Arguments for and against gun control: synthesis of two articles

¶ … authors of How I See it and a Case for Gun Control, are passionate about their subject, scholarly in their approach, and care quite deeply about the Second Amendment. That being said, the two essays under consideration are diametrically opposed in their response to the actual issue of gun control, the use of supportive documentation, sociological and cultural evidence, as well as their rhetorical approach to the subject. How I see it argues in favor of the right to unconditionally bear arms -- the proliferation of firearms; A Case for Gun Control clearly in favor of stricter laws and regulations regarding the right to bear arms (Caffrey, 2008; Gottleib, 2008).

Frankly, there was a striking difference between the two articles that almost transcended the main argument. So striking in fact, that it was often difficult to accurately compare the two. The Caffrey article lacks credibility and substance, using illogic and twisting of the facts, fallacy and urban myth as the substantive evidence. Gottleib's version instead cites actual case law, academic and scholarly sources, and philosophical theses in order to buttress logical arguments. Certainly, it is possible to format a pro-gun position using the same sort of evidence as Gottleib; Caffrey makes sweeping generalizations without adequate vetting of his sources. Using materials from talk show host Rosie O'Donnell, for instance, even as an antithetical argument to his thesis, gives no credibility to the piece since neither Ms. O'Donnell or her show are known for being experts on the subject. Caffrey in fact resorts to broad, pundit-style oversimplification of the issues, such as, "They [gun control advocates] are willing to subvert the freedoms in the entire Bill of Rights to achieve their goals. By way of contrast, most gun owners will defend the rights of all Americans to speak out on issues (even gun control), to worship the religion of their choice, to have a fair trial and so forth (Caffrey)."

Caffrey disparages any and all intervention into the right to bear arms argument, viewing that right as immutable and unlimited. Gottleib, using Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 197, easily counters this with: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm (Gottleib)."

We might actually have had warning about the divergence in the two authors simply by the title. Caffrey's How I See It simply gives opinion, rather like a poorly organized speech at the local pub, filled with innuendo and remarks that intimate what "we all" should already know about the subject if we were enlightened beings. For instance, Caffrey claims, "from my perspective, gun control advocates don't seem to understand how swiftly crime can occur and how little time they have to summon the authorities (Caffrey)" The statement also seems to support the right of citizens to take the law into their own hands, by suggesting that law enforcement officials are not qualified to stop crime in an effective manner. It further suggests that we live in a lawless society in which crime is endemic and unchecked -- an Old West paradigm of kill or be killed, of fear, recklessness, and the inability of the law and Court system.

In essence, then, we have a diametrically opposed set of viewpoints; one based on logic and a systematic approach, rational to the extreme. The Gottleib argument even reads like a scholarly argument: thesis followed by supported arguments concluding with a sound basis for policy decisions called "A Proposal For Rational Gun Control" that reads like an initiative for a win-win situation that does not deprive anyone of basic Constitutional rights, but protects society in a more utilitarian perspective. Basically, it asks us why citizens actually need handguns in the home; it asks us to register firearms; instant background checks; stiff sentences for fun crimes; mandatory education, and a way to use technology to improve gun control by "registering" the ability to fire a gun to one person via handprint (Gottleib).

This is certainly in direct contradiction to using fear and actual scare tactics; car-jackings, home invasions, gang robberies, almost as if Caffrey rewrote the plot from the 1981 John Carpenter film Escape from New York. Frankly, if one needs to resort to illogical syllogisms and fear, then one's arguments cannot stand on their own. It is almost as if logic devolved into such fear that we should all line up right now and get our Saturday Night Specials!