpower to the gun debate. The obvious conclusion, of course, is that guns are a wedge issue with a very powerful lobby and energized base with a very simple message: "more guns, everywhere, all the time" up against an opposition that says "some guns, in some places, some of the time" and doesn't seem care too much except when Congresspersons get shot in the face. A situation like this is never advantageous for the side that has to equivocate. Joe Voter hears strident language from the NRA and those in their orbit, and convoluted policy discussions from the other. That's not going to help anybody who wants gun control get elected. So it's a third rail for them.
As best as I can figure, the argument the NRA and its buddies use generally is a variant of Deterrence Theory, or Mutually Assured Destruction if you will. The argument goes: If everyone has guns, that obviates the advantage a gun would grant dangerous criminals, making gun violence less likely to occur. On its face, this makes a bit of sense.
The problem, though, is that while MAD is based on the assumption that everybody dies, this assumption is itself actually based on something called "second strike capability." That is, the ability of an attacked nation to deliver a devastating response even after absorbing a first strike. In other words, Russia nukes the US and that first strike destroys all American land-based nuclear weapons, the US can still destroy Russia with nuclear weapons on submarines. That's what makes a nuclear war (in the Cold War sense) unwinnable. If the US (or Russia) didn't have those submarines, it would, theoretically, be possible to "win" such a war.
And that, you see, is the root of the problem with the old "more guns=less gun violence" chestnut. If you've got a gun, and you've got the initiative, and you get a good shot off, the other guy does not, can not, have "second strike." He's dead. You get away. You win. Every criminal that's not braindead (and that would countenance the use of a gun in the commission of a crime) understands this at least intuitively. And that, of course, does not speak to criminals who *are* braindead (e.g. Jared Lee Loughner); anyone willing to walk into a public place and start shooting either understands the risks (i.e. certain death or capture) and accepts them or is totally unable to do so. In either case, there's nothing for them.
I know that the counterargument here is pretty simple: If more people in that grocery store had had guns, Loughner might have not had the chance to do as much damage as he did. Maybe. But one can get through a 30 round magazine pretty quickly with a semiautomatic pistol. I'd wager that unless Wild Bill had been handy with his 1851 Navys not much would have been different.
There was a man at the scene carrying concealed. When he drew his weapon and turned the corner, he found a man holding a gun whom he promptly backed up to a wall and almost shot before realizing that that man had just disarmed the shooter. No amount of gun-totin' by Hero Citizens can save the day if those Hero Citizens don't have the discretion to withhold fire until they know the full situation.
ReplyDeleteI'd not heard that. I'd assumed that there would have been people carrying there, given that, you know, it's AZ and all.
ReplyDeleteThe discretion piece to this is definitely vital. There was a great article in Harpers a couple months about about the psychological side of CCW, and I guess the main thing I took away from it is that the people who get these things almost always see themselves as "sheepdogs." Not looking for a fight, but willing to if the poor hapless sheeple are threatened.
It seems like that attitude does away with "discretion" almost on the face of it.