There was perhaps no financial incentive for Michael Moore to take an intelligent and sensible approach to firearm laws — people like to see a black and white approach to political issues, and they like a touch of humour –, but that doesn’t change the fact that Bowling for Columbine is a shitty documentary. By that I mean that, though it is great entertainment, it’s a terrible and misleading documentary on firearm-related issues.

Now, don’t get me wrong: my issue is not with his belief that firearm ownership should be limited by the government, my issue is not with his opinion, but with his approach to the question. My own opinion is that the widespread ownership of firearms is harmful to society and that many of the arguments — such as the right to protect oneself from the government and to hunt — are not arguments in favour of the private ownership of firearms. As for actual policies concerned with firearms, I find it quite clear that there are several well-accepted and positive breeches of individual rights that are on the same level as regulating firearms, so I find arguments about how it is “none of the government’s business” to be rather simple-minded; it’s just about the line we set between the private ownership of nuclear arms and the private ownership of butter knives. However, I believe that the tools that the government can use to restrict firearms ownership — such as banning certain or all models, creating a registry, levying special taxes etc — are limited and that existing laws should be scrutinised to see how they apply in real life.

It’s not because I believe that firearm ownership should be limited that I should support any law that intends to limit the ownership of firearms. This may seem obvious to some, but I am quite convinced that it is not obvious to most; if I advocated the end or extension of the Canadian Firearms Registry to a person who knows nothing of the Registry except that it is there to limit firearm ownership, I would almost certainly get a knee-jerk reaction that paints the Registry as either good or bad based not on how well it fulfills its precise goals, but on whether or not firearms are “good” or “bad” according to that person. This is a ridiculous mistake that people make when approaching many of these popular political issues.

I have no intention of looking at each aspect of the issue in depth, but I will briefly attack certain particularly flawed arguments that are used on both sides of the debate:

Why is the murder rate in the United States so high? One argument I have come across deals with demographics. It is noted that the United States has a larger African community and that Africans are responsible for a disproportionate share of murders as compared to European Americans (”why?” is a very complex question that I will not get into). Thus, it is argued, a comparison between, say, Canada and the United States would be flawed because the demographics are not the same. However, it is quite clear that even if we make adjustments so as to eliminate the influence of demographics, that the United States still has an absurdly high murder rate.

There’s also the argument that deals with firearm ownership rates. This one is used by those against, rather than in favour of, firearm rights. It goes like this: amongst Western countries, the United States has a very high rate of murder and a very high rate of gun ownership. Thus, it is argued, more gun ownership leads to more murder. This is flawed logic, but what about the point behind it all? When we look at murder rates and gun ownership rates, it is quite clear that, at the very least, things are not clear. But if there is any relationship between murder and gun ownership rates amongst Western countries, it’s likely to be weak. For example, New Zealand has something like 80% more firearms per capita than Australia, and yet the murder rates are about the same. This is just one example amongst many, many others.

Another mistake people do is that they take individual cases where one individual was better off or worst off with that firearm and that firearm owner, and extrapolate from there to come to a sweeping conclusion about how firearms are good or bad.

Concerning arguments dealing with the right to protect oneself from a tyrannical government or/and to form a revolution — an argument based on those of the US Founding Fathers –, it is quite clear that this is irrelevant to the individual ownership of firearms. If a citizen is alone in trying to overthrow a tyrannical government and start a revolution, it’s very likely that he’s just a crazy and dangerous man. If there is a civil war and it is necessary for people to protect themselves, then having a well-trained and well-armed community may prove useful, but this has little to do with the individual’s right to firearms; the same purpose could be satisfied by having a municipal organisation that has a firearm cache and organises shooting practice. Whether or not we should bother with such things is another matter, but it’s quite clear that this is not an argument in favour of private firearm ownership.

I think that these serve as good examples of where people go wrong in approaching this topic. I find it safer to assume that more firearms are not good, but I am quite convinced that even if our gun laws were to be liberalised, our murder rate would remain leagues behind that of the US. I have no clue why people in the US are shooting each other at such a rate, but I suspect that it may have to do with the extent and concentration of poverty, creating a culture where violent, impulsive behaviour is more acceptable. Access to firearms could be nothing less than significant, because firearms are the tool of choice to commit murder.

Oh, and this is quite interesting (I was looking for seasonal or geographical causes for the high murder rate).

Note: I wrote an additional article on the topic here.

-Dussault

2 Comments »

1. Why black youths shoot each other (although less often than they used to): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_levitt_analyzes_crack_economics.html

   Why the high murder rate in the US? It’s genetic: http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.co.uk/Forum/us-politics-forum/64793-two-dead-shooting-college.html

   Comment by MikeM — April 11, 2009 @ 5:10 PM

2. I’ll have to look at the TED talk later. However, I do suspect that the way the drug trade is organised in the United States as compared to in Canada might (might) explain part of the difference, since many murders come out of drug money.

   This, however, could be isolated by comparing national rates of family murders (mother kills daughter, man kills wife etc). I’ll have to look around later. I think that Statcan has numbers like these and if anyone else has such stats it’s the US.

   As for a genetic basis, I can’t imagine how you could reasonably argue that. Cultural perhaps, but genetic? Extremely improbable. If it is true, then there should be little difference between Haitian immigrants in Canada and the United States.

   Cheers,
   Dussault.

   Comment by admin — April 12, 2009 @ 12:18 AM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website