The Case For Domestic Disarmament
In 1991, we at the Communitarian Network issued a paper titled "The Case For Domestic Disarmament," a high-profile position paper which stated that what is needed to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies.
The paper, which details that harm guns cause and the reduction in violent crime that a gun ban would bring about, discusses the efficacy of guns as a high-tech weapon and of disarmament in other nations, and argues against simple, vanilla "gun control." "The Case For Domestic Disarmament" instead proposes a ban on guns for everyone except military and law enforcement personnel, licensed pistol clubs, security services, and collectors. The paper was signed by 75 prominent academics, politicians, and opinion leaders, including: Independent Party presidential candidate John Anderson, former Illinois Senator Adlai Stevenson III, former FCC Chairman Newton Minow, former San Antonio Mayor and US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros, former US Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare John W. Gardner (Stanford), Benjamin R. Barber (Rutgers), John Coffee (Columbia), Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard), Albert O. Hirschman (Princeton), Charles Moskos (Northwestern), Philip Selznick (Berkeley), and many others.
This is, of course, one of our earlier publications on the subject, but it may be of interest given recent events. To read it, click here.
How about we disarm nuclear missiles first?
June 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm uncomfortable with the blanket nature of this disarmament. I'm also uncomfortable with the paternalism behind it.
Also, why is an exception made for collectors but not hunters?
June 30, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Case For Domestic Disarmament" instead proposes a ban on guns for everyone except military and law enforcement personnel, licensed pistol clubs, security services, and collectors.
why should we permit 'private' security services to walk among us armed?
They're far more likely to be damaged, druggies or sadists than even the cops, which administer rudimentary psych exams, at least...
June 30, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Why should working for Briggs or Pinkerton entitle you to carry a firearm when most people can't?
June 30, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a sad fact that the US Supreme Court has now prevented the disarming of our citizens. We are now free to shoot when we wish. This is but one more case where our country is stagnating as the rest of the world becomes more civilized.
June 30, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had no idea Switzerland was so uncivilized.
June 30, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but this idea is simply a non-starter and is counter-productive for things that might actually happen. We won't have comprehensive gun confiscation if there are 60 Democrats in the senate or 70 or 80. A broad majority of Americans oppose it. You might not like that but this is a democracy so we should respect it. It is the equivalent of the Republicans having their fantasies of eliminating Medicare and Social Security. The voters support those programs by large majorities and would destroy anyone who voted to kill them.
What's more, since this is one of the scare stories that Republicans use against Democrats in swing districts and states, it actually works against getting people like Jim Webb elected. And while Webb may be on the "wrong" side of gun control, he is on the right side of health care and minimum wage and war in Iraq and Iran and a lot of other things that we might actually win on in the next congress. So let's just drop it and move on to things that matter.
June 30, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even though the Supreme Court overturned D.C.'s handgun ban, there's lots of room for states and local governments to regulate gun ownership and use. The nice thing about that is that, for the most part, it lets rural Virginia be rural Virginia while New York can be New York.
This isn't enough for Etzioni, though. He wants blanket bans based on what he thinks is right. And most Americans just won't accept that kind of condescension. I support reasonable gun regs. But I don't support people like Etzioni walking around telling other people how to live.
June 30, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should we permit 'private' security services to walk among us armed?
More to the point, why should we let the government have guns?
June 30, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read an AP report today that of the 31,000 or so deaths by handgun in 2007 (I think), roughly half were suicides. The article indicated these percentages have been rather constant over the years.
Not terribly relevant to Etzioni's article, but certainly more interesting than the article itself.
June 30, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
More people die in motor vehicle accidents every year than by firearms. Let's ban motor vehicles!
More people die in alcohol related deaths every year than by firearms. Let's register all people who consume alcohol.
How many millions of firearms are there in the USA that are not involved in crimes.
Firearms are just tools to commit violence; If firearms are banned, then the violent among us would use some other weapon.
Shouldn't the "powers that be" try to address the root problems of violence, rather than the means used?
June 30, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said, gemini - but u got one part wrong:
"if firearms are banned, then the violent among us would use some other weapon."
actually, if firearms are banned, the violent among us will STILL use firearms. the idea that you can ban something thats easily made and readily available all over the planet is just silly, especially here in the USA. we have lots of guns and lots of land and lots of resources. we can make our own guns and gunpowder if we want to, and certainly will if we have to. a "firearms ban" has been talked about for more than a generation here in the states, so a great deal of weapons have been squirrelled away by gun owners for a long time. lots of folks will be turning in guns for sure, but that wont even amount to half of the ones out there. and of course criminals won't be lining up to hand theirs over, at all.
so maybe you kids should talk about banning something like fire or the wheel, which would be about as possible to achieve. unless and until you can eliminate access to those two things, the cold hard fact of the matter was summed up perfectly by a doritos commercial long ago -- "crunch all you want, we'll make more."
but by all means, have fun with your debate!
July 1, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Etzioni loves state power. He wants a muscular foreign policy, a strong security state, and now a disarmed public. He hasn't discussed his economic ideas much on this website (and I haven't researched them extensively) but I suspect that he, as a communitarian, wants the state to be heavily involved in economic and maybe even personal life. Like most commutarianisms he's concerned that too much diversity will destroy the unity of a society. And he believes that the state's educational institutions have a duty to instil the society's dominant cultural values into its youth. This is a vision that very much conflicts with the traditional American emphasis on individualism and which I doubt could ever take hold here. Etzioni's vision resembles the original leftist vision for Israel, a country in whose army Etzioni served. One thinks of the Kibbutz and universal military service as the best examples of Etzioni's vision. It's an Israeli vision, not an American one. While there is something appealing about the cooperative approach to life embodied in the Kibbutz, there's also something deeply un-American about the subversion of the individual to society and the demand for all individuals to adhere to a certain common set of values and behaviors that tie them to the group and create a very strong shared identity. Americans love their individualism too much. We love the idea of going against the grain, of being different. That may cause some conflict, but we value that individualism too much to sacrifice it to avoid conflict. We are a multicultural state--not a Jewish state or a Christian state or a secular humanist state or any other kind of easily pigeon-holed state. We celebrate our diversity. And we don't want to give it up, any more than we want to give up our guns.
July 2, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink