Demythologizing Liberal Illusions: Gun Control vs. American Freedom

ON SEPT. 11, 2001, enemies of liberty brought their war against the West to the shores of America, which means now is an opportune time to dig deeply into the foundations of freedom, including that great bulwark the 2nd Amendment.

But it's not just the historic situation that now confronts us that recommends a reading of Richard Poe's The Seven Myths of Gun Control. Even before September 11, Poe's book would have merited a reading, not just because it is so very well and entertainingly written but also because understanding the roots of freedom is always part of accepting Benjamin Franklin's challenge to keep this republic.

Poe is a journalist and editor of FrontPageMagazine.com. He knows how to decipher the meaning of statistics and how to break through the wall of politicized information that so often dominates discussion of this issue, especially as it has come to be portrayed by the major media.

Poe has organized his material into seven myths that the mainstream media and liberals in general have passed off as truth, and what I'll do is briefly discuss them in turn before examining his treatment of a model country when it comes to guns and freedom.

*** Myth No. 1: Guns increase violent crime. Both Australia and England have already banned personal ownership of guns, but violent crime is not down in either country. In fact, Poe reports, in Australia violent crime is up in every category. From 1997 to 1999, murders were up 6.5%, and attempted murders rose by 12.5%. Increases were also reported in assaults, kidnappings and armed robberies.

Things are not much better in the mother country, which ranked second on a list of violent crime "among industrialized nations." No. 1 on the list is Australia. Meanwhile, the United States, assumed by many to be the most violent of all nations--and a nation in which gun ownership is still possible--isn't even among the top 10.

*** Myth No.2: Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal. Offering both statistics and personal anecdotes, Poe argues that aimed resistance by private citizens is effective. "Most criminals," Poe writes, "are not the fearless supermen portrayed in films such as Predator II. Most are not skilled martial artists capable of plucking a loaded gun from a determined adversary's hands. By and large, they are cowards who prey on women and old people, seeking to avoid a fair fight at all costs." According to Poe, in 98% of "reported cases, criminals flee the moment they realize their intended victim is armed."

*** Myth No. 3: Guns pose a special threat to children. We've probably all seen the gut-wrenching billboards telling us how many children will die of gunshot wounds any given day. But, Poe says, the statistics marshaled in support of this myth are hardly to be believed.

For one thing, because of rather broad definition of a "child," the statistics overstate the number of children killed by guns. "When citing gun death figures," Poe writes, "antigun activists typically categorize people up to twenty years of age as 'children.' This allows them to include the astronomical death toll among black and Hispanic young men involved in drug trafficking." Poe argues that more children die each year from such causes as automobile accidents, drowning, fires and bike accidents than from firearms.

*** Myth No. 4: The 2nd Amendment applies only to militiamen. Gun-banners like to portray the 2nd Amendment as something that applied to colonial America, but not our "modem" era. But, as Poe points out, even noted liberal constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe believes the 2nd Amendment "guarantees to each and every American a right to keep and bear aims." [See also "Emerson Decision Upholds Individual's Right to Bear Arms," HUMAN EVENTS last week, page 12.]

*** Myth No.5: The 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era. "Frontiersmen needed guns, we don't," is one of the cries of the establishment elite. But, says Poe, Americans need guns not only to protect ourselves from would-be criminals, but also from the possibility of attack by one's own government, a possibility that clearly is not merely a theoretical possibility. An unarmed citizenry is the dream of every tyrant, Taliban or otherwise.

"Deterrence works," Poe writes. "As horrifying as nuclear war might be, we stand ready for it. Our missiles rest in their silos, ready to fly. Because we are prepared for nuclear war, we have enjoyed fifty-five years of nuclear peace. So it should be with the armed and vigilant citizenry prescribed by our founding fathers. Their readiness to fight provides the best insurance that such a fight will never be necessary."

*** Myth No. 6: We should treat guns the same way we treat cars, requiring licenses for all users. Clearly, the licensing of cars has not stopped the carnage on the highways, and the licensing of guns will stop gun crimes only if gun-toting criminals obey all the laws. Poe asserts that the real reason for licensing is so that police can have a record of every legally owned gun in America. And to understand why the power establishment would like every gun licensed, see the next myth.

*** Myth No. 7: Reasonable gun-control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners. It does seem, at times, that gun-owners are being unreasonable in their quest for fewer controls. But the point is not so much today's tactical restriction as it is tomorrow's loss of rights. Poe contends, as do many others concerned for the rights of gun-owning Americans, that licensing is merely a pathway to confiscation. "Once we have submitted to universal licensing, registration, and background checks," he writes, "we will be helpless to prevent the next step: Confiscation."

One can question whether gun-banners know what the word "reasonable" means. In my own state of Massachusetts, law-abiding gun-owners are treated worse than pedophiles and other convicted criminals. I recently moved, and as a gun-owner, I am required to report my move and new address to the chief of police in the old town, the chief of police in the town to which I move and a state agency--all by certified letter in a specified time period. Criminals don't have to do that

"We stand at a crossroads today;" Poe writes. "For the first time since our Constitution was drafted, a major component of the Bill of Rights--the right to keep and bear arms--is in danger of being jettisoned." Any reasonable person might ask, if one right can be excised from the Constitution, might another right, under different circumstances, also be deleted? Which one is next, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly? And how long before America stops being America?

Having lived in Switzerland, I enjoyed Poe’s extensive case study of that country as an armed nation with little violent crime. "No country in the world is more heavily armed, man for man, than Switzerland," Poe writes. Yet, "it can be argued that the peace and freedom enjoyed by generations of Swiss may be the direct result of that country's long tradition of what it calls 'armed neutrality.'"

Switzerland "has the highest per capita firepower in the world." Yet that small, peaceful nation "has managed to stay out of both world wars and to avoid dictatorship, invasion, and revolution." Poe reports that the murder rate in Switzerland is about the same as that of Japan, where guns are outlawed. The murder rate is much lower than that of England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Family life may be an important factor in this regard. Families are more stable in Switzerland than in most places in the world. According to Poe, "the percentage of children born out of wedlock was 8.7 in 1998--the lowest in Europe. The percentage of women who work outside the home is also lower in Switzerland than in any other European country. Families spend much of their free time together. Studies have shown that Swiss teenagers prefer the company of their parents to that of their peers."

So whether one is examining the stats or history of Switzerland--from the overthrow of Austria to the Swiss refusal to side with the Nazis, who had plans to invade Switzerland--Poe uses that Alpine country as an attractive model for the possibility of an America that is safe and free, guarded at her flanks by the watchful eye of an intact 2nd Amendment.

But what is it that drives liberals to embrace restrictive gun laws? One assumes the problem is not sheer lack of intelligence. Clearly they can understand the logic of the bumper sticker that reads: "When we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." So it is not stupidity that drives liberals to more restrictive gun laws.

Liberals, however, do use tax dollars to create dependency (though they dress it up with the word "interdependence"), which is often camouflaged as compassion. This dependency, however dressed up, is essential to the liberal vision of a power structure that organizes life around the state. Cradle-to-grave dependency is an ideological dream come true to the person who believes that ultimately the state can be trusted to know and do what's best for the people.

Where does gun control fit in this scheme of dependency? Well, it's part of an approach that fosters the creation of the biggest class of dependents of all--the entire citizenry. Though liberals rarely state their view this baldly, the logic of the liberal vision suggests that people in particular and society as a whole will be better off when all law-abiding citizens need to wait for the police to show up to protect them from gun-wielding criminals.

But, clearly, cradle-to-grave protection from violent crime is a promise government cannot keep if a people wishes to keep its freedom. The government wasn't there September 11 when ordinary American citizens paid the ultimate price to protect other Americans and avert even greater tragedy by attacking the Islamic hijackers and downing a jet plane in Pennsylvania.

By disarming law-abiding citizens, however, liberals would put an entire society at risk of attack--by neighborhood criminals, by international terrorists, or even from a misguided governments has the guns to force people to accept its law and "compassion" should they need a little convincing (for their own good, of course).

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty" urged Patrick Henry. "Nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give that force up, you are ruined."

This book is a plea to not give into a statist dependency that would spoil the dream of freedom in America and enslave Americans in the name of compassion, the greater good, or of whatever slogan pollsters think will manipulate the masses toward predetermined ends. And while the final option for protecting that dream may be "downright force," as Henry said, that force may never have to-be employed if lessons of books like this are applied.

I recently moved, and as a gun-owner, I am required to report my move and new address to the chief of police in the old town, the chief of police in the town to which I move and a state agency--all by certified letter in a specified time period. Criminals don't have to do that.

Obviously he didn't move far enough.

Freedom loving folks need to start voting with their feet. Why is he still living in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts? MOVE! to where your rights are repected.

On another thread I saw where some town, Fernwood? had banned guns and they were wanting to protest or something. MOVE!

When these liberal, comrade commies that run places like Massachusetts start losing their tax base they will have to reconsider. What job is worth your 2nd amendment rights?

Another thing that relocating will do is help concentrate freedom loving people together, which makes defending your rights, if you have to, possible. Right now people are so scattered that once a list of gun owners is compiled agents will only have to go from owner to owner to confiscate their guns. Because of our dispersion no realistic defense is possible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.