Mock ‘N Troll Hall of Fame vol. 2

When guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns.

Mock ‘N Troll hall of fame 

Dear Reader,

I write from the suburbs of Denver, on my first out-of-state trip of pandemic. Twenty-two years and 4 days ago, two teenagers killed 15 people, injured 28 more, then killed themselves at Columbine High School, ten miles from where I sit.

I am staying with a friend I met during law school through the Federalist Society. Though both of us soured on the modern incarnation of the Republican Party long before Trump, my friend remains a gun lover. There are a lot of liberal and moderate gun owners in America. I am one of them. Some states, like Vermont and Colorado, which have socially liberal cultures are still hesitant about any increase in gun-ownership regulation. There are coherent arguments made by well-meaning people against gun regulation. This is not about those. This is another entry in the inaugural class of the Mock ‘n Troll Hall of Fame. Today: “When guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns.”

After a mass-shooting in Australia, guns had a mandatory buy-back program. Gun crime has plummeted. Hardliners on both sides point to this example; from the left: “we can just do what Australia did!” and from the right “that it they are coming for your guns!” But this is not a serious proposition by anyone. Most proposed measures have been modest and poll-test very well. Closing some purchasing loopholes, increasing the rigor of background checks, including red-flag legislation to protect communities from the most dangerous folks. But the bumper-sticker phrases are trotted out to scupper even the slightest of these.

Taken at face value, this is an argument against law. If you criminalize booze, distillers become bootleggers, sure. If you set speed limits, only the people going over will be breaking them. It is pithy, relying on a rhetorical trick (here, chiasmus) so it gets by without the additional scrutiny that it deserves.

Presumably, they mean ‘nothing can stop highly motivated people from getting the guns.’ This is the same argument that has been made since Columbine, but I want to point out how inconsistent that is among other advocates.

One principle of legislation is not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The existence of robberies and murders are not arguments against making robbery and murder illegal.

Just two years ago, the feds under Trump made it clear that it’s efforts against vaping was To cut down on tobacco-related illness, as have all other anti-smoking measures. What they don’t argue is that since some people will always smoke, why would we regulate it?

An entire federal agency, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration promulgates rules and guidance to reduce wrecks. They don’t pretend that they will never have wrecks, nor do they use the existence of incorrigible reckless drivers as a reason not to try.

Anti-gun-control advocates are frequently also anti-abortion advocates. But TRAP laws, requirements on advising from doctors, and timeline restrictions are all based on principles of harm reduction. To the proponents, it is about reducing the number of abortions, even though they recognize some will occur, as they have throughout human history.

I have argued that if one simply picks preferred outcomes, that is not a philosophy. Likewise, if you use one process that you claim is morally required in one circumstance while ignoring it in all others, it is not a process.

Holding your interlocutors to a standard above that if a goldfish is not combatative or insulting. The greater disrespect is to let them repeat these things unchallenged.

Best,

Jim