LINKS:

Previous letters

Read the story

Letters on other topics

I first encountered gun owners in 1973 when, as a Republican state representative in Minnesota, I introduced a bill to provide restrictions on hunting the state’s dwindling wolf population (excluding wolves that were a threat to livestock). The NRA somehow saw it as part of a plot to take away their guns.

At a packed public hearing, NRA members and hunters became so worked up at the prospect that they might not be allowed to kill all the wolves, they stormed the stage, ending the hearing and necessitating that the state police escort myself and other legislators to safety through a jeering crowd.

I recall thinking at the time that these are scared little boys in old men’s bodies, overwhelmed by some fear they can’t describe and using the issue of guns to legitimize their paranoia. Like little boys afraid of the bogeyman under the bed, gun owners are convinced they’ll be attacked in the middle of the night by an ax wielding mad man or that they won’t be able to defend themselves when America is invaded. (And don’t bother suggesting that that is pretty unlikely.)

The problem of guns probably won’t be solved without addressing the underlying cause of the gun nuts’ paranoia; if it could be resolved with logic it would have ceased to be a problem long ago.

Alexandria, VA

As usual, I read the winter issue of Notre Dame Magazine with interest. The magazine has good articles that inspire reflection. The article titled "Public Enemy No. 1" caught my attention. I differ with the author about the merits of a handgun ban. Though appealing, a handgun ban may have other effects. I address two other effects from a ban: alternative weapons and organized crime. I suggest that the nation approach a handgun ban with caution.

First, a handgun ban may spur development of alternative weapons. History revealed that in 1336 the English king banned yeomen from carrying swords. Swords served as the handgun of those times. Soon thereafter, in the 1356 Battle of Poitiers, English archers decimated French sword bearing knights. In Europe, the sword bearing knights declined into oblivion from that battle. In modern times, a handgun ban may spur new archery, compressed air, or perhaps laser weapons.

Second, by analogy, organized crime may resurface and profit from a handgun ban. Last century, the nation banned alcohol by constitutional amendment. During Prohibition, organized crime rose to power and to wealth. Organized crime flexed its power with ruthless methods. Those who imbibed paid an inflated price for alcohol that enriched criminals. The repeal of Prohibition cut into organized crime’s profits and power. Further, the repeal showed that a ban would not solve alcoholism. In the present, a ban would encourage organized crime to reenter the handgun market.

In conclusion, a handgun ban may cure a symptom but not the disease of violence. A statement attributed to M.L. King described the disease: "violence is the language of the unheard." To reduce violence, the nation must listen to those people often ignored. A handgun ban shows little chance of improving the nation’s hearing. A handgun ban may spur alternative weapons and organized crime. The nation must balance the immediate appeal of a handgun ban with its other effects. I applaud Notre Dame Magazine for publicizing controversial issues. I look forward to the next Notre Dame Magazine. Have a pleasant day.

Saint Louis, Mo

]

I am writing to express my great displeasure at Associate Editor Ed Cohen’s article "Public Enemy No. 1" in your Winter 1999-2000 issue. You stated in your memorial on Fr. Griffin that "A magazine...is only as good as its writers." By that standard, your magazine is very poor indeed, judging by Ed Cohen’s scribbling.

First, as a former Sports Editor of The Observer (1991-92), I am disappointed by the lax journalism exhibited in the piece. Mr. Cohen loosely slides between various statistics and innuendoes, all the while avoiding a sustained or logically coherent argument. For example, on page 34 he bounces from intuition, to off-the-cuff etymology, and finally to a discussion of how "the first thing peace-keepers try to do" is disarm "paramilitary groups like the Irish Republican Army." I confess that I am ignorant of any "peacekeepers" (which, by the way, is not hyphenated) trying to disarm the I.R.A.. Perhaps Mr. Cohen is referring to the notorious human rights abusers, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as "peacekeepers?" If not, perhaps he can inform us what U.N. force is has invaded the north of Ireland and is pacifying the population? Perhaps the British Army and the R.U.C. have killed quite a number of people in Norther Ireland (mostly with bullets, at that). There are, in fact, 19,000 British Army troops and 13,000 R.U.C. officers in Northern Ireland (32,000 total armed troops), which is just larger than Connecticut (N.I. -5,500 sq. mi.; CT- 4,800 sq. mi.). Does Mr. Cohen truly believe that the sort of society they have in Northern Ireland is better than the United States? Such fast-and loose treatment of facts and argument leads me to believe that Mr. Cohen’s article was not the product of careful writing and editing, but rather an emotive piece penned to meet a deadline.

Second, as a third-year law student at Case Western Reserve University, I am shocked at what passes for Constitutional analysis in Mr. Cohen’s article. The clause "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" grammatically modifies the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Although it is true that the Militia is stated as the reason for the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it remains the case that the right exists- and "shall not be infringed." If we were to accept Cohen’s analysis, then the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial would have to be thrown out of federal courts, as well as state court lawsuits brought under statutory causes of action, since the Amendment begins with the phrase "In suits at common law," and no federal courts existed at the time the Constitution was ratified (they were later created by the Congress), and statutory causes of action cannot be said to derive from the common law. Such results, however, are clearly absurd.

Cohen’s suggested reading (or rather, intentional disregard for) the Second Amendment also does not fit with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," while the Tenth provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the mere fact that certain rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights does not imply that Americans have no other rights, and the federal government if limited to the powers delegated by the Constitution. Apparently Mr. Cohen is not aware of the need to derive constitutional authority for acts of the federal government. To be blunt, there is not enumerated power of the federal government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which might allow for a federal ban on firearms.

The remainder of his constitutional "analysis" is equally horrid. It is not relevant what policy notions lay behind the drafting of the Second Amendment, at least if a judge cares what the law actually is. Cohen, it is clear, does not care what the words of the law say, but rather that he get his way. Indeed, Cohen goes so far as to suggest amending the Constitution to allow for a gun ban. If the Second Amendment can be deleted by an Amendment, what is it that prevents other well-meaning fools such as Mr. Cohen fro, obliterating the First Amendment, or the Fifth? Presumably nothing but the two-thirds vote of the Congress and three-fourths of the states. Although Mr. Cohen was wise to interview Professor Kommers, it is glaringly obvious to one trained in the law that Mr. Cohen is not an attorney and has not understanding of Constitutional Law. In the event that Mr. Cohen has indeed gone to law school, for shame, as you clearly deserved to fail Constitutional Law, as well as Logic or any sort of Philosophy class which might have involved the construction and criticism of rational arguments.

Third, Mr. Cohen is unable to understand the point of John Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime. Cohen wonders how it is that the concealed carry of firearms reduces crime, noting that people do not wear bumper-stickers proclaiming themselves "Protected by Smith & Wesson." That is precisely the point. Because a criminal does not know whether a given potential victim is carrying a gun or not, that criminal is less likely to attack any potential victim.

Fourth, Mr. Cohen appears to contemplate no sorts of crime victims other than victims of personal property crimes. Although he mentions Ann Coulter’s desire for women to avoid victimhood by carrying guns, Cohen does not analyze what it is that women are most likely to be the victims of, namely rape. Although it is true, as Cohen suggests on page 36, that a homeowner might pretend to be asleep if he believes there is a burglar downstairs, such advice becomes silly in the extreme when a man enters a woman’s house not with the intent of stealing her VC, but with the intent of raping ro murdering the sleeping woman. In such a case, the woman is much better served by a weapon, especially a gun, since the woman may easily fire the gun and, if she does not actually shoot the attacker, the mere sound of the gun shot ma be enough to scare off the attacker.

Fifth, Mr. Cohen again abuses good journalism by conflating John Lott’s observation that guns deter crime by complaining on page 36 that gun ownership does not result in lower homeowner’s insurance rates. The two issues are distinct and separate, inasmuch as the higher insurance rates are, by Mr. Cohen’s own explanation, the result of the considerable dollar-value of many firearms. Cohen then reports the opinions of Don Griffin of the National Association of Independent Insurers to the effect that Griffin does not believe that guns in the home "reduce crime." Here, it is irrelevant what Mr. Griffin believes, as he is not an expert on the subject, and because Griffin himself concedes that his association "has never looked at it specifically." Also, once a burglar has broken into your home, the pistol in your hand will not "reduce crime:" the crime of breaking and entering has already been committed, and the crime of attempted rape may be in progress. But the pistol in your hand will reduce the likelihood that you will be a victim of a crime, since an attacker is more likely to go on his way when confronted by a gun than when you brandish a flashlight, baseball bat, or kitchen knife in self-defense.

Sixth, Cohen again abuses good journalism by uncritically reiterating the sentiments of Sr. Elaine DesRosiers of Mishawaka (page 37) that less students might have been killed if the Columbine murderers had not had guns. This is silly in the extreme, as there is no reason to suppose that the non-existence of firearms would not have spurred sufficiently devious youths to such tactics as poisoning the water, or, as happened last year on a Cleveland, Ohio school bus, spraying children in the eyes with bleach from a water pistol (but then, perhaps Cohen would outlaw water pistols as well; but then the would-be criminal could always use a spray bottle). Cohen, of course, fails to consider other possible means of mass terror, instead focusing on firearms. This is a severe weakness of his article.

Seventh, Cohen attempts to make a moral issue out of gun ownership by claiming that the U.S. bishops and the Vatican advocate control of small arms. It must first be considered that the Church teaches, as a matter of morality and hence infallibly, that persons are entitled to defend themselves, and that they have a moral duty to care for their own persons. It is not sensible to deprive oneself of the most effective mens of satisfying this moral duty, i.e. guns. Additionally, insofar as the Vatican and the U.S. bishops advocate laws restricting gun ownership, they are no longer teaching about matters of faith or morals, and their teachings do not bind on such a matter.

To be blunt, articles such as this sophomoric rant by Mr. Cohen are the chief reason why I have no respect for your magazine, and why I will never at any time contribute financially to your magazine. One would think that a major university like Notre Dame could find an intriguing, well-conceived article advocating gun control, but, alas, we are stuck with the worst sort of pabulum that one can read in a high school newspaper or in anonymous postings on the Internet. Again, I believe you said it best yourself: a magazine is only as good as its writers.

Indeed, there have been many better articles written concerning the Columbine tragedy. Tom DiLorenzo, an economics professor at Loyola College in Baltimore, trenchantly argues that it was the secularized public school education which the Columbine students received that is ultimately to blame for the tragedy. Rather than inculcate a respect for life, the public schools teach moral relativism, and by their immersion in the contraceptive culture of death, turn out precisely the sort of alienated young persons who committed the murders at Columbine. Sadly, such an insightful notion is utterly lost on Mr. Cohen, who would have us destroy guns to prevent murder, much as one might cut off penises to prevent rape.

Medina, OH

Well, you probably will discard this letter, and not care. My mom is an alum from way back when. I have visited and stayed at your campus in South Bend many times and have great respect for Notre Dame. I even own an ND hat. I’m a total born-again Christian, and I could care less about the differences between us as Protestant, and Catholic. I glanced at your mag this month, that had an article about guns, which was interesting to me. I'm just writing to say, I have done research and even did a term paper for my school, valley Chrisian hs, in which I am a senior. Your editor, Ed Cohen could not be more wrong, and in my opinion, even though I have never met the man, is a complete moron.

To ban the gun is first and foremost, unconstitutional, and second of all, its plain stupidity. I dont have time to give you all my stats or what not, I’m just dropping you a line that you have completely lost all respect from me, and my family. the plain fact is, that there is no way the American person would give up guns. I would honestly rather die than to ever give up any one of my eroding rights that grace the famous bill of its name. criminals will always have guns. making new laws wont help. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS, thats why they are criminals, .they wont care, they will still have guns. You can pretty much follow this pattern. well, Mr Cohen, you really think before you write.

P.S. What’s the crime rate in our nations capitol? Hellooooo? Guns are completely banned, and to my knowledge, it is the murder capitol of this great United States. Think. its a smart thing to do?

Thanks for having the courage to write the article about guns. I have long felt as you do, and I congratulate you on taking a clear and firm stance. You undoubtedly have received criticism for your work--please stand firm in your convictions.

The sad fact exists that people have become very emotional and sadly, somewhat irrational, about the whole subject. Listen to pro-gun advocates, write down the arguments and they are easily taken apart for the fallacies and erroneous conclusions. But deal with the same people face to face and you can sense a deep seated emotional bias supported in large part by such groups as the NRA.

One thing that I find ironic that you didn't mention. When armed to the teeth during the height of the cold war, President Carter coined the term "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) to articulate the US-Soviet standoff in nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. Of course, the MAD policy prevailed until the Soviets simply could not afford to play the game any longer. We all breath a little easier now that the big guns are being dismantled.

The irony exists in the ideas pervaded by those who believe that the same "MAD" policy will work on a personal level. Arm everyone to avoid damaging anyone. Nation states have already demonstrated such brinkmanship only created decades of fear that any mis-step could trigger a world-wide holocaust. It seems hard to believe that individuals refuse to learn the same lessons. Our own children continue to die while their deaths are being justified in the name of MAD armament policies for individuals. To amend an old phrase, "A society that lives by the gun dies by it."

Your article on banning guns was compelling, well-thought out and refuted all the arguments I have ever heard that gun proponents use to defend the use of the gun. The research that you included to support your article looked to be very thorough and supported your main contention very well. I'm sure you've probably already received many compliments on the article. The abstract graphics were also a nice complement.

I believe whole-heartedly in your statement, yet I cannot envision a USA without guns. A sad state of gun control is what I've accepted. And I truly believe the weapon most likely to kill you is the one the individual possesses. I am sorry to hear that someone's parents got killed and that Ms. Gratia felt defenseless, but we don't really know the outcome if she had had her gun inside the cafeteria. She might have killed the killer, maybe not; other events would have changed.

Before I go on and on about your article of which I totally agree, the downside to me is that what you suggest seems highly improbable given who we are and what we've become as a nation. Ours is a culture that has been cultivated for centuries now and a change like a total ban on guns is unlikely to come anything short of within the next hundred years, if it comes at all.

I'm enraged at the way guns have taken control of our lives. I'm a believer in non-violence. I also will do my part by never owning a gun. But like many other issues in the United States today, I feel helpless about guns.

Thank you for an excellent article and my first real glimpse at ND magazine.

Let us assume that our country has successfully banned firearms among citizens. No more gun sales. No more manufacturers of guns for personal use. All private gun owners have turned over their guns to the government. And finally, our borders no longer allow any guns to enter the country. In short, our prayers have been answered and the government has put an end to all uses of firearms by everyone (except for police and military forces).

Are you telling me that this would be a significant step towards peace on earth? How naive! The respect for life among criminals is unchanged and alternative weapons are available today to replace guns.

Our society appears to be straining at every level to expand individual rights, to raise individual self-esteem and to consider every life-circumstance as an excuse for immoral behavior. Our society’s respect for life is being limited by individuals fulfilling their selfish desires at the expense of their victims. Mr. Cohen’s article leads us to believe that good people are responsible for gun-related crimes because good people do not outlaw all guns. He implies that insistence upon individual responsibility is ineffective.

I would suggest that guns are marketed products with alternative products waiting to be introduced. I would further suggest that the crimes committed with weapons have a relatively low penalty for those committing the crime. In other words, demand for weapons is high among criminals because the possible gains from violent crime outweigh the penalties. Their sense of right and wrong is skewed..

Mr. Cohen and I are both angry about the use of guns to commit crimes but his analysis is substantially incomplete and is far from objective. I am disappointed that Notre Dame Magazine portrays this paper-shell thinking as a meaningful review which is worthy as a cover story.

I disagree with your premise, i.e., banning guns will decrease crime. Crime -- murder and all the rest of it -- is a spiritual problem. It requires a spiritual solution, not a legal or mechanical fix. I think it would be easier to rid hearts of hatred than to rid the United States of handguns. I mean it.

Cocaine is banned in every state of the Union; it's coming in by the boat load. Prohibition didn't work either. Congress is impotent to dispossess Americans from what they want to possess. Legislation is an ill-chosen tool with which to fight the forces raging through modern American culture. However, the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12).

Action follows thought. Every intentional shooting requires a gun, an angry and thus sinful mind to direct a hand to load it, hold it, aim it, and pull the trigger. It is foolish to blame the gun, the bullets, the hand or the trigger finger. Put the blame where it belongs, on the directing agent, the spirit (or the heart as you phrased it), that part of us the Creator breathed into our nostrils in Genesis 2:7.

It is basic, or fundamental (perish the thought) Christian theology that every man is comprised of body, soul (intellect-will-emotions) and spirit; the spirit governing the soul and thus the body. A person of godly spirit will be tempted to anger and hatred but, through God's power and grace, will bring those emotions into submission to divine will. Such a man, a true Christian, will not kill, gun or no gun. Cf., Galatians 5:16-26. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (v. 22-23). It's simple, just hard to do because of our naturally violent sinful nature, Cain and Abel being the perfect paradigm.

Work on the men's spirits, or hearts, and do it by telling them the Gospel message. That's what the resources of Notre Dame should be directed toward -- not gun control but soul control (by the way, where is Rev. Jackson on this issue?). You should be propagating the word of God, not that silly stuff in your well-researched article. God's ideas are better than yours or mine. We've been long and unfortunately successfully conditioned to look for human and technological solutions to spiritual problems, usually for reasons that empower or enrichen the conditioners. But human and technical solutions spawn false hope. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. (Proverbs 14:12).

When a man inhales God's word , he achieves spiritual communion with God the Father and stops committing homicides and other sins. But, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. So, how can one believe in what he has never heard? And, how can one hear unless there is a preacher? (Romans 10:14-17). Ergo, the great commission. (Matthew 28:19-20).

You and I should just follow orders, spread the Good News and let God, through his powerful word and Holy Spirit, stop the killing. It will work better than your idea or anything I could think up.

OK, let's corral this "Gunfight" issue one more time. Actually, if the view expressed in your article is extrapolated, I think it leads to the implicit conclusion that God does not exist, and that Jesus didn't do what he said he did, can't do what he says he can, and didn't keep his word when he said:

You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:14-17)

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. (John 14:26-27)

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

(Matthew 28:19-20)

Look at those words; they have power and meaning. You write as if you don't believe them. I believe them. Every homicide begins in the heart.

Neither you, nor I, nor the United States Congress is king of the big ant hill. To ignore the spiritual and to limit your focus to the legal and political is to take an argumentative and philosophical position that is congenitally and fatally flawed, literally and figuratively. The wages of stupid legislation is is only higher taxes and erosion of freedom. The wages of sin is death, physically and spiritually, and not necessarily in that order.

Why did you write that piece, anyway? If you are willing to say, I would really like to know.

Here are three quotes from Cal Thomas that, I think, question your premise also.

When a man and a woman decide that their family comes first, and order their lives in ways that prove their seriousness, society will prosper and politicians will have neither the authority nor the need to run our lives.

Thirty years of inattention to character, virtue, morality and a definition of right and wrong has led us to the present. A nation that has focused on physical fitness and changing the oil in our increasingly expensive cars every 3,000 miles has ignored the societal "manual" that requires certain moral and spiritual additives" if we are to enjoy an orderly society.

Politicians mislead people and contribute to their cynicism when they suggest that government can deliver us from our present predicament…when a building's foundation is in disrepair, it must be replaced. This will take a change of heart and mind that requires different behavior and lifestyle choices. No politician can legislate that.

At a time when legal scholars are giving increasing attention to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the debate over the meaning and desirability of the amendment has seen many well reasoned and useful arguments presented by both sides. Unfortunately, Ed Cohen’s article in the Winter 1999-2000 issue of Notre Dame Magazine is not one of them. Mr. Cohen begins his article by suggesting that, had there been a gun in his childhood home, he very possibly would have shot a kindergarten bully, and ends by suggesting that were handguns outlawed, public disapproval would ensure that murderers-in-waiting would comply with the new law. In between we are treated to a glimpse of an elementary layer of anti-gun arguments.

Mr. Cohen’s most telling argument comes early in the article, before he even begins to attack several pro-gun arguments. He informs us that "every criminal was at one time a law abiding citizen. Every well-adjusted citizen is at some time mentally disturbed…," and "Everybody hates somebody sometime." This is meant to suggest that everyone is "a potential ‘gunman.’" If I follow the reasoning, if everyone is a potential ‘gunman,’ no one should have a gun. Since at this point, Mr. Cohen has not tried to argue that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, he is saying that if I once thought about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I should now be deprived of my First Amendment rights. After all, I am clearly a potential abuser of those rights. He seems to see no difference between those of us who occasionally think reprehensible thoughts ("I hate him!") and those who act on those thoughts. Thank goodness the law does! Yes, Mr. Cohen, every criminal was at one time a law abiding citizen, but he is no longer. And that makes all the difference.

Mr. Cohen continues his article by addressing six "typical" arguments against a gun ban. The first of these argues that a ban would be unconstitutional. Here he discusses what is broadly recognized as the most difficult obstacle to a ban, without any serious treatment of the reasoning behind the individual rights argument. This argument is so widely accepted that it has come to be known as the "Standard Model." In fact, all other amendments in the original Bill of Rights that mention "the people," as the Second Amendment does, have been interpreted as protecting individual rights. The February 2000 issue of Lingua Franca, which devotes its cover story to this question, notes that "legal scholars have turned en masse to the … individual rights view." Even Mr. Cohen’s use of a study done by Michael Bellesiles proves problematic. This study purports to show, through a survey of probate records, that few Americans owned guns at the time the Constitution was written. If, in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide citizens with a means of last resort against a tyrannical government, the last thing they would do is announce their existence in a will. Even today, common sense would dictate that guns and cash are never listed as part of an estate.

Next Mr. Cohen addresses the self-defense argument. Here, two sets of data are bandied about – one set relates to defensive uses of guns and the other to the likelihood of gun owners to be killed in their own homes. Mr. Cohen brackets the number of defensive gun uses between 108,000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey) and 23,000,000 (Justice Department survey of firearms owners). Just as Mr. Cohen expects the high to be the result of self serving exaggerations by gun owners, we can also expect the low number to be the result of self serving exaggerations by the government, members of which would, after all, be the only individuals allowed to own a gun in the event of a gun ban. The truth, therefore, must lie somewhere in between. Gary Kleck’s 2,500,000 uses is on the low end of that in between. Perhaps Mr. Cohen’s most laughable statement comes when he discusses the New England Journal of Medicine study which found that "people who keep a gun in the house are three times more likely to be killed in the homes than those who don’t." After presenting evidence which shows that this study suffered from poor design, that its results were misrepresented, and that only four percent of the gun deaths in the study could be attributed to the homeowner’s gun, he concludes by saying, in effect, "Whatever, they were stilled killed by a gun." Now, this may be a point Mr. Cohen feels needs to be made, unfortunately it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument he was trying to construct.

The Guns Deter Crime argument is next up. Here, in the face of evidence he himself presents to the contrary, Mr. Cohen suggests that guns do not deter crime because no one wears a lapel button announcing that they are carrying a weapon, and that gun ownership is irrelevant in the case of burglaries because most occur when no one is home. In the case of robbery, Mr. Cohen should be especially thankful that lapel buttons are not worn since their absence allows him to take advantage of what economists call the "free rider effect." Upon seeing Mr. Cohen walking down a dark alley, a robber plying his trade in a concealed carry jurisdiction does not know if Mr. Cohen is a "gun banner" or a "gun nut," and therefore is less likely to rob him. Although he does not carry a gun, Mr. Cohen gets a free ride on the backs of those who do. In the case of a burglary, one of the main reasons cited by burglars when discussing why they do not enter occupied homes is fear of being shot. The very thing Mr. Cohen uses to show gun ownership’s irrelevance, proves its relevance.

Worth mentioning because it is so representative of this article, is the quote from Don Griffin of the National Association of Independent Insurers. Commenting on the deterrent effect of a home gun, Mr. Griffin says "First, I don’t think we’ve ever looked at it specifically and, second, we don’t believe it’s the case that it reduces crime." Please, Mr. Griffin, do not let a lack of knowledge stop you from giving an opinion. This is the verbal equivalent of the Mission Impossible tape – an opinion that self-destructs.

In his next section, Mr. Cohen presents evidence that shows the ineffectiveness and lax enforcement of current gun control measures. While gun rights advocates would use the same evidence to show that gun control only controls law abiding owners, Mr. Cohen uses it to show that the only effective alternative is a ban. Along the way he discusses the "gun show loophole," without noting that most gun rights advocates would like to see it closed. Mr. Cohen closes this section with a quote from the Violence Policy Center lamenting the inability of gun legislation to differentiate between "good" and "bad" guns. Unfortunately, neither the Center nor Mr. Cohen sees the truth staring them in the face – there are no "good" guns and "bad" guns, only good people and bad people.

Mr. Cohen then treads on dangerous ground by discussing the impact of culture on gun violence. This is ground is dangerous because it is a subject on which few are reluctant to offer opinions, although the true impact is little understood. At the risk of playing Mr. Cohen’s game, I’ll suggest that empirical evidence would seem to show that culture clearly has some impact, but I do not know how or why. Oddly enough, after spending the previous section explaining that gun controls do not work, Mr. Cohen states that part of the reason countries with high rates of gun ownership may have low homicide rates is – gun control! When he tells us that in Switzerland, known for requiring its citizen-soldiers to own guns, individuals are given bullets in a sealed tin which is inventoried upon reporting, he leaves a key question unanswered. What about ammunition that is not government issue, but purchased by the citizen? It would also be logical to expect that a likely reason to not allow the issued ammunition to be used is so a citizen-soldier always has an inventory of ammunition should he ever be called upon to serve. Furthermore, in the U.S armed forces issued ammunition is strictly controlled, as are issued weapons. A Marine or soldier caught taking so much as one live round home with him would find himself court martialed. The fact that these explanations did not occur to Mr. Cohen should not be a surprise, given the elitism he displays throughout his article. "Surely," he must assume the people of Switzerland think, "if I am able to use my own ammunition, the government will issue me some for that purpose."

Finally, Mr. Cohen pulls together all the arguments he has not yet made in his last section. Here he suggests that recent mass murderers would simply be grumpy young men if they were unable to get their hands on a gun. This sounds a lot like the thought that if we just ban alcohol we will have no more drunks or lewd behavior and if we just ban non-medicinal drugs we will have no more addicts. Unfortunately, in neither case was the desired behavior changed, rather we only created more crime and more killing. Mr. Cohen commits the most common error of short-term thinkers – he fails to consider secondary and tertiary effects. Rarely, if ever, are laws passed that do not create unintended consequences, Prohibition and the drug war being perfect examples. Suggesting that a gun ban would simply reduce homicide, accidental death, and suicide rates by the amount of deaths caused by guns is not simply myopic, it is ridiculous.

Most disappointing of all, however, is the fact that Mr. Cohen’s treatment of the most compelling reason for the existence of the Second amendment consists simply of a flip comment about the success of our constitutional government. Yes, I am talking about guns as the last line of defense against tyranny. Does the thought of having to rise up against a United States government in rebellion sound ridiculous? I hope so! Although Thomas Jefferson may have expected revolutions to occur with some frequency in this country, I doubt many other Founding Fathers did. In some corners of our society, to even speak of this reason for the Second Amendment brands one as a militiaman or an extremist. One does not have to believe, however, that revolution is imminent to understand why gun ownership is a right. This certainly puts the lawn darts as guns analogy in perspective doesn’t it, Mr. Cohen? No, I do not expect to see in my lifetime, or my children’s lifetime, or my grandchildren’s lifetime, an American government so tyrannical as to require a rebellion. Conspiracy theorists and militias have made a mockery of this final protection of democracy. No, Mr. Cohen, I do not want to put my faith in the high commander of the Michigan Militia, I want to put my faith in myself. I want a government that puts its faith in its citizens. Elitists like Mr. Cohen believe that government must tell individuals what is best for themselves, while I trust my fellow citizens. Unfortunately, as more and more information comes to light about our government’s activities at Waco, it seems clear that the Second Amendment serves a purpose. It is of no small note that the standoff at Waco began when BATF officers decided to serve a search warrant related to illegal guns with a massive show of force.

As this year we celebrate the continued success of our constitutional government with another peaceful, lawful presidential election, we should not forget the role the Second Amendment has played, and continues to play, in that success. It would do well for Mr. Cohen to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin when he said, "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Mark J. Davis ’81
West Chester, PA

more

Return to spring 2000
Notre Dame magazine home page