iPM on UK gun laws
Aug. 25th, 2012 07:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sawylTodays iPM featured an long and excellent interview with a listener who thinks that gun control laws in the UK are too restrictive. Despite providing some interesting insights into the question it quickly became clear, thanks in part to Eddie Mair's superb interview skills, that none of the arguments put forward by the interviewee stood up to scrutiny and that his case was largely founded on sentimental attachment.
For example, one of the claims was that the 1997 firearms act was unfair and pointless. It was argued that the act, which effectively removed the right to privately owned handguns, would only effect those who chose to surrender their weapons whilst leaving criminals (by definition!) free to continue to own illegal weapons. However this argument is clearly absurd. Taken to its logical extreme, it implies that it is unfair and pointless to restrict any action which might be carried out in a state of nature because it strips the good person of a right whilst leaving the bad untouched (assuming the law is not applied preemptively). Thus, according to this criteria, it is unfair to legislate against murder and theft etc.
Leaving the logical problems aside, there are a number of additional problems with the claim. Firstly, while it may be true that the 1997 act was unlikely to prevent people from continuing to acquire weapons on the black market, it and its 1988 predecessor were passed in response to two serious shootings — Hungerford and Dumblane — in which the weapons were licensed under existing legislation and it is for this reason that they restrict private ownership. Secondly, by limiting the number of weapons, the act effectively reduces the chances of their illegitimate use. When Mair asked whether the interviewee would keep a gun under his pillow if he could, the man replied that he wouldn't because it would put it in each reach of anyone who might invade his home. Thirdly, as implicitly acknowledged by the interviewee in his statement that people now think there is something unusual about being interested in handguns, the act asserts a normative value: in a civilised society, private individuals should have (almost) no reason to own a gun. I suppose this is equivalent to Weber's definition of statehood as a monopoly on violence.
Finally, I think the interviewee's own story fatally undermined his case. Asking him about his general experience with guns, Mair wondered whether he'd ever been shot. Obviously uncomfortable with the question, the interviewee answered that he had. After moving through the rest of the discussion, Mair returned to shooting and asked how it had happened. The interviewee admitted that it had occurred while he was organising a shooting club outside the UK. He had asked a person to leave on the ground of poor behaviour, only for them to return a short time later with an ancient weapon — "a 19th century pile of rubbish" — and attempted to shoot the interviewee in the face. Fortunately he'd been able to distract the person and the shot hit his boot. But, as he admitted, if the person had had a modern weapon, he probably wouldn't have survived.
I felt sorry for the interviewee. They'd obviously had to give up a hobby they loved and, in the post-Dumblane amnesty, they'd had to surrender a rare antique pistol. But at the same time, I feel the law is justified. Shooting not like driving, which while dangerous also possesses a utility value. It's more like drink-driving, something that the person involved may enjoy but which increases the chances of harm to those around them who don't participate and which needs to be restricted for the common good.
For example, one of the claims was that the 1997 firearms act was unfair and pointless. It was argued that the act, which effectively removed the right to privately owned handguns, would only effect those who chose to surrender their weapons whilst leaving criminals (by definition!) free to continue to own illegal weapons. However this argument is clearly absurd. Taken to its logical extreme, it implies that it is unfair and pointless to restrict any action which might be carried out in a state of nature because it strips the good person of a right whilst leaving the bad untouched (assuming the law is not applied preemptively). Thus, according to this criteria, it is unfair to legislate against murder and theft etc.
Leaving the logical problems aside, there are a number of additional problems with the claim. Firstly, while it may be true that the 1997 act was unlikely to prevent people from continuing to acquire weapons on the black market, it and its 1988 predecessor were passed in response to two serious shootings — Hungerford and Dumblane — in which the weapons were licensed under existing legislation and it is for this reason that they restrict private ownership. Secondly, by limiting the number of weapons, the act effectively reduces the chances of their illegitimate use. When Mair asked whether the interviewee would keep a gun under his pillow if he could, the man replied that he wouldn't because it would put it in each reach of anyone who might invade his home. Thirdly, as implicitly acknowledged by the interviewee in his statement that people now think there is something unusual about being interested in handguns, the act asserts a normative value: in a civilised society, private individuals should have (almost) no reason to own a gun. I suppose this is equivalent to Weber's definition of statehood as a monopoly on violence.
Finally, I think the interviewee's own story fatally undermined his case. Asking him about his general experience with guns, Mair wondered whether he'd ever been shot. Obviously uncomfortable with the question, the interviewee answered that he had. After moving through the rest of the discussion, Mair returned to shooting and asked how it had happened. The interviewee admitted that it had occurred while he was organising a shooting club outside the UK. He had asked a person to leave on the ground of poor behaviour, only for them to return a short time later with an ancient weapon — "a 19th century pile of rubbish" — and attempted to shoot the interviewee in the face. Fortunately he'd been able to distract the person and the shot hit his boot. But, as he admitted, if the person had had a modern weapon, he probably wouldn't have survived.
I felt sorry for the interviewee. They'd obviously had to give up a hobby they loved and, in the post-Dumblane amnesty, they'd had to surrender a rare antique pistol. But at the same time, I feel the law is justified. Shooting not like driving, which while dangerous also possesses a utility value. It's more like drink-driving, something that the person involved may enjoy but which increases the chances of harm to those around them who don't participate and which needs to be restricted for the common good.
