A New Side to an Old Debate

As most of you probably know, I am strictly pro gun control. Why this is so, or at least two of the principal reasons I feel the second amendment of the US does not cover modern firearm possession, is that the right to “bear arms” at the time the Constitution was written had vastly different implications from modern firearm possession in two senses:

1. There were no (common) multi-round weapons that could be carried by individuals at the time of American independence. The revolver – which featured six shots between reloads – was not invented until the 1820/30s, and represented a tremendous leap forward in killing power over the heretofore common musket. Indeed, the musket required a fairly time consuming reload, and although I don’t know the exact amount of time, I believe even the best trained soldier could fire only about one round per minute. Today’s fully automated weapons can fire several rounds per second, and even simple firearms, such as a .22 hunting rifle, have multi-round clips, which means a deranged or angry person can harm – or kill – far more individuals with comparative ease.

While the framers of the Constitution believed that individual ownership of “arms” would help establish a “well-regulated militia” this was in part because farmers who were accustomed to using muskets could reload far more quickly than those who were not. In pitched battles where the soldiers literally stood across from each other on an open field, this made a tremendous difference. Today’s weapons, especially the AK-47 and its derivatives, no longer feature such a great difference, and moreover are easy enough that even children can easily be trained to use them to great efficacy.

2. Individual ownership of arms is often justified as a deterrent to government intrusion, or rather, as an individual’s last resort in the face of government assault. While this may have been true when it was musket versus musket, I believe the government-citizen power imbalance is far more pronounced today: our government not only has the ability to gather information from our genetics to financial information to personal conversations, but is know to have done so (the legality isn’t really of importance here, but the fact that they did so illegally and got away with it illustrates this point further). Moreover, satellite surveillance complements CCTV in our cities, our “security” apparati are manifold and technologies like GPS allow us to be identified by location at any location from anywhere in the world (hello OnStar) and attacked with massive remote weapons, from unmanned flying vehicles (drones) to ballistic missiles: we realistically do not have the power to escape government intrusion and assault…. at least not till we all have our personal missile defense system in the back yard. Thus, as far as I can tell, individual gun ownership does not actually protect us from the government in any way, it simply represents a threat to the other humans who share our living space, be it family, friends, neighbors, classmates, colleagues, or even just people from the same town or urban area (we needn’t know them personally).

If you are still reading this – which would be pleasant surprise, because I didn’t mean to go into such detail above – you are probably saying to yourself: “none of this is new, we’ve heard it all from you before, how does this relate to the title of this blog post?” Well, the answer is that the first day of my trip included an experience that gave me a new perspective on the issue of gun control. Well, not so much a new perspective as an experience that now allows me to empathize with those who believe gun control represents an overreaction by people and government to the irresponsible use of firearms by a small group. Here is what happened:

Keith (of Jabba the Huck, also headed to Windmill) and I decided to take the ferry from the UK to the Netherlands and then ride our bikes from Hoek van Holland (Hook of Holland) to the tournament site in Amsterdam. Upon arriving at the English port of Harwich and checking in for the ferry, my camping knife was confiscated as an illegal weapon. Why? Because it is a locking blade, which are illegal in the UK (remember that I was leaving the country!). Why are locking blades illegal, even though they represent a far safer knife for people who are camping because they won’t snap closed on your fingers? Because kids also use them for stabbing! Now, I could understand if I was walking through the center of London, carrying a knife, that this might be a problem. However, I was on a fully loaded touring bike, with tent, cooking equipment, etc. clearly visible, which makes it abundantly clear that I am using the knife for it’s intended purpose of food preparation and camping generally and not to kill people, a fact the customs agent even conceded. Moreover, the many restrictions on hunting knives in the UK are not accompanied by restrictions on kitchen knives: thus it is no surprise that the day before I left the UK, I came across a documentary that illustrated how kids are buying large kitchen knives (12") and using them for stabbings. Moreover, as these knives are extremely cheap - an 8" knife costs as little as 4 or 5 pounds - they are considered disposable by criminals. So, in reality we see that knife control on hunting and other specialty knives fails to achieve its intended aim when a cheaper, equally lethal alternative is easily available. This is particularly confusing to me as kitchen knives clearly have a fixed blade over 4 inches, thus violating both restrictions for hunting knives.

So, have I changed my opinion on gun control? The answer is no. Do I believe these restrictions on hunting and specialty knives should be reduced in the UK? Yes. How do I justify such apparently contradictory opinions? For me, there needs to be a balance between reasonable use and the danger to others around us: Can you explain to me an everyday situation that justifies having a firearm in the house? Especially an everyday situation that requires a loaded multi-shot weapon? I can't think of one. On the other hand, a kitchen knife is integral to a functioning household, and it is a short-range weapon when abused - no sniper, no school rampage. And this doesn't exclude the restriction of knife purchases: Why not make the purchase of all knives conditional on age, as few 14-year olds really need these knives for cooking, or if they do, their parents should be willing to purchase it for them. Moreover, by allowing for the responsible use of specialty knives in their proper context, we introduce our children into the difference between correct and incorrect use, instead of decrying a whole class of tools as inherently dangerous.