The Gun Mandate

We all live in a dangerous world.  Crime all around us.  We spend untold amounts of money keeping ourselves safe.  It might be stronger locks on our doors, cameras in the roof, alarm systems in the house.

I have a safe; two even.

And then we spend money on public infrastructure.  We pay the local police, the state police and even federal law enforcement officials.

Given that private ownership of guns reduces crime, and that we are all living in a crime market, I would like to see the federal government mandate gun ownership.

 

15 responses to “The Gun Mandate

  1. I disagree that private gun ownership reduces crime. The US has very high crime and prison rates compared to the European states, and much higher private gun ownership. Also, our high gun ownership rates give us tens of thousands more accidental deaths. So such a mandate may increase crime and cause more dead children.

  2. The key is *responsible* gun ownership. Private gun ownership does in fact reduce crime, look up the interesting example of Kennesaw county GA. It is a local law that a firearm be present in households where such ownership is legal (ie no felons, persons with mental disorders, etc.) . The law is not enforced per se however the county has a disproportionately lower violent crime rate than surrounding counties. This is simply due to the very potential of “a rifle behind every blade of grass”.
    I do not however believe that the feds should begin mandating firearms as they typically manage to fuck things up once involved.

  3. Are you serious???
    About a year ago you wrote of your efforts to get your kids enrolled into a special school program. You said that the parents at the school meeting were mostly white, and you worried that low income families were not going to get a fair shot at getting their kids into the school because they did not know the “system”.
    So on one hand, you are a bleeding heart liberal, but the other hand is a gun-toting zealot. Actually you have three hands, so you can also hold your iPad.

  4. I disagree that there is any causal link between private gun ownership and lower crime rates. Besides the aggregate example of the US with high rates of both, the fact is that often crime rates are due to things other than guns. Here in Maine we are very safe, and we have high private gun ownership. But the reason for our safety has nothing to do with guns. Gun accidents and other dangers of gun ownership overall outweigh any benefit — and most people who own guns really aren’t safer than those who don’t. Their kids are more likely to die due to a gun accident, however.

  5. Are you serious???

    No.

    I’m using this example to demonstrate how ridiculous the health mandate is. If the government, in the interest of its citizens, can mandate the purchase of insurance, there is nothing to stop them from mandating guns and ammo.

    I disagree that private gun ownership reduces crime.

    That is a very reasonable position to take. Very similar to the one where people differ on Obamacare’s ability to lower health care costs. However, that isn’t important. The key fact of the idea is that because we are all in the “security market” and that market is clearly interstate trade, the federal government can mandate guns. And bullets.

    So on one hand, you are a bleeding heart liberal, but the other hand is a gun-toting zealot.

    Nah, I don’t like guns. I think they cause accidents and I don’t want ’em around my kids. But I DO understand that we have the right to arm ourselves.

    And yes, when it comes to my personal life, I am very “liberal.” Even in my local politics I’m liberal, often voting for liberal democrats in school board, city council, county commissioner elections. I happen to think that the role of the federal government is different than what many on the left think it is. Which is, chiefly, to vote me to fund their charity of choice.

    I do not however believe that the feds should begin mandating firearms as they typically manage to fuck things up once involved.

    There’s that. But it’s also unconstitutional.

  6. How are you making the crime comparison? Where is this gun-free version of america that we can compare the present situation to?
    And that’s only the first of many problems with this analysis. What on earth is a “crime market”?

    • How are you making the crime comparison? Where is this gun-free version of america that we can compare the present situation to?

      There are numerous studies on both sides of the issue. I suspect it’s like all other things, there is reasonable opportunity to debate each point of view.

      The larger point is that if a significant number of lawmakers agreed that guns made people more safe, with a ruling in favor of Obamacare, they could mandate gun ownership.

      What on earth is a “crime market”?

      The same vague notion that we use to define a healthcare market. But, specificaly, I suppose it could be all those things that we purchase to prevent crime:

      Guns
      Security systems
      Cameras
      Neighborhood watch groups
      Cops
      Home automation systems
      Door locks
      Car alarms

  7. If your talking the health mandate…Is mandating car insurance for everyone who drives on the same roads with you acceptable? If someone w/out above said insurance, and a tiny bank account I should add, has a major (one car) accident, do they deserve ambulance and subsequent hospital service? Who should pay? Take it a step further… Say that dude hit that older car of yours you had parked out in front of your house, the one that you dropped the collision coverage on…Who should pay? Without that mandated auto liability insurance in 47 states, he certainly wont.

    • …and don’t get on me about that your vs. you’re thing like you know my wife would 🙂

    • If your talking the health mandate…Is mandating car insurance for everyone who drives on the same roads with you acceptable?

      You do not need insurance to drive on private roads/property. If, however, you wanna use the roads that were built for you by someone else, you have to agree to do a bunch of things.

      – Stop at red lights.
      – Abide speed limits
      – Drive on the correct side of the road
      – And yes, carry insurance in the event you hit someone else.

      If someone w/out above said insurance, and a tiny bank account I should add, has a major (one car) accident, do they deserve ambulance and subsequent hospital service?

      “Deserve”?

      Morally and ethically as a human, we should care for our brother man.

      Legally? No. There is no legal claim that someone has on another man’s property/time/labor.

      Who should pay?

      He should. In the event he can’t, there should be a charity that would. IN the event there isn’t such a charity, he should perish.

      Who should pay?

      He should pay.

      Without that mandated auto liability insurance in 47 states, he certainly wont.

      You choose to enter into commerce when you:

      – Bought a car
      – Agreed to the terms and conditions of driving on roads not yours.

  8. Scott,

    It is all very good that you live in a low crime area and do not feel the need to have guns . What if you were an elderly man living in a high crime area in say a large American city ? The innocent citizen who has the most need to defend himself is generally living in an area that most restricts his right to bear arms . Criminals are most likely to be armed and even if they are not, are generally physically superior to their victims . You do not hear about all the times a gun protected an innocent person, but they happen a lot . Here is just one story .

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/homer-wright-elderly-chic_n_1397979.html

    Having a practical knowledge of guns is a good life skill to pass on to your children . My youngest daughter turned out to be a natural, shooting clay pigeons .

  9. I think I agree that the gun mandate is as reasonable as the health insurance mandate. I think either one can be imposed given some reasonable due process that brings either or both into being in a society that can call itselfs free, given that we all have to live togther somehow.

    We could avoid a lot of complication if just all lived like Robinson Crueso, but inherently we are social and trade has advantage. Government is a price we pay for not being more autarkical .

  10. I think I should amend my agreement slightly. I think a gun mandate would be as constitutional as a health insurance mandate, not necessarily reasonable or as reasonable.

    To the extent new powers are recognized for the feds, they may be used for things you dislike like more guns as much as things you do like like health care.

    • I think I should amend my agreement slightly. I think a gun mandate would be as constitutional as a health insurance mandate,

      I agree.

      And, as I mentioned in the post this afternoon, food could be mandated as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *