Eugene Robinson Is Off the Reservation and Into the Sheep Paddock

Courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms and the Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon, comes this opinion piece by our own local Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. And I do mean opinion, thankfully, because facts would have him going in circles on this one. Some credit will be given: He had no choice but to do this one in a paper outside of DC. There was no way short of Satan skating to work today that the editors of the WaPo would ever publish this. It's almost balanced.

Not so sure he should have written it, but hey, I might as well entertain myself. So here goes...

I try not to think too hard about gun control, because when I head down that road I always end up somewhere I didn’t really want to go. My starting point is that I’m in favor of sanity and opposed to needless bloodshed, so having tough laws to restrict the availability of firearms — especially handguns — should be a no-brainer.

They are already toughly restricted! How many more restrictions do we need? Outside of DC, you still need to pass a Federal background check (which includes having no previous violent or drug convictions, history of mental instability, under a restraining order of domestic violence and so on) before you can take the gun home. Given that the average criminal who resorts to actually using a gun on someone typically has multiple convictions for violence and/or drugs, they wouldn't be eligible to possess a handgun (or any gun) in the first place.

And given the District having the toughest laws in the nation with regard to gun possession, tell me, Mr. Robinson, how well did that work out? Pistols are banned without a license in the District and you can't have operational firearms in one's own home, legally possessed or otherwise. So how precisely did these tyrannical restrictions on firearms possession by everyone in the District prevent gun violence or the criminals to obtain the tools to commit such?

I hear crickets chirping.

Tough laws do nothing to deter criminals and only serve to restrict the law-abiding. In the case of DC, it turned all law-abiding citizens into convenient victims of those who didn't care about the ban on handgun possession.

You idea is a no-brainer alright. No-brainer in the sense that only someone without a brain cannot fathom that the DC gun ban and other such restrictions in places like New York City and Chicago do nothing to curb or control gun violence.

Think of all the husband-and-wife arguments, the road-rage showdowns, the workplace disputes, the high-school beefs that by all rights should end in embarrassment, hurt feelings, maybe a scuffle or an amateurish punch — but instead end with a funeral, simply because there was a gun close at hand when tempers boiled over.

Name one. Show me this is a problem otherwise this is merely an appeal to emotion with no basis in fact.

Guns do kill people — roughly 30,000 a year in the United States, including both homicides and suicides. Handguns are the principal menace (most people are more responsible with long guns than Dick Cheney). In England and Wales, where handgun ownership is prohibited, in 2005-06 there were only 46 homicides in which firearms were used. Strict handgun control laws have to be the right policy.

What you don't report is the fact of the 50 reported firearm homicides in England and Wales, only 22 were committed with handguns. (Original report here. See page 46 for a breakdown). You're pulling a little sleight of hand here by switching between "firearms" and "handguns". And 22 handgun deaths out of a population of England in excess of 50 million isn't exactly a justification for strict handgun laws. That paltry amount isn't even statistically significant.

And what does the crime rate in the United Kingdom have to do with gun control here? If you look at violent crime as a whole, the UK surpasses the US in violent crime per capita. I'm not going to try and argue on the basis of statistics. You've shown yourself willing to play a little loose with the statistics I have provided so I don't expect you to accept others so willingly.

But here’s where I begin to wander off the reservation. These days, I don’t get as hung up as I used to on whether the government should have a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force. This is no backwoods survivalist talking, just an African-American who grew up in the South at a time when the people in uniform were often the bad guys, and when having a pistol or a shotgun to brandish saved a lot of black people’s lives. That time is gone, though, and quelling the horrific black-on-black violence of today is so urgent that I can look past the history lesson.

Mr. Robinson, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Because it is black-on-black, you are willing to overlook the toll gun control takes on law-abiding citizens? But when it was white-on-black, the lack of gun control is a good thing? You are aware, sir, that many gun control laws were passed specifically with the purpose of disarming minorities? I would be willing to bet some of those laws were on the books in the South where you grew up. I guess the civil disobediance of your fellow citizen's was a good thing then.

You are talking about two very different types of violence here. One is a legimate use of force in the name of self-defense. The other is criminal usage. Curtailing the first use in order to stop the second doesn't work. It just emboldens the second.

I don't give a southend of a northbound rat about the color of the skin of the criminals involved and you shouldn't either. Shame on you for playing the race card. You need to address the root causes that lead to this violence in a community, not the end result. How much of this black-on-black violence is committed by law-abiding citizens fighting over a parking space or a dispute over the price of bread?

I hear the crickets again.

While you work on the underlying causes, which will probably take a generation or two to fix, anyone who shoots someone else in the commission of a crime should be treated very harshly. If a gang banger or drug dealer is caught after a crossfire kills a child, try them and throw them into a cell for a very long time. The color of their skin is irrelevant. White, brown, purple or green, a killer is a killer. Punish them. Enough said. The gun was merely the last tool in a long string of criminal acts. Gun control will not prevent it. The user is the one in the possession of the capacity for good or evil and when evil prevails, the user is who you punish. You prosecute the user, not the tool.

Then, however, I get snagged by the wording of the Second Amendment. It’s obvious to me that the Constitution has to be a living document and that inferences have to be drawn from it to accommodate changing times — the right to privacy, for example, that Justice Harry Blackmun found to justify Roe v. Wade.

But, um, it’s pretty hard to infer the polar opposite of what the document says. And I know courts have ruled in the past that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a collective right belonging to the states, but I’ve never been able to figure why the Founders would give a collective right such prominence in what is otherwise a charter of individual rights and freedoms.

The Constitution is a "living document"? I don't think so.

The Founders did not grant or give any rights in that mighty document. They outlined the Rights of the People that pre-existed it and noted them in a valiant attempt to preserve them from infringement by the Government. The Constitution is not a granting of Rights to the People but rather a limit on Government to infringe them. Keep that in mind.

Your "collective rights" theory to arms is not borne out by historical precedent. The court rulings now on this theory are a modern invention in an attempt by those such as yourself to twist the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The Founders didn't give prominence to a collective right in the midst of a preservation of individual rights because that was not their intent to do so. It has prominence because it is an individual right. If you would do actual research on the topic, you will come to the same conclusion that the DC Circuit did in handing down their decision in Parker. Have you actually read the decision? It goes into deep details on the historical foundations of this individual right.

To read "the People" in the 2nd as meaning a "collective right" is to put the whole Bill of Rights in danger. Do you not see that? The Supreme Court has consistently read "the People" in all of the other enumerated Rights as referring to individuals so why should the reading of "the People" in the 2nd mean any different?

If you argue because of the clause "A well-regulated militia...", I have news for you, sir:

You are the militia.

You, me and every other able-bodied male between the ages of 17-44 who isn't a member of the standing army or National Guard. We are the "unorganized militia" and should be ready and able to serve should our home state call us to service. If the Maryland Defense Force would ever get back me, I would be an honest-to-God, true member of the militia. Then would you argue my right to keep and bear arms?

Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia couldn’t figure it out either, and so ago they voided the city of Washington’s 30-year-old law prohibiting private citizens from possessing handguns.

Wrong. They did figure it out. Properly. With history and legal precedent to back it up. And then did the right thing and told the city of Washington that the rights of the People trump that of the Government to rule them when they should be serving them instead.

The judges might well have been right on the law and the Constitution. But they were wrong to take a valuable tool away from law enforcement — the power to lock up a bad guy just for having a gun — in a city plagued by violent crime. And they were wrong to use such sweeping language, inviting review by the Supreme Court.

The judges took away nothing. Unless someone is waving a gun around, I'll wager the police aren't locking people up for having just the gun. They generally have enough probable cause to investigate someone and only after the fact find they have a gun on them. Generally, the bad guy will have given the police sufficient reason to poke around them to find out why they are bad. There are plenty of laws and police procedures already available and have been for decades. All the court took away from the Government was their ability to create new classes of criminals on a whim.

The problem is, innocent people can be locked up in DC for having a gun. A law-abiding gun owner transports a legally owned handgun through the District even today at their peril. Does your city plagued by violent crime make such a distinction? No. In fact, the DC police have stated that their law is supreme in this matter. That despite the fact there are Federal protections for legal gun owners transporting firearms from one place to another. The DC police chooses to ignore them. It is perfectly legal to transport a handgun from Maryland to Virginia to go shooting. But if you get caught with it in DC, you'll be charged under DC law despite Federal law saying such transport is legal. How exactly does this prevent violent crime?

Oh wait, it doesn't! A criminal willing to commit a violent crime with a gun isn't really going to care about a law that says he can't have the gun.

Burn that concept into your brain, Mr. Robinson. Understand it. Once you do, you'll know why gun control laws do not work.

Angry city officials are right to howl in protest about the appeals court’s ruling, and they’re right to worry that allowing people to legally own handguns will boost the body count and endanger police officers. They’re right to warn that law-abiding citizens who buy guns for protection are more likely to shoot themselves or each other than any criminal.

The city officials are angry because the ruling mean's that a) there are limits to their power and b) the officials may no longer be able to create sheep out of the citizens of DC.

As to citizens shooting each other, you once again appeal to emotion with no basis in fact. It is mere supposition. And places where gun control laws are looser or non-existent with regard to a citizen possessing a gun for self-defense in the home (which is what the Parker ruling really upheld) do not bear out your fears. You don't hear about a rash of accidental or anger-motivated shootings in nearby Virginia, do you?

There's those pesky crickets again.

A citizen who obtains a gun for legal home defense is well-advised to get some training and instruction in such. The NRA offers such a course and it isn't expensive. If you are willing to throw down several hundred dollars on a firearm, an extra $50-$80 for a course covering legimate self-defense isn't excessive. It is called being a responsible citizen. It is what I hope every gun owner is especially where home defense is concerned.

But it’s wrong to ignore the reality that D.C. criminals have no trouble getting guns in Virginia or Maryland — or, for that matter, right down the block. When does a day go by without some kind of shooting in Washington? Officials are wrong to ignore the fact that in the city’s toughest neighborhoods, many people feel the police cannot or will not protect them, so they want some firepower of their own.

DC criminals getting guns from Maryland or Virginia without trouble? Bullshit. If they are, it is by stealing them from law-abiding owners by, gasp, not obeying the law and breaking into homes to find them. Not so sure about Maryland but a dangerous game to play in Virginia.

Both Maryland and Virginia have "one handgun a month" laws. So even proposing the idea that criminals are getting friends who are legal purchasers in those states to buy them for them is ludicrous. The only way you're buying multiple handguns at once in Virginia is if you have a concealed carry permit and I don't see anyone with a CHP in Virginia helping out a criminal with multiple straw purchases. A Virginia CHP holder is one of the most law-abiding people you will ever meet. Such a person will not break the law to aid a criminal. So there goes your theory on that one, Mr. Robinson.

And if they are getting their guns from down the block, why blame neighboring states? You read all the time about gang bangers being able to buy drugs and being offered guns as part of the same transaction. Talk about corner store convenience! Heck, they may even be offered a discount for both at the same time!

And nary a day goes by in the District with a shooting? When you disarm law-abiding citizens for 30 years and only criminals and the police have guns, what do you think would happen? Peace?

Despite this, Mr. Robinson is partially correct in his last sentence. Officials are wrong to ignore the fact that the police cannot protect the citizens. The people are certainly right to feel the police cannot protect them. But Mr. Robinson, it is not that the police will not protect them but rather they have to no obligation to do so! It isn' t that they won't try, but if you call 911 and they don't show up for two hours, that isn't a failure of the police. Their obligation is to the community, your actual collective. There is no individual guarantee to police protection.

I think Mr. Robinson may have his interpretations reversed. People want their own firepower because that is secured by an individual right which provides immediate protection which the collective guarantee of police duty to the community does not. It isn't because the police is somehow failing in their duty to individual citizens. They had no duty to do so in the first place unless an officer was actually witnessing the crime as it happens. Care to wager how often that occurs? I didn't think so.

And those law-abiding citizens are wrong to think that somehow, when the moment comes, they will be able to correctly make split-second, life-or-death decisions that even experienced police officers sometimes get wrong. Someone is surely going to kill a brother, mistaking him for a robber. Someone is going to fail to notice that a child has wandered into the line of fire.

Are we talking about self-defense in the home or on the street? I am going to assume in the home.

As I made mention of above, anyone who keeps a gun at home for the purpose of self-defense is well-advised to get educated on the matter so these types of things do not happen.

In my house, a child won't be wandering into the line of fire because my child will be taught that if Dad has the gun out, he or she will be either with Mom or flat on the floor under their bed after locking their door. They will be out of the line of fire.

Mr. Robinson, you do not have the right to use deadly force on someone unless they themselves pose a deadly, imminent danger to you. Unless the robber who is after your property has a weapon in their hand or is advancing on you with the intent to cause harm, you shouldn't shoot them. Laws on this vary from state-to-state. More and more states recognize that an intruder in your home is automatically there to do you harm, thus negating your duty to spend that split-second trying to figure it out. I am all in favor of such laws. It puts the focus where it properly belongs: on the motives of the criminal.

But even before you move to pull the trigger, you first figure out who it is you are shooting at! Some folks feel one of the best persuaders for identification is the sound of a shell being racked into the chamber of a shotgun. For others, like myself, a flashlight on the gun or in the other hand is sufficient. Either way, the potential target will be identifying themselves or will be identified in very short order. Then you can act.

And if you do, you will be held responsible for that act. A claim of self-defense is not a free pass for murder. Trust me, you will do everything in your power to not have to act unless you have to. The legal and financial hassles are enough to scare any rational person. The trauma of that act will haunt you long after the legal and financial issues are behind you.

Education on these matters is the key to being effective with them. I am of the opinion that anyone who doesn't wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat at the thought of shooting someone in self-defense or agonize in their spare moments at the prospect hasn't sufficiently dealt with the issue and has no business having a gun for self-defense purposes. Because if you haven't gone through that deep, mental anguish, you will second-guess yourself in that split-second where you need to act. That is not the time to be having doubts.

I have woken up many nights thinking about such issues. I have no doubts about my ability to act. I hope I never have to.

You, Mr. Robinson seem to disagree. You seem to feel that armed, law-abiding citizens are more dangerous than the criminal. I do not agree with you on that feeling. But, you seem to be comfortable with the idea that if a wolf acts, the sheep should bleat for help and hope the farmer comes with the shotgun to save them.

You've wandered off the reservation alright. Straight into the gated sheep paddock and you've been comfortable there for a long time. It shows.

I prefer to be the farmer.