A Theologic War

Otto von Bismark is widely credited with the observation that it is better not to see how laws and sausages are made.  Actually, that saying originated with John Godfrey Saxe, a 19th century American poet.  Saxe's retelling of the Hindu story of the blind men and the elephant sheds light on our current debate over gun control.

It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
and prate about an Elephant
Not one of them as seen!

In the wake of last month's school shooting in Connecticut, the Obama Administration today will recommend several actions intended to reduce gun violence.  Requiring universal background checks has wide public support, but will be difficult to enact into law.  An outright ban on assault-type weapons will no doubt prove even more difficult.  In recent days the discussion about gun control has taken on the trappings of a "theologic war" with both sides railing at each other, or talking past each other, with great passion.  Finding common ground will be hard work as this "theologic war" is waged in Congress and the public square.

For example, we do not even have a common term of reference for the weapons some wish to ban.  Gun control advocates describe semi-automatic rifles, such as the Bushmaster, as "military-style" or "assault weapons," while 2nd Amendment defenders say these are just civilian rifles widely used for hunting and target shooting.  (I would note, however, that the Bushmaster's manufacturer touts its product as an "Adaptive Combat Rifle.")

Opponents of gun control assert that if you take these "combat" rifles away from responsible, law-abiding citizens, then only criminals will have such weapons.  Note, however, that civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons (commonly called machine guns) was heavily restricted in the National Firearms Act of June 26,1934, passed in response to Prohibition Era gang violence.  Those restrictions were reaffirmed in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of May 19, 1986.

Today some 175,000 machine guns are privately owned.  The rarity of these antiques has made them highly valuable, e.g., $10,000 or more each.  To my knowledge there is no evidence that machine guns have been used for criminal purposes since the NFA was made law.  Yet some gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment advocates want the ban on machine guns lifted.  Why, they argue, should sportsmen be denied their God-given constitutional right to hunt deer or target shoot with a Tommy Gun?

Thompson Sub-Machine Gun

Why?  Because those who advance the "only criminals will have them" argument are off by about 180 degrees.  In truth, if a specific weapon is available to responsible, law-abiding citizens, then it will be equally available to criminals.  This is an elephant I don't want to see! •••