Lawrence Wright Rebuttal

Today we can’t visit family at the gate in airports, or go through security without taking off our shoes.  Lock downs of schools are becoming routine. Lawrence Wright is correct to see that there is a problem with our society, as he did in the article ‘Taking Cover in Texas,’ but the problem is not that we are more vulnerable to violence, it is that we demand absolute safety.  Indeed, there is less violent crime and terrorism than ever before.

In the 1960’s there were pipe bombings in Greenwich Village every other week, in Montreal the FLQ set of a bomb about every 10 days, in the South the KKK were firebombing churches, intimidating black families and committing a murder or two as part of ‘campaigns of terror,’ and in northern cities police were targeted by black snipers during riots. Even in those darker days, the threat of violent crime was low.

The world has become much safer. Both gun violence and terrorism have been less of a threat than they were. There is very little evidence that the liberalization of gun law reduced crime, but there is absolutely no evidence that gun control has prevented violent crime. Increased security is not evidence of a less safe world, only a less free one.  

The world can not be made free of risk. none of the recent gun control proposals would have stopped the latest mass shootings, but most of us.  Mass shootings are an easy thing to do if someone wants too -- BUT BUT BUT! very few people want to. The vast majority of people are appalled by such a horrific act. That is why the risk of a mass shooting on a school campus is once every 6000 years. It is unclear how effective armed citizens are at reducing crime, but there will always be more responsible armed citizens than crazies, because there are so few crazies.

Forcing kids to go through metal detectors, mass shooting drills, or forcing tourists to kneel down, and arresting a child because of a trinket are abuse. It is authorities abusing children and governments abusing citizens. This is not the time to lament over the potential danger, of mass killers, but to be angry with over zealous security. When an Arab man carries a pressure cooker onto a train and is arrested, we should be concerned about the threat that anyone could be arrested.  

Wright says he felt a shared spirit with the victims of Sandy Hook, we all feel this when we watch a tragedy unfold on live TV. This feeling of being right there makes such things remember able.  When mass murders peaked in 1929, it took three days for the news to spread across the country. It was easier to think that of such places as far away.  With 24 hour news and the internet, such event seem to be happening all the time   

It’s important to consider that Wright is not afraid of a mass shooting, but a hypothetical shooting.  There have been lots of moral panics over the years too often we have given up freedom for a danger that hasn't materialized.  but we can’t count the few rare events that happen in places that feel nearby and conclude this is happening all the time, or even enough to predict and try to stop.  

The only way terrorists are successful is if they terrorize.  The only way mass killers are successful is if they become famous.  We need security. But, we can’t become paranoid and give up freedom because someone is able to show we are not 100% safe every moment of every day. Policies like gun control and anti terrorism need to be based on real dangers not panics and they need to not come at the cost of our freedom.

Open letter to the New Yorker

This is an open letter in response to the article 'Guns and My Mother.'

Last week Arkadi Gerney wrote how he became an anti gun advocate after his stepfather was murdered in 1986. The problem is that Mr. Gerney is not promoting reasonable policy, but using the law to invoke his vengeance on society for the crimes of one person, and encouraging others to do the same. If we the gun debate is going to be about sob stories, there are plenty of stories of people using guns to save lives, of victims who have opposed gun laws, and of people abused by police using gun laws. Statistics are important to balance the many stories and find out what is actually going on.

Gerney claims that the last uprising that required guns was 230 years ago, actually Americans used guns to protect the nation at home 148 years ago in the bloodiest war in American history, but guns are not just used to protect life and liberty in times of war. If we go back in time to the ratification of the 14th amendment, one reason for it’s ratification was violence against black people and opponents of slavery in the reconstruction south.

Gerney’s claim that freedom is an emotional appeal doesn’t make sense. It’s logical that equality means people have an equal right to exist and an equal right to defend themselves. This right can not be taken to give the police a monopoly on the use of force. Guns are also used by citizens when the police aren't there. Often this displaying or firing into the air is enough to scare off an attacker. Take Tom G Palmer, who in the early 1980s used a gun to scare off a group of men planning to attack him and uttering death threats, and ‘no one will find the body’  because he was openly gay. When Palmer displayed a handgun the crowd fled. Stories like this are very common, but since no one is harmed they are rarely reported.

Background checks violate the fourth amendment rights of people trying to exercise their right of self defense. People have to provide history of their mental health, marriage status, criminal records, and drug records. By asking persons to provide personal information the government is conducting an unreasonable search and when they take guns or prevent someone from acquiring a gun the government violates both the fourth amendment by taking property and the fifth amendment by taking liberty without trial. The right to keep and bear arms legally has been denied to 2 million people, many for non violent crimes like minor drug possession or white collar crimes, or for being prescribed medication for depression. In some states licensing is up to the judgment of a sheriff or other official, and subjective factors like race play a role.

The only moral justifiable way to determine people are too dangerous to carry a gun is trial by jury. People only forfeit their rights when they violate the rights by others, and the punishment must fit the crime. Otherwise you risk what happened David Pyles in Oregon,a longtime collector of firearms,who was surrounded by SWAT teams, tackled, handcuffed and taken for a mental evaluation, because he purchased several guns shortly after being placed on administrative leave due to a conflict with his employer. You also end up with stop and frisk, where police can search any person to look for weapons, but often target blacks and hispanics to fill quotas with petty drug charges. The vast majority of people who own guns are not criminals and should not be treated like criminals for buying or owning a gun.

When the facts are considered, the case for gun control is nowhere as clear as Gerney makes it. Both sides can and have turned to stories of people hurt by guns and gun laws, this is why it is important to have restrictions against rash actions, and actions that are symbolic or done out of grief but have no effect except to violate the rights of law abiding people. I don’t blame Mr. Gerney for telling his story and demanding action, but I do think editors are far enough from his sorrow, and they have a special responsibility to look at the facts.