RSS 2.0 FeedMandatory Gun Ownership?
by KevinGlenn Reynolds has an op-ed in the New York Times extolling the virtues of mandatory gun ownership.
IT’S a phenomenon that gives the term “gun control” a whole new meaning: community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.
Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime … the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.
And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.
Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.
First of all, I’m not a big fan of mandatory anything. As a classical liberal while I am skeptical of government power, I strongly believe in a well-armed populace. This is a dilemma for me personally. I am from New Orleans as frequent readers of this blog and my other blog, Louisiana Libertarian, may know. While I did evacuate because of Katrina, I have spoken to many people who have confirmed that the rumors of rampant looting and destruction in the New Orleans area were true. Armed civilian patrols kept order in less damaged areas of New Orleans, until they were disarmed by force by the New Orleans Police Department (which itself was involved in looting and still has a reputation for being nothing more than a glorified street gang) and forced out of the city. After Katrina, I substantially increased my own personal aresnal which pre-Katrina was only a Mosin-Nagant 91/30 and I’ve added a Yugoslav SKS and a Romanian WASR-10 which is an AK-47 clone. I am in the process of getting a handgun. I will not be caught unprepared and most of all, unarmed when law and order breaksdown again.
Having said all that, I’m not sure mandatory gun ownership is the solution. People should have the right to defend themselves, but more importantly, they should have the right not to excercise that right. Laws like the one passed in Greenleaf, Idaho which merely encourage gun ownership are a good idea. However, laws that actually require it with the penalty of law are immoral and a violation of the rights of individuals. Those who choose not to own firearms do so for various reasons, including in some instances for religious and other reasons of coinscience. Those people should be allowed to stay gun free, at their own risk.
Like you, I’m not really in favor of mandatory anything, even if it’s something like gun ownership, which I support. Particularly when it’s something that’s basically unenforceable.
I live in Marietta, GA, which is the town right next to Kennesaw. My boss actually used to live in Kennesaw, without owning a firearm. Nobody can really know whether or not you own a gun there, unless they went way beyond what residents would support and checked. But, being a non-gun-owner, he benefited from the law, because potential criminals didn’t know he didn’t own a gun.
So it’s probably fairly well established that laws which restrict gun ownership increase crime, and that laws which mandate gun ownership reduce crime. It’s the enforcement of the mandate that really bothers me, though. Kennesaw never really tried to “enforce” it, they just created that law as a deterrent to criminals, which worked well. I’m just wondering what would have happened if they did try to enforce it.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — January 15, 2007 @ 11:53 pmDon’t Ask…Don’t Tell… Although we haven’t heard that phrase in quite some time, it seems as though it’s a reasonable plan. I would think that a person owning a firearm with no intent on using it, no matter the situation, would be at greater risk than a similarily armed civilian with every intention of safeguarding his family, home and property would be at a lesser risk.
Comment by Cliff Chism — January 16, 2007 @ 11:32 pmBut, if a law were passed for mandatory gun ownership, with no methodology for monitoring of compliance and no penalties for non-conformance, then a criminal entering the jurisdiction of the ordinance would have to answer for himself the legendary Dirty Harry Question… “Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”. Likely, the criminal in question would take his business elsewhere.
Of course, and I state this opinion without proof, if the laws of this sort were to prosper and become nationwide, the criminals would probably lower their standards and end up getting shot on a more regular basis, leading to an outcry from others to do away with “mandatory gun ownership” to protect the non-law-abiding citizens, and taking us right back where we started.
I agree. The government should not be directing citizens’ activities in any manner.
Comment by Cal Ulmann — January 18, 2007 @ 11:10 am