amidst the reactions to Paul Martin's proposed handgun ban, there are obviously a wide range of opinions, and all of them are honest, save one.No, not that. It's what he writes next:
That's the idea that there is no reason to own a gun in Canada.
This idea is an assumption that the rights -- to free expression, for almost everything we do expresses something -- of a small minority of Canadians are unimportant. Not only that, it dismisses the ideas and the culture of those Canadians out of hand, with no effort to understand them. (And please, if you say this is not a cultural question, I hope you've never let the words "gun culture" pass your lips.) Canadians who own guns clearly have their reasons. Do you understand them?Well, I don't understand "gun culture", though I'll grant such a thing exists. But cultural reasons are not, on their own, legitimate reasons for a particular activity. To make an admitted reductio ad absurdum, consider that many cultures are fiercely patriarchal, and see women as little more than property? Should the women within those cultures be exempted from the protection of the Charter? Of course not, and I certainly don't think that's what Skippy is saying. The problem with cultural protections is that on their own, they pardon far too much. Harmless cultural practices are protected, and rightly. But when a cultural practice is demonstrated to cause harm, it is a simple matter to ban it.
One example of this in Canadian law is child pornography. The Supreme Court ruled that while it was a matter of expression, it was also seen to cause harm by encouraging harm to minors. So, goodbye to that. And yes, I did just compare gun owners to child pornographers. Moving on...
What is a "gun culture"? Is it harmless, like stamp collecting or Dungeons and Dragons? No. Simply put, all firearms confer upon their owners the potential use of lethal force. Moreover, that is the express purpose of owning a functioning gun, whether the owner admits it or not. (Please don't tell me about target shooting. If you want to shoot targets, play paintball.) It is not the same as owning a car or a kitchen knife, for that simple reason. To say that your right to own a gun should be protected because you belong to a "gun culture" is to say that you refuse to belong to society unless you retain the ability to kill your fellow citizens. Sure, you'll go to prison, but that doesn't bring back your neighbor.
Simply put, cultural protections cannot be granted when the cost to society is an armed minority who insist on the ultimate veto. And yes, I realize this is an agument against all firearms, not just handguns.
Now, as it happens I think this policy isn't going to accomplish much - legal handguns are pretty difficult to get in Canada anyway. I think that I also agree with Skippy that, in a free society, there needs to be a high bar for denying people any right, regardless of how little we understand it. But I frankly think that bar has been met and then some when it comes to firearms. We consider any number of cultural practices to be outdated or even barbaric. It's about time we put gun ownership in that category.
3 comments:
You've failed to demonstrate that gun ownership is barbaric -- which is a hell of a value judgment to make -- or even that it inherently causes harm.
Car ownership causes harm. But we balance the public good against private interest, and permit people to own cars that can exceed the speed limit -- in fact, we permit people to own cars that are designed to do so.
But in the case of gun ownership, people discount private interest, treating the right to free expression as a variable, which is wrong.
The reason? Quite frankly, it's simply that a lot more people own cars.
"You've failed to demonstrate that gun ownership is barbaric -- which is a hell of a value judgment to make -- or even that it inherently causes harm."
I think a person insisting that they be granted the ability to kill - even if they never use that ability - is bizarre, if not barbaric. Perhaps my language was overly strong, but I'm still waiting for an example right to own guns that isn't at its root about wanting to keep the right to kill, whether people or other animals.
The comparison of cars vs. guns is really tiresome. Ignoring the fact that cars are strictly regulated, and also granting that North American "car culture" is as obnoxious as gun culture, if not more so: even an SUV, as bizarre as it is, can be justified as a non-lethal means of transporting goods.
A car is not designed to kill, a gun is. This really does matter. A human life is more important than a speed limit, something recognized by Canadian law.
I'd still be in favor of regulating SUVs on energy policy grounds, but that's not really relevant. What is the reason to own a gun that doesn't inevitably lead back to wanting the ability to kill something?
Collector? Surely there's a way to disable the guns that still maintains their appearance, or most of it? Target shooting? Buy an old copy of Duck Hunt.
Furthermore, we always treat free expression as variable. There are all sorts of restrictions on freedom of speech, such as child porn or hate speech. These forms of expression are forbidden, not regulated or fined. And in the case of child porn, there's about as much direct evidence of harm.
Is there a direct link between gun ownership and increased rates of crime? In the simplest sense probably not - gun advocates always point to the Swiss, etc. Anti-gun advocates would point to the Japanese, which is a gun control success story.
Like I said, I agree that this policy is probably not going to achieve much. But I certainly don't buy the argument that gun owners deserve some kind of cultural protection.
My last post was a bit scattered, so I went out to get groceries and tried to clarify my thoughts. Some concessions, to start with:
1) I don't, and have made no effort to, understand gun culture. But that's probably obvious.
2) I disagree with this proposed handgun ban, largely because I think it will be ineffective. So long as Canada happens to be located to the gun-owningest state on the landmass, gun control will be tricky.
3) Further, the actual problem (gun violence) could probably have been dealt with more effectively by better enforcement of existing laws or minor reforms, not the publicly-announced-but-crappy-enforcement that we're likely to get.
4) Any direct evidence of gun ownership causing harm is hotly debated, at best.
But what we seem to be disagreeing on is whether to take gun culture in to account when making laws - i.e., is culture a legitimate reason to own a gun?
Keeping in mind that I already said I think gun control is pragmatically tricky anyway, my point was that I don't see what "gun culture" would mean if not "I insist on retaining the ability to kill."
Now, gun ownership itself might not cause crime (though I haven't looked up statistics) but that belief - that someone should retain the right to kill - I would argue is by definition a harmful one.
Frankly, I'm a lot more open to the utilitarian arguments against gun control, and ditto on the utilitarian arguments for gun posession (self-defense, etc.)
My point is not that the law should ban all gun ownership - when I closed off my post, that's an expression of personal belief, not political aim - but that your expression of cultural rights as I understood it seems an invitation to disaster.
I'd welcome a clarification of what you meant by a cultural right, and why I'm wrong about gun culture.
Post a Comment