more guns (was: Reply to Margaret)

[Fellows, Jeffrey]

I very much agree with Wotjek's reply. I would also add that "no regulation"
is a form of "regulation" and hence a form of state action, just like "free"
markets. Consequently, one could argue that the lack of gun control is
itself a classist policy, since the wide availability allows people with a
beef against the system to express this beef with violence toward others.
The violence and the perpetrator can then be condemned in a way that masked
the importance of the social origins of the violence. In my opinion,
restricting the availability of guns will not change the causes of violence,
it will however reduce its lethality. 

My ultimate hope is that the reduction in lethality will give people more of
an opportunity to examine and discuss the social factors relating to the
underlying violence. I don't think this can be accomplished very well when
people are dead, and others are either retreating to gated communities,
arming themselves needlessly, or implementing draconian criminal codes.
Whatever happens, I don't think it serves any purpose (especially to
victims) to retreat from taking preventive action because a policy is
classist. That sort of logic reminds me of the linearity and determinism of
the capitalism-to-socialism transformation, and subsequent apologies for the
existence and promotion of naked capitalism. IMHO, of course.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Wojtek Sokolowski [mailto:sokol at jhu.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 10:14 AM
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: more guns (was: Reply to Margaret)

At 03:40 PM 5/6/99 -0400, Margaret wrote:
>My objection to the gun-control deal, I guess, is that
>it's very classist and more than slightly fraudulent.
>It's a facile thing to do:  we can congratulate
>ourselves that we've Taken Action.  It's like
>targetting the socially-marginalised kids, the gamers
>and goths.  It's a feel-good act that allows us to
>scapegoat the powerless while maintaining the illusion
>that the powerful are blameless.   It's 'aspirin for a
>brain-tumor headache'.   It's like eroding the Fourth
>Amendment.   The asset-forfeiture law is passed to get
>at the major drug dealers, and a few years later an
>innocent woman no longer has a car to drive because her
>husband got caught soliciting a prostitute.  How many
>of the ruling elite ever go to jail for dope offences?
>How many of them ever go to a serious jail for any
>offence?  How many ever get their property confiscated?

I see your point, but I also think there is something in between a total
ban some propose and virtual laissez faire  that exists now.  In fact, the
Second Amendment cleraly stipulates effective regulation ("well-regulated
militia") - and I am surprised that victims of school massacres involving
fire arms did not sue their respective states for the violation of the
Second - namely their failure to implement effective regulation of fire
arms.

The absence of such regulation can be clearly demonstrated by comparison
with  driver licensing.  Every owner/operator of a motor vehicle is
required to register the vehicle, obtian liability insurence and pass
driver competence/safety test before he/she is issued a licence.  None of
these regulations abridge in any way the "right" to own a means of
transportation, even though no constitutional law stipulates that such
transporation sould be 'well-regulated'.  

So the fact that similar regulations have not been enacted in relation to
gun ownership can clearly construed as a state's violation of the Second -
resulting in gund falling into the hand of minors who subsequently
inflicted substantial harm on others.  I am surprised that such a strategy
has not been pursued in courts, or was it?

A broader point is that regulation can greatly improve gun-related safety
and provide effective means to prosecute criminal elements for gun law
violations than no regulations at all.

Wojtek