A reader writes, in response to my July 27th piece, The Gun Control Factor:

Yes, laws don’t stop criminals from obtaining and using guns. Laws also don’t stop criminals from stealing, murdering, raping or assaulting, so why bother having them on the books at all, right?
Here’s a thought, perhaps it makes sense to at least make it difficult for criminals to harm innocent citizens (radical idea, I know!). I’m such a pinko commie, I’d even like to make it inconvenient for lunatics to acquire weapons of mass killing (e.g. high capacity magazine guns and assault rifles – neither of which has ANY legitimate hunting of self-defense role).
Remember, NRA flaks: “Guns don’t kill people, guns help cowards kill lots of people.”
Peace

The writer is making a fatal category mistake here. Laws against stealing, murdering, raping or assaulting do not make any attempt to stop those things, but simply impose a stiff penalty for their infraction. In contradistinction, gun laws are designed–in good faith but with little competence–to prevent weapons falling into the hands of those who would do ill. Lawful citizens do not refrain from murder because it is illegal, but most will refrain from carrying a concealed weapon because it is illegal. The intention of the laws is different.

The “thought,” that “perhaps it makes sense to at least make it difficult for criminals to harm innocent citizens,” does indeed make perfect sense. In fact, it is precisely the same thought as mine. But I would quibble with the claim on radicalism. Because gun laws do not make it difficult for criminals to obtain guns, but by definition only restrict the law-abiding citizenry, they fail spectacularly to “make it inconvenient for lunatics to acquire weapons of mass killing” and instead impose restrictions upon those who have no interest in such, while simultaneously depriving them of the capacity to defend themselves when said lunatics step out of line.

The truly radical idea–I would go as far as to say the idea on which this country was founded–is that the citizenry is paramount, and not the government. In such a society, the attitude toward violence is a key indicator of the attitude toward power: To create a system in which there is a duopoly on violence, shared by the state and the criminal element, is simply inconsistent with the American principle that rights preexist the social compact, and that power flows from “we the people.” I have always considered it the most egregious example of twisted historical understanding that so many looked at the execrable history of the twentieth century and concluded that the people who needed to be disarmed were the free citizens.

I’m afraid to say that the only person in this debate who is (inadvertently, I accept) striving to “help cowards kill lots of people” is my correspondent. It is one thing to sign off with the word “peace,” but quite another to understand from what materials peace is hewn.