A Gun Owning Society Can't Also Be a Free Society

Twenty Holy Innocents have been sacrificed and six heroes have given the last full measure of devotion. So what do we do now? We can start a dialogue and fiddle with gun laws but that is not enough. We must use this scar on our society to help us face up to the gun violence that is embedded in American individualism. Hopefully, we can control the guns and salvage our freedom.

The deep felt and broad response to the events in Newtown suggests that some kind of gun control is now possible. The NRA has gone silent, closing its Facebook page. Political actors formerly allied closely with the NRA are shifting their allegiance. Senator Mark Warner (D – VA), who ranked high with the NRA, now says he favors "rational gun control." It seems, his daughters came to him about Newtown and asked him what he is going to do about it.

The clearest sign that the country is willing to take meaningful action is the drop in the share value of Bushmaster, the firm that manufactured the murder weapon. The decision of its hedge fund owners to sell this very successful company confirms that the smart money is getting out now because they think Congress is likely to act.

In the second presidential debate, President Obama laid out the major parts of a comprehensive strategy to address gun violence. His plan would address tactical aspects like magazine size, gun show background checks and legal questions. But he also wants to go to the fundamental values that permit and even encourage the violence in our society

The first part of his comprehensive strategy would change gun laws to deny guns to those most prone to use them violently, criminals and the mentally ill. Other obvious goals would be the banning of high-capacity magazines and the closing of the gun show loophole that allows purchase without a background check.

The president clearly calls for a total ban on military type assault weapons such as the AK-47 and the AR 15 Bushmaster. The Bushmaster is the weapon used in Newtown and it is the weapon of choice for mass murder. It was used by the Beltway snipers and in at least four other mass shootings since 1999.

A second part would do much to de-gun our society. It would go beyond the president's statement and treat all guns as a source of violence.  Such treatment would start with registration of, and limited access to, all hand guns. New York's Sullivan Act, which uses such permissive licensing, has proven to be a workable and effective model. However, registration and licensing alone would not be enough.

Guns have an enormous economic impact on our society and ownership should be taxed to the amount of the costs it imposes. This cost is estimated to be as high as $100 billion a year. Fines for non-registration could be set high enough to compensate the real costs and make registration the only prudent course. Variations could include required insurance policies and/or near confiscatory tax levels intended to discourage gun ownership.

This is all piecemeal gun legislation. President Obama said in the debates that while he wants to get AK-47s and AR 15's off the street, he also wants "a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally." He believes in "going deeper and seeing if we can get into [at risk] communities."

Research would seek to understand the relationship between guns, violence and the existing socioeconomic structure and, the president said, try to "get into these communities" that breed violence. The president is saying that it is not just guns. It is the whole social structure of values and rewards that we must understand and treat.

 The "burgeoning class divide" and cuts in government spending mean opportunity, education and a safety net are not available to the working class. Unfortunately, gun-related homicides and suicides and total gun related deaths are, as you would expect, statistically associated with unemployment, poverty, lack of education and socioeconomic class. The poor are left to fend for themselves, which creates the conditions "statistically associated" with gun violence.

America is a gun owning society and a violent society. All of these 250 million guns, the NRA claims, guarantee our freedom. Exactly the opposite is true; they curtail our freedom. The political state, the real guarantor of our security and freedom, depends upon free speech. Guns curtail freedom because they force us to watch what we say. You do not argue or dispute the armed individual. His gun thus interrupts communication and isolates him from community. An Open Carry society would be one very short on free speech.

In the face of the extreme individualism of Open Carry there will be no freedom or security, only antagonistic individuals prepared to shoot each other.