Why Not Gun Control for the Government?
By Anthony Gregory • Monday January 10, 2011 9:55 AM PDT • 20 Comments
Whenever someone commits a particularly shocking crime with firearms—especially a horrific mass murder—there are calls for gun control. The reasoning seems to be that a law prohibiting the ownership or carrying of certain weapons will prevent or reduce the number of such atrocities. Although most other laws targeting ownership of contraband—such as drug laws—do not really work in keeping the barred items out of determined people’s hands; and although people bent on committing mass murder do not tend to be the more law-abiding members of society; we are supposed to believe that the way to stop violent crimes is simply to make it illegal to be armed.
On the other hand, government commits violence against the innocent on a daily basis. In foreign lands, hundreds of thousands have died in the last decade, in a killing spree unleashed by the U.S. government in response to 9/11. On the local level, police frequently brutalize the accused and taze, beat and shoot innocent people. The TSA has become an agency of routine sexual molestation. In detention centers at home and abroad, the criminal justice system has become an accessory to mass rape and gang violence. The feds commit torture.
Yet rarely do people suggest that gun control is the answer to these atrocities. And of course, what would that even entail? Disarming the police? That would be part of it, yet even that would not suffice, for so long as there is political power at all, we can say that Mao was right that it flows from the barrel of a gun. Government is institutionalized violence.
The state will necessarily abuse the coercive tools we allow it to have. The overwhelming majority of private individuals, however, will use guns responsibly, and in many cases defensively. Violent private criminals can never be stopped with gun control, which only empowers the state and predators, both private and governmental, while disarming the victims. Despite all these truths, a truly terrible crime as the one that occurred in Arizona is used to bolster the case for tipping the scales of power further toward those who do not feel bound by the law. This, also despite the fact that the government did not fulfill one of its purported functions here in preempting or rapidly stopping a massacre. Trillions of dollars of government. Millions of prisoners. Thousands not returning from war. But safety as the government promises it is an illusion, and its inevitable failures to secure total safety will always be twisted into reasons for giving it more power.
What matter most are culture and a respect for innocent life. And the killer in Tuscon had no respect for innocent life—this, more this his alleged hatred of government, is the clear value that we can assume from his behavior. This is more important than his reported fondness for Ayn Rand, Mein Kampf, or the Communist Manifesto; his obsession with literacy or the fact that people can legally carry guns in Arizona. They cannot legally commit murder, after all, and that law didn’t stop him.
But the state does not promote a respect for life. Yet after an atrocity like this, few suggest that it be limited, controlled or disarmed.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Imperialism, Police, Terrorism 
“Yet after an atrocity like this, few suggest that it be limited, controlled or disarmed.”
You must not read anything that Liberals write, because we’re CONSTANTLY calling for the military to be limited, controlled, and disarmed.
Jeremy In Kansas | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
I read what liberals write all the time. Only the most radical would say we should disarm the military.
Anthony Gregory | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
A double standard – if the guy ploughed into the group with a car and got the same result then there’s never any calls for “car control”?
Gil | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
Bravo, Anthony.
Cisse | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
Simple possession of motor vehicles is of no use. Their value is in their use, which is motion. Guns, on the other hand, are most useful in their mere possession. It is the potential of their use that is most useful in deterring crime. Just the presence of a gun in the hands of a good person is often sufficient to prevent a more serious crime. Guns held for defensive purposes are like fire extinguishers. They need not be used unless there is a fire. A gun doesn’t need to be displayed unless there is an impending crime.
Mac | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
I read liberal writers fairly often and disarming the military is quite a rare topic. On the other hand, you have some liberals that think military spending is good for the economy and you have a number of liberals that were anti-war when Bush was president but now act as apologists when Obama escalates what was formerly known as the global war on terror.
However, there are a number of people on the left that understand that when citizens are disarmed, you have a police state. We are already close enough to that as it is.
Tom Blanton | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
I thought Libertarians were against a standing army per se and instead have a militia force made up of the general population. People who voluntarily come to battle with their own private arms and can leave voluntarily without fear of being labelled a “deserter” and executed.
Gil | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
. . . how could we thank them for our freedom?
I mean, c’mon, guys!
If Our "Heroes" Didn't Have Guns, | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
‘Meant it to read:
If our “heroes” didn’t have guns, how could we thank them for our freedom?
Screwed that up! | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
Our “heroes” haven’t protected our freedom since the war of 1812 (unless you consider the confederate soldiers, but they lost that war for independence) – and they are all dead now.
As for the main topic, first, let’s not mislabel people, leftists are anything but “liberal” – that term was hijacked, and it’s high time that we start calling them what they are. With that said, leftists RARELY call for disarming the military. But that is of little importance, leftists are constantly calling for more government; THAT is the head of the beast. If leftists wanted a kinder gentler nation, they would espouse a smaller, not larger government.
Now the rightists espouse a smaller government even as they are working day and night growing it. At least the leftists are honest in their despotism.
joe4liberty | Jan 13, 2011 | Reply
The virus hypocrisy is spreading, but its final resting place is the US. Now, there is no greater amount of hypocrisy anywhere else. America is a nation of Nazis.
The only weapon capable of stopping the worst virus is the one the Americano wants only the govt to have and we the people to not have. Oh my.
I blame our Lefty Nazi news media for brainwashing the sheep. The greatest threat to our liberty, privacy, and our safety is our anti-gun police forces. Sheriff Dupnik = Nazi. Chicago Police Chief Jodi Weiss = Nazi. The list of anti-gun, Nazi pigs is endless.
This two minute video explains how to create a gun free zone.
Tory II | Jan 16, 2011 | Reply
Well, Mr. Liberal, you missed his point again... he is talking about “disarming” GOVERNMENT, not the military. And yes, there is a difference.
The military is the tool used by the government. We should take this power away from politicians except to defend America or our allies. (not our corporations doing business with countries hostile to us) The military does not act unilaterally, it acts only as an agent of the President.
And another things Liberals seem to have missed since they reelected Barack Obama is that he is NOT less warmongering than GW Bush was, he is MORE warmongering. He is in almost every sense, just GW Bush on steroids when it comes to everything the liberals hated about Bush. But in a supreme effort to demonstrate their hypocrisy, liberals re-elected the man who swore to close Guantanamo in his first year, to not raise taxes on middle class America, to not use torture on captives, to not increase the debt limit, to stop the empire building, to get Americans back to work and stop the bleeding of U.S. jobs to foreign soil. Hmmmm... how’s that working for you?
Jack | Feb 12, 2013 | Reply
One of these days Obama is going to figure out that all of his strutting around and acting like an ass is going to get him thrown-out of his supposed job and he will go down in history as the biggest Lame Duck Pres we’ve ever had. But he really needs to leave our guns alone or things will happen beyond even his control. Another Gettysburg.
dusty | Feb 14, 2013 | Reply