(en) US, WSA's Ideas and Actions*, The Second Amendment and Closed Horizons By Steven Fake

The horror of the Oak Creek and Aurora shootings has once again revived the recurring
national debate on the relevance of the Second Amendment for modern society. ---- The
controversy is typically framed by the National Rifle Association ? essentially a gun
industry front group ? on one end, and liberal gun control advocates on the other. This
polarity generates much heat, yet skillfully avoids any serious consideration of the
underlying cause of the explosive violence in our society, and forces a closing of the
political imagination. ---- It is striking that the extensive media analyses that follows
in the wake of these periodic shooting outbursts scrupulously avoid a salient fact.
Namely, that it is well established in the academic literature that there is a robust
correlation between a nation?s economic inequality and its violent crime rate.1

Proponents of gun law reforms often imply that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant
to modern society. Why this should be is not entirely clear. Contrary to stated national
foundational aspirations, the U.S. now supports a large standing army. The military is so
powerful that private weapons ownership is actually supposed irrelevant to the original
concern to provide a check on government force. However, parity with the military is not
necessary to act as a disincentive against government heavy-handedness.
The Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement knew this well and would have
likely found an erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee troubling. No doubt any sensible
popular movement is well advised to remain as scrupulously nonviolent as possible. Yet the
basic concern motivating the Second Amendment remains as real as ever.
A heavily armed populace can indeed be remarkably violent. An authoritarian police state
with an unchallenged monopoly of force begins to look attractive in comparison with bloody
chaos.
However, the choice ? between gun rights and potential popular power versus public safety
? is a false one.
In fact, gun ownership is not particularly correlated with national firearm homicide
rates. To take an example, in Somalia the rate of firearms ownership is only 9.1 per 100
people (compare to 88.8 in the U.S.).
Many of the opinion shapers pushing heightened restrictions on gun ownership are no doubt
sincerely concerned with public safety. But they jump to a troublesome solution to a
symptom that leaves the underlying problem of inequity utterly untouched. There is also a
concomitant underlying assumption that the government is essentially legitimate ? that it
should have a monopoly of force. The Bacon, Shay, and Whiskey rebellions are a very
distant memory.
The U.S. will not be adopting British gun laws anytime soon. The debate actually hinges on
stricter background checks and restricting high powered weaponry like assault rifles and
large magazines weaponry. Unquestionably, some line on firearm ownership must be drawn. No
sane society will allow every citizen who wishes to obtain, say, a tank, or a bomb. We
don?t want Sheldon Adelson purchasing fighter jets for his own private militia.
Moreover, there are very legitimate grievances against the U.S. gun industry and its sales
to illegitimate international forces ranging from Mexican drug cartels to unsavory armed
actors in conflicts across the globe. The U.S. leads the world in lubricating lethal
conflicts with such opportunistic small arms sales.
However, that discussion is a different one from a focus on tackling the source of
violence in our society. The obvious first step towards reducing crime is straightforward
? drastically reduce inequality. Is it any surprise that such talk is permitted no space
in the sanctioned public dialogue?
Steven Fake is coauthor of Scramble for Africa: Darfur ? Intervention and the USA. He
resides in Washington D.C.
===========================
* Journal of the anarcho-syndicalist WSA
a-infos-en@ainfos.ca