The problem with gun control
Me to cops: You first
Welcome to Sex and the State, a newsletter about human connection. To support my life’s work, upgrade to a paid subscription, buy a guide, follow me on OnlyFans, follow me on Twitter, support me on Patreon, or just share this post 🙏
~~~~~
In the wake of yesterday’s Nashville school shooting, people are once again talking about gun control. I think the conversation could benefit tremendously from a brief review of the history of gun control in the US, especially since the shooter appears to be trans.
My understanding of the literature indicates that more gun control legislation right now may reduce overall gun deaths. But, it’s very likely that a greater proportion of people who die will be marginalized.
In 2016 I wrote a piece for FEE (RIP that being a decent publication) Think Gays Don't Need Gun Rights? Check Your Privilege.
There are a few things I think we need to understand about US gun control.
First, there’s almost no hope that cities will disarm police anytime soon.
Second, police are a real threat to marginalized groups. There are huge racial disparities in policing. Many officers espouse explicitly racist, sexist, and homophobic views. And many police officers are avowed white supremacists. Cops have a long history, continuing to the present day, of targeting trans individuals for harassment and arrest simply for being trans.
Third, guns were an integral part of the US Civil Rights movement. Dr. T. R. M. Howard enabled Black Americans to testify against Emmett Till’s murderers by hiring armed bodyguards to protect himself, his family, and anyone else willing to come forward. And a new paper shows gun control in the Jim Crow south disarmed Black Americans but didn’t impact white gun ownership. And that as Black firearm access increased, rates of Black lynching decreased.
I was on the rifle team in high school. My dad was first in the nation on the pistol team at West Point. I like to shoot guns sometimes.
But, I’ve also been saddled with the ability to read. The data on widespread gun ownership is not flattering.
Widespread gun ownership does not deter crime. More guns result in more accidental deaths and suicides while very rarely helping people defend themselves.
As far as resisting tyranny, the state uses guns to oppress citizens far more often and far more effectively than citizens use guns to resist the state.
So I can’t really support widespread gun ownership because the math just isn’t mathing. I might be a weak anti-natalist, but I do support longer healthspans for the already-born. And I can’t see any data to support the existence of any benefit to widespread gun ownership that outweighs all the, you know, unnecessary, early deaths.
But I also can’t support gun control as currently implemented. First, because firearm prohibition in the US doesn’t seem to actually mediate those harms. Second, because gun control in the US disproportionately harms marginalized people.
Here’s what I can wholeheartedly support: Disarming the police.
Why arm police when they’re going to wait 77 minutes after shooting starts, physically holding parents down so they can’t save their kids as they’re being shot to death? Why arm police when they’re going to execute unarmed men who are begging for their lives? Or 12-year-old boys playing with toy guns?
Gun ownership advocates told us that widespread gun ownership deters crime and helps people defend themselves against criminals. Those claims turned out to be false. Cops are telling us that their guns keep us safe. I find that claim sus as hell too.
In this case, I have to agree with my 2016 self. “Perhaps it’s within the realm of possibility that disarming people will protect the marginalized. But only if we disarm the police.”
All that said, it’s gonna be a hard row to hoe. Coauthor of the study on lynchings Associate Professor of Economics, Michael Makowsky told me he broadly agrees with my view of the situation. However, “The difficulties of US firearm policy arrive from all directions. We have a militarized police force, which makes severe limitations on civilian firearms potentially dangerous for marginalized groups. We have a widely armed civilian population, which means institutional resistance to disarming police would be significant, ranging everywhere from police shirking their duties to massive unified strikes. We also have a powerful gun lobby that opposes any proposed marginal change in firearm policy without exception,” he said. “In purely economic terms, it's a clusterfuck.”
Indeed, my babies. Indeed.
~~~~~
This ⬇️ is an affiliate link! Sign up today to support me!
Join the reading revolution! Get key ideas from bestselling non-fiction books, distilled by experts into bitesize text and audio. Explore our vast library of over 5,500 titles and stay up-to-date with 40 new titles added each month.
The line of argument I have found most broadly persuasive is: whatever you think about rights or crime rate effects, gun confiscation is way too much like the War on Drugs to work. You have an easily manufactured, easily concealed, high value per pound and per cubic foot, non perishable commodity for which there is high demand-- and the root difference between the US and other countries is the intensity of the demand. As long as you don't address the sources of that demand, supply bans are just going to lead to institutional corruption, selective enforcement against marginalized people, and all the other pathologies we know all too well. We've seen this movie before, let's not watch it again.
We have way too many guns in America, there are historical reasons for this. This country was a frontier country and guns were nothing more than a everyday tool. This mindset has made it into the modern era of a highly urbanized society. Also, there have been gun laws (restrictions) from the 17th century on.
“There are huge racial disparities in policing. Many officers espouse explicitly racist, sexist, and homophobic views. And many police officers are avowed white supremacists. Cops have a long history, continuing to the present day, of targeting trans individuals for harassment and arrest simply for being trans.”
Well, yes but I am not sure this is entirely fair. Policing, even with educational requirements, is a blue collar job and police officers tend to have attitudes associated with that class. This is especially true since the Democratic Party no longer represents the working class. Police need strong supervision and accountability just like every other profession.