Getting Firearms ‘Off the Streets’ – Firearms Discussion (Part I)

By Dr. T. David Gordon

Getting Firearms ‘Off the Streets' - Firearms Discussion (Part I)
Getting Firearms ‘Off the Streets' – Firearms Discussion (Part I)
The Center For Vision & Values
The Center For Vision & Values

Grove City, PA –-( Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan rightly said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” He might just have rightly said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to be confusing.”

The discussion of any matter of public policy is not aided by using language in a confusing manner, and yet people rather routinely do this very thing. One of the most confusing statements one hears regarding firearms policy is this: “We need to get guns off the streets.” I have heard this statement many times for many years, and I still have absolutely no idea what that means.

One might as well say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.” There are (to my knowledge) no purple zebras, and there are no zebras of any color in the trees, so it simply would not make any sense to say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.”

Now, I have been driving an automobile for about four decades, and I have seen many things in the streets: I have seen children’s toys left in the street. I have seen children themselves playing in the street. On windy days I have seen trash cans rolling around in the street. I have seen dogs, cats, deer, rabbits, squirrels, and other animals in the streets. But I have not once seen a firearm in the street. Firearms are not in our streets, and so it simply does not make sense to say we need to get them “off” the streets, since they are not on them in the first place.

So, when people say that we need to get firearms “off the streets,” what do they really mean? Well, they could mean a number of things —some of which I would agree with, some of which I would disagree with, and some of which I would be willing to consider.

I would agree with the expression if it meant this: “We need to do what we reasonably and constitutionally can do restrict the possession of firearms by those who will employ them violently.” Yet, our current policies already address this; felons and those who have been adjudged mentally defective (and several other categories) are prohibited by law from possessing firearms, and I largely concur with such laws.

I would disagree with the expression if it meant: “We should prohibit absolutely all private ownership of firearms.” Unfortunately, this is, in fact, what some people do mean by the expression; they simply have not the honesty and/or intellectual clarity to say so.

Any policy that prohibited the private ownership of weapons absolutely would be unconstitutional and unwise.

As a third possibility, the expression could mean: “I would like to see the number of privately owned firearms in the United States reduced from 300 million to 250 million.” I would be willing to consider such a statement; and if a convincing case were made for it, I would be willing to agree to the policy. But there can be little progress on the public-policy front if people insist on employing language that is non-sensical (language that simply does not make any sense if taken in a straightforward manner).

If people desire to eradicate entirely the right of citizens to own firearms, they should say so. If they wish (for whatever reasons) to reduce the total number of privately owned firearms, they should say so. And if they wish to try to prevent the private ownership of weapons by criminals or the mentally deranged, they should say that, too. All three make sense; all three are clear; and all three could be discussed intelligently. Let’s start with honest language and then have an honest debate.

Editor’s note: This is Part I in a five-part series on the topic of firearms. See Parts IIIIIIIV, and V here:

— Dr. T. David Gordon is a professor of religion at Grove City College and a contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values.

© 2013 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

  • 2 thoughts on “Getting Firearms ‘Off the Streets’ – Firearms Discussion (Part I)

    1. It amazes me every time I read the editorials on Guns and the 2nd amendment, the editorials are always stating what is the problem and presenting the solution, what they think is the solution, they fail to study the history of other nations that took this path, I mean to disarm the citizen, and did use crime and violence in the society as a reason to make the society safer, and now we are using the kids as a added element.

      We need to study the history of nations that did disarm the citizenry, and find out what happened later after that took place, a very striking example come to mind 6000.000 millions JEWES that were led to gas chambers and killed. The history says gun registration first, people registration second, and the last and final solution was the confiscation of all the fire arms, that will give the Government a total control over the population, the citizens become subjects, they will do what they are told.

    2. I am getting very concerned about the direction and support I am seeing on the subject of “gun control”. The politicians and leaders of those groups supporting gun control are not stupid (no matter what we say, we actually know that).

      They know that over 20,000 gun laws have not been effective in reducing violent crimes. They know that making illegal acts even more illegal by adding increased penalties will not work. They know that criminals do not believe that they will be caught and convicted so the severity of the penalty is of limited consequence. They know that if the severity of the penalty were actually effective, more countries and states would have the death penalty and there would be no murders in the world. Yet they continue to use good sounding but meaningless terms like “tighter gun control” as if they have found law number 20,001 that will stop violent crime.

      They know that the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[Ratified 12/15/1791] and they know what that Amendment actually means. They know that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Columbine or 14 other mass shooting while it was in effect. They know the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Sandy Hook. Yet, they propose new bans with even broader definitions of cosmetic features to define as many weapons as possible. The few details they have provided about the new weapons bans they are proposing, are increasingly broad in their criteria such that they will eventually result in the registration then banning, and then confiscation of all firearms. They invent scary-sounding but meaningless terms like “assault weapons” to describe firearms with magazines. These groups refuse to provide any detail on their proposals for gun control, which prevents any meaningful analysis of the possible effectiveness and/or legality of those proposals until the very last moment. They know all this and yet they continue to propagate known lies and misleading statements to garner purely emotional support from voters for their “reasonable” restrictions on firearms and ammunition without any real rational justification or understanding. If they know all this, then what is their true purpose?

      Senator Diane Feinstein said that they have been working on their update of the “Assault Weapons Ban” for a year. So it appears they were just waiting for the next excuse to introduce it. They knew there would be another mass shooting so all they had to do was wait.

    Comments are closed.