TLDR on Gun Control

There are two cornerstone fallacies common to many pro-gun arguments.

The first is that curbing (not even eliminating) gun ownership is the thin end of the wedge to the total erosion of constitutional rights. At worst, it’s a paranoid stance that the power of the government is overweening and that once they take our guns, they’ll be free to take every other freedom because we won’t be able to defend ourselves. At best is a similar argument without the tinge of conspiracy that the government is actively trying to own and control everything.

This is a fallacy because private gun ownership can’t stop the government from imposing martial law and taking all the guns by force if it wanted to. The military has far bigger guns and is better than the polity at large, armed or no, at exerting control.

The real bulwark against that happening is not guns. It’s voting and political engagement. Nearly half of eligible voters don’t vote. If they did, the government would have far less power to act against our best interest.

The other fallacy is the notion that a gun in hand can solve the problem you intend to solve in any particular situation. My guess is that the majority of gun owners have never been in a firefight–have never experienced the fog of war. Guns don’t actually provide safety or security. They radically escalate conflict, making unintended consequences far more likely. The notion that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” is a Hollywood myth. In a conflict where there are many people with guns involved, what you have is mostly a bunch of idiots with guns who don’t know how to adequately assess risk in a situation that has become extremely risky because guns are involved.
Both fallacies are rooted in fantasy. The first is a fantasy that there’s an imminent danger that the government is looking to take all our rights away and that private gun ownership is somehow a curb against that threat. The second is that, with a gun in my hand, I can somehow exert control over a situation that is out of control–and that I will make perfect decisions in a very short amount of time with very limited situational understanding.
On top of these fallacies lies the false notion that constitutional rights can not be curtailed in any way. The truth is, constitutional rights are bounded in many cases. The right of free speech is curtailed when you falsely cry fire in a crowded meeting place or say the word “bomb” on an airplane or threaten people’s lives or defame them. The right to vote is often curtailed if you are a convicted felon. The right to freedom of religion is curtailed when you try to proselytize using public funds or public fora.

There are no constitutional rights for which there is no case where they can’t be abridged under certain circumstances.

Guns are no exception. The public health risks of unfettered gun ownership are too great not to be curtailed. The implementation of those curtailments is up for debate, but the core notion of curtailment is not.

Those in favor of gun control are mostly seeking a reasonable balance between the right to bear arms and public safety. It’s my opinion that guns are far to easy to obtain and that many of kinds of weapons available are far to dangerous to be allowed in private hands.

[This was originally a comment to Dan Hicks’s thoughtful post about engaging in conversation with people who are against gun control]