I'm generally for gun control, the reason being that I've heard a lot of good reasons for gun control, and not very many good reasons against it. So I tend to be platonically attracted to people who are anti gun control, out of curiosity. Empirical data shows that I'm alone in this regard: Most people seem to enjoy being around other people who are similar to them. Not me. But that's a digression for another post. This post is about gun control.

What inspired me to write this post was a pro-gun-control argument that Mark Probert made. I was taken aback by its pwnage:

If the right [to bear arms] were truly inalienable, then convicted felons who are incarcerated would have the right [...] Once you say that any group cannot keep firearms, the only issue left is where to draw the line. That is a purely political/legislative question, and has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Mark Probert

Those familiar with the debate may have guessed that this argument was in response to the sub-debate of whether the USA's second constitution declaration should be interpreted as meaning anyone can bear arms, or only the militia. Those opposed to gun control feel that the constitution intended for anyone to be allowed to bear arms, a position which I feel Probert's argument utterly destroys.

Taking a step back, there are basically two arguments I've heard which argues against gun control. The first is that "it's my right, as an American, to bear arms", and the second is "it's to protect me."

I'm not swayed by the "it's my right" argument. Rights are a human creation, in the sense that there exists nothing in nature, laws of physics, or logic, which give anybody any rights at all. So called "civilized" nations give tend to basic "human rights" such as the right to life, the right to freedom, etc. But the only reason people have these rights is because other people choose to abide by the code of ethics which says that we should give these rights. Rights, like all human creations, may be flawed, or they may be appropriate in one context, and inappropriate at others. To borrow from Probert's argument, all humans supposedly have the right to freedom, and yet we incarcerate criminals specifically to limit their freedom.

Additionally, imagine I came from some country where the forefathers wrote into the constitution that it is my right, as a citizen of this country, to rape any women I desire. There may be some citizens of the country who feel that this is part of what makes that country so great. There may be other citizens who feel that this part of the constitution needs to be revised. The argument "Well, our forefathers wrote that into the constitution, so there's nothing we can do about it now. We certainly can't change the constitution" is simply factually false.

Onto the "it's to protect me" issue. This argument can be broken down into two sub-arguments, depending on who it is that the argumenter believes guns protects them from. They may argue that guns protect them from criminals, or that guns protect them from the government.

In protection from criminals, there are different types of crimes you may be a victim of. Of these, we will only consider those to which having a gun might actually affect the outcome of the crime. So crimes such as credit card fraud, identity theft, etc., being unlikely to be affected by whether or not you own a firearm, will not be considered here. Of the remaining crimes, statistically, the most common one is mugging and/or armed robbery. You're much more likely to get mugged than murdered or raped. In these situations, the general advice is to just give the mugger/robber whatever it is that they want (usually, your money). It's not worth the risk of trying to kill your mugger, as that merely increases the risk that you will get killed, and most people value their life more than their belongings.

In these situations, having a gun on your person actually increases the danger to yourself. Some gun advocates wonder why we trust criminals not to harm us. The answer is quite simple: it's in their best interest not to harm us. The penalties for mugging are much lower than for murder. The criminal may be willing to face whatever risks are in place for mugging in exchange for grabbing $200 off of your person, but would be completely unwilling to face the penalties of murder for a mere $200. People mug other people because they want money, not because they enjoy killing other people. However, if they are mugging you, and you pull out a weapon, they have to assume that you intend to use that weapon to kill them, and so they now it's no longer a question of facing murder versus gathering some cash; it becomes a question of facing murder, or dying. They either kill you, or get killed. By pulling out the weapon, you are forcing them to kill you.

So yes, admittedly, if you are being raped or murdered, having a firearm may help you out. But given the relatively probability of getting mugged or robbed versus getting raped or murdered, statistically speaking, having a gun is much more likely to reduce your safety than to increase it. If you really wanted to protect yourself against criminals, the best strategy is to not own a firearm.

I'll use the "it's best if you don't own a firearm" as a lemma towards gun control. If you don't own a firearm, but everyone else in the world does, then you're obviously at a disadvantage, so the next step is to not only ensure that you don't have a firearm, but try to minimize the number of people who do own firearms, hence gun control. This is probably where a gun advocate would argue that criminals break laws, and if you make a law against gun ownership, only criminals will own guns. First of all, recall that a non-criminal owning a gun is actually more endangered by criminals than a non-criminal who doesn't own a gun. So having only criminals (and presumably, law enforcement and the military) own guns is already a step safer than everybody (notably, the average civilian) owning guns. Furthermore, having a law against gun ownership means that a smaller percentage of criminals will own guns than if there were no law against gun ownership.

Being a criminal doesn't mean you'll necessarily break every law that you encounter. I'm a criminal: I've jaywalked. That doesn't mean I'm automatically also going to murder, rape or mug people. I was willing to face the penalties of jaywalking, but I'm not willing to face the penalties of rape, murder or robbery. Similarly, a mugger isn't going to automatically break the gun ownership laws. They may be willing to face the penalties for mugging, but not the penalties for gun-ownership. No matter what laws are in place, there will always be criminals who own guns. However, by having gun control laws, you increase safety first by ensuring that no "innocent civilians" own guns (thus making them safer on average from criminals), and you also increase safety by reducing the proportion of criminals who own firearms. This is in addition to the reduction in accidental gun deaths that I haven't even got into (and won't get into for this post).

Having clarified why having gun controls makes one safer with respect to criminals, I shall now move on to dealing with the government. I'm not that familiar with American history, but it seems that the constitution was written the way it was so that the average civilian would have the power to overthrown the government. I believe the Americans were at war with the British at the time (America itself being a colony in the British empire), and they wanted to declare independence from Britain. Perhaps being a newly founded rebel empire, the Americans didn't really have an organized army, and so it was indeed up to the civilians to defend their country.

Clearly, this is no longer the case. Civilians are not defending their country, and they are not in a position to do so. Soldiers may be "defending" the country (again, the politics of the war on terrorism is not something I want to get into in this post), but soldiers are part of the militia, and thus (along with law enforcement officers) a part the "special" group of people who exceptionally should have access to firearms. In particular, having people armed in their home towns and cities does not help the war occurring in foreign countries oceans away, nor did it help stop terrorist attacks like suicide bombings or crashing planes into skyscrapers. Furthermore, America is so powerful that there really is no need for civilians to be armed: their armies overpower their foes to such a degree that the strategy of "shock and awe" is actually a viable one. Military researchers are no longer trying to answer the question of "How can we kill the enemy", and are now looking into "How can we pwn the enemy so badly that they'll never think of resisting us again?" There is no external government that the American citizen needs to defend themselves against using firearms. (They may need to defend themselves in financial or intellectual weapons; India and China are rumoured to be taking over the IT industry, but owning weapons won't help fight that particular war.)

Believe it or not, I've actually met American firearm advocates who feel they need defend themselves against their own government. I suppose they're imagining that history may repeat itself, and that they may declare independence from America, and need to defend themselves against the American army, etc. It's an appealing idea, considering how low Bush's popularity is, but it's pure fantasy. There is no way you are going to defend yourself against the American army, especially one occurring in America.

I don't think this needs to be said, but to get it out of the way, you don't stand a chance in a direct confrontation. With your right to bear arms, what firearms could you own? A couple of pistols? Maybe a pair of hunting shotguns? If you're really persistent, you may be able to obtain an actual assault rifle. There are certain things that the US army owns which you probably never will, though: Armored assault vehicles; Tanks; Satellite imagery; Helicopters; Scout robots; Nuclear weapons; Land mines; Rocket launchers; Demolitions; ICBMs; missiles. You don't stand a chance.

Fine, you might think. But those terrorists seem to be having a fine time resisting the American army, right? Why don't you just do what they do (hide amongst other civilians, use guerrilla tactics). It simply won't work in America. In America, unlike in other foreign countries, the FBI, CIA and other organizations have tremendously stronger intel. Every e-mail sent and telephone call made is recorded, analyzed by computers, flagged if dangerous patterns are detected, and then reviewed by a human. In developing nations, people can get away without having any records. Nobody is surprised if you don't have a driver's license, a bank account, a telephone number, an e-mail address, a social insurance number, a highschool diploma, etc. In America, you're assumed to have all of the above. In foreign nations, American agencies don't have the infrastructure in place to monitor every single bit of information sent across wires (or even wireless). In America, the infrastructure is already in place, and working in full swing. You can't hide from the government in America.

I always wondered; if you live in a country where you don't trust your own government, why don't you simply emigrate to another country? Owning guns won't make the government more trustworthy. This day and age, governments and corporations (the two have become mixed) are too big, and amorphous. They take on a live of their own, beyond that of the presidents, shareholders or other "members". You can't shoot the government, and you can't shoot corporations anymore than you can shoot world-hunger or shoot bigotry.