A friend referenced an article titled "The Riddle of the Gun" on Facebook, and I found it to be a pretty interesting opinion piece. I posted the response below on Facebook, and I liked it enough that I thought I'd post it over here in my neglected blog.
Overall I think it's pretty well reasoned, but I'll quibble with a few points.
"Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon."
49 states allow for concealed carry (IL will become the 50th later this year), and before the passage of concealed carry bills the anti-gun lobbies said "There'll be blood in the streets! Gunfights over parking spots! It'll be the Wild West again!" Of course, it never happened, and in fact crime has always decreased in each state after it allowed for concealed carry. (I'm not saying that concealed carry caused the decrease, but it certainly didn't cause any increase, either.) Furthermore, people who hold concealed carry permits commit crimes about half as often as sworn police officers, so the facts don't seem to support this assertion.
"The only other variable to consider is the number of rounds a gun can hold, because this dictates the frequency with which a shooter must pause to reload. Here the path to increased public safety is reasonably clear. [...] As a consequence, the moment at which a shooter can be tackled by bystanders comes after every 10 shots."
Bad idea—it overestimates how long it takes to reload, and it assumes folks will be able to distinguish between a simple pause in the shooting versus the need to reload. With a couple hours of practice most folks can reload and be back on target in 2.4 seconds or less, which is no where near enough time to poke your head out from behind whatever cover you're using, assess the situation, and be able to cover the distance between yourself and the shooter. It also ignores that most spree murderers carry multiple weapons and can quickly drop empty ones and begin using loaded ones. Lastly, larger magazines are critically important for everyday self defense in situations where an individual is trying to defend him/herself against multiple aggressors. This is the very same reason police officers carry more than 10 rounds in their firearms—and they even have backup they can rely on like no individual citizen can enjoy.
"Even if the Second Amendment guaranteed everyone the right to possess whatever weapon he or she desired (it doesn’t), we have since invented weapons that no civilian should be allowed to own."
I could be snarky and say that, by this reasoning, since the founders never imagined the Internet Mr. Harris shouldn't have any First Amendment protections in that medium, either. But more to the point, in the Founders' time the people did actually own all the implements of a then-modern army. Lexington and Concord were fought when the British tried to first take the cannons, and then the powder, from colonists. The British were aghast at our rifled barrels that allowed us to take "unsporting" shots at their commanders hiding at the back of the battlefield. America's first Navies consisted substantially of privately owned ("privateer") warships conscripted into service by George Washington. The Founders never wanted a standing army, they wanted every American (the "unorganized militia") to have all the modern weapons of war and to be proficient with them so that they could be called into service as necessary—and to provide an overwhelming force that would prevent any government from becoming a tyranny.
"Given the changes that have occurred in our military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous."
Yep, because the North Vietnamese were helpless against the French and us, just like the Afghans were helpless against the British, the Russians, and us. What's truly ridiculous is that governments of various stripes are responsible for first disarming, and then murdering, somewhere between 35 and 50 million of their own citizens in the last century alone. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does echo, and no armed populace has ever suffered from tyrannical genocide.
"Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally."
The author contradicts himself here—he supports restrictions that he admits will do nothing to reduce gun violence. Also, he ignores the positive social value that guns have—namely, that they're used approximately two million times a year, usually without firing a single shot, in self defense. Mr. Harris' licensing scheme would penalize the woman threatened by an abusive ex by making it impossible for her to quickly get a gun for protection. It would also make guns less available to those who make less money, making it harder for the very people who are likely to need them most because of the poor neighborhoods they tend to live in.
I really like the ending several paragraphs—Mr. Harris gets it right here, IMHO.
For another perspective I highly recommend reading Larry Correia's thoughts on the topic: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Comments