I have often wondered if the two sides of the gun control debate are missing each other on many levels. I have gone back and forth on the issue myself, because I don't think either side has an open and shut case and because it is an immensely complicated topic with tendrils of meaning wrapping their slippery fingers around deeply valuable virtues; virtues that are worth fighting over.
On the conservative side, I find it hard to believe that we have evolved as a species beyond our need to balance the playing field between systems of control and human liberty. On the liberal side, the ease with which one can take a life is and should be disquieting. I would like to take a moment to remind myself, and anyone with a strong opinion in either direction, why these two extremes both have good intentions (even when some of their representatives do not). Then, I would like to dream a little bit about one way that the bridge between these virtues might be found.
First, pro-liberty. "Time flows like a river." Even if you are arguing that all guns should be burned, you would be remiss to forget the historical significance of these weapons. In oppressive systems, the technology of the wealthy is frequently what keeps the power in their hands. If I have a warhorse, steel armor and a steel sword and you have a pitchfork, you are going to pay me more taxes than you should. But the power of the gun is, even if mine is a little bit of a newer model than yours, you still have got my attention enough to where we can talk about cutting that tax on tea. Without the musket, there would be no America. Guns made the powerful just as vulnerable as the weak and that's a good thing. I shouldn't be able to rule over you just because I am richer and can afford better weapons. And I'm not just talking about the politically powerful. A 250 pound man has power of a 120 pound woman just just because of a weight difference. Does that seem right to you? But, if you put a gun in each of their hands, that power gets spread out pretty quickly. And from what I can tell, we still need that balance. We have not grown up enough as a planet to trust each other not to take advantage of power. So, removing guns or even restricting them to the degree that the weak can no longer have confidence in their ability to protect themselves is irresponsible at best and an attempt towards tyranny at worst.
Next, pro-life. There is a reason my neighbor should not be allowed to own an atomic bomb. It would be way too easy for her to wreak death on a global scale. Moving down the line, there is a reason my neighbor should not be allowed to own an attack helicopter. If he wakes up one morning grumpy (and psychotic) and decides to shred through a few dozen of those drywall boxes we call houses, a lot of people are gonna die needlessly and tragically. Is it ok for my neighbor to own a kitchen knife? Definitely; even if he does have that psychotic break while holding a kitchen knife, while he may still be able to do some serious and horrible damage, it probably will not be on as large a scale and definitely will not be as easy. We have decided as a culture that there is a line of acceptable risk for weapons technology. The question is, on which side of that line are guns? It is pretty damn easy for the will of one individual, driven by the freight train of a semi-automatic, to cause soul-harrowing loss and death. This ought not be. Guns distribute death too quickly and too easily. We should make it harder for psychotics to kill us.
So on the one hand, we cannot yet make guns go away because we would quickly descend to old systems of oppression; arguing otherwise may make you guilty of historical amnesia. Still, this only gets guns to the point of a necessary evil; not exactly the moral high ground. So on the other hand, we cannot keep guns around because I shouldn't be able to decide who lives and who dies just by moving my finger on a small piece of metal which causes a hammer to strike a pocket of explosive powder launching a metal projectile into another human's vital organs. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge their inherent danger just on the grounds that "Guns are as American as Apple Pie" may make you blind to the victims of your precious heritage.
Where does that leave us?
I suggest that the best compromise between these two extremes is to intentionally and drastically increase the efficacy of our non-lethal technologies. Rubber bullets, while noble, lack the accuracy in most conditions in which one would need self-defense. But, if you and I were able "set phasers to stun," this divide would be much closer to a resolution. I don't use that example to make light of this problem, but to get our imaginations pumping. What if we had a long range, highly accurate way to make someone instantly fall asleep? Our 120 pound woman doesn't have to wait to use pepper spray until her attacker is within striking distance. She can knock him unconscious from 60 feet with a push of button. Certainly this technology could be abused in a number of ways, but those who do get punished with jail time and their victims wake up the next morning to tell the story. And I'm pretty sure I could still mount a hell of a revolution against an oppressive government, without extraneous death. By the time our tyrant has had a week's worth of mandatory naps, we've got our case made to the world that his reign should not continue.
Of course, we are a ways from this kind of technology and so will have to make due with what we've got. I don't want to suggest that we ignore the tension of these two virtues until we have a permanent and ideal compromise. That means we continue to wade through the bog of gun control legislation, recognizing the need to keep the powerful honest and balancing that against the frightening and destructive capability of these tools.
But that doesn't mean we can't imagine a little bit as we go. What we really need is a liberal who can start a social media movement (I think there are a few who know how to do that) that is funded by a rich conservative (there may be a handful of them) awarding grants to engineers who make non-lethal technology more accurate and widely available. Then maybe the defense of liberty and the value of human life can find common ground; God knows they should be able to.
14 years ago
