Handguns: Fighting for Freedom

By Ryan D. Gorsche | Monday, April 1, 2002

The Violence Policy Center and its founder and executive director Josh Sugarmann have outdone themselves once again. Their newest contribution to the anti-gun canon is the book Every Handgun Is Aimed At You. With a title as ludicrous as this, one can expect to find Sugarmann presenting the usual emotionally-charged arguments using faulty and contradictory logic that the Violence Policy Center has employed so well in previous efforts (TDR 'A War on Guns?' Feb. 26, 2001). In terms of gun literature, Sugarmann is the intellectual equivalent of Ted Nugent.

The Violence Policy Center has coined such terms as 'assault weapons' and engineered their 1994 ban. The Center accuses firearms companies for audaciously daring to sell their products, and they have recently taken on a new pet project—'sniper rifles' which are 'capable of pinpoint shots from distances of up to 2,000 yards—so that a marksman could hit a target next to the Pentagon in Virginia when firing from the Lincoln or Jefferson Memorials in Washington, D.C.,' according to Tom Diaz, a writer for the VPC. While it is debatable whether sniper rifles are so accurate, Diaz is anything but. He forgets to inform us that such rifles account for less than ten murders a year in the entire country. And so, with the customary flawed logic and misinterpreted information, Sugarmann attempts to explain why all handguns should be banned or, at least, banned from law-abiding citizens.

Sugarmann begins the book by explaining the horrific fear of handguns, claiming that our entire lives are held hostage by handguns and their 'unparalleled lethality.' Indeed, 'this permanent state of fear has become so accepted that we rarely even acknowledge it.' The American people are so frightened of handguns, they don't even know they are frightened. We live in fear.

Such dramatic appeals—claiming to understand the American people's fear while even they themselves do not understand—remain standard throughout Sugarmann's work. He backs up his many, but flawed, statistics, with anecdotal evidence that appeals to the emotions.

Sugarmann claims that firearms companies are continuing to sell such weapons to a dwindling market, citing the statistic that one in four Americans own handguns. The DVDForum cites that one in four households (not individuals) own DVD players. It would be a far jump to claim DVD players as a dwindling market. To Sugarmann, this 'minority of Americans' who own handguns hold the 'non-gun-owning majority hostage.' According to Sugarmann's statistics, 36.6% of Americans support a ban on handguns (Sugarmann leaves this 'fact' uncited.), so logically we should ban handguns according to Sugarmann. Even if 36.6% of Americans do favor a ban, it still leaves 64.4% of Americans undecided or in support of handguns. Clearly, just because an American does not own a handgun, it does not mean that he does not support a fellow American's right to own one.

Perhaps because his explanation goes so poorly, Sugarmann moves away from the discussion of the reasoning behind banning handguns and moves to more personal subjects like 'Handguns and Suicide,' 'Handguns and Self-Defense' and 'Handguns and Crime.'

In his discussion of suicide, Sugarmann points out that six out of ten Americans who kill themselves use a firearm—of the 17,566 firearm suicides, 3,519 involved handguns. A person, not a firearm, makes the decision to kill themselves (The 'Blame the Finger, Not the Trigger' argument), yet Sugarmann argues that these suicides are the fault of handguns. Sugarmann argues that, since handguns are readily available (nevermind that earlier he called handgun owners a dwindling market and small minority), suicidal individuals can act on impulse. Apparently, a person cannot impulsively leap off a bridge or swallow a bottle of pills. Nonetheless, Sugarmann cites the statistic that only 'ten to fifteen percent' of suicidal people show a determination to kill themselves without firearms, but, earlier, Sugarmann said that six out of ten Americans kill themselves using firearms. Thus, four out of ten kill themselves by other means. Since Sugarmann uses these statistics at two different points in the chapter, he must hope that no one notices this discrepancy.

To make his argument more poignant, Sugarmann shares with us the saddening story of Leticia Stark who lost her son George to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. George's father kept several collectable handguns locked in a gun cabinet with an alarm system. Only George's father had a key, and when George decided to kill himself, he had to steal the key that his father carried and disable the alarm. The story involves George going through quite some effort to finally procure the weapon that ended his life. Contrary to what Sugarmann suggests, George did not act from some impulse, but ended up going to greater lengths than he would have had he hanged himself or overdosed. I doubt very much that the George's family kept the medicine cabinet or the rope in the garage under lock and key.

Sugarmann moves on to 'Handguns and Criminals,' claiming that handguns are the most common weapon used by criminals when committing violent crimes. True or not, Sugarmann seems to equate criminals with law-abiding gun owners. According to John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime, one of the largest surveys of gun use and crime, handguns have reduced crime by allowing law-abiding citizens to stop violent criminals in the act. Enough that concealed weapons laws have caused violent crime to drop 4.9%. In England, with its tough stance on guns, homicides doubled after it began using rigorous gun control measures. But, as Sugarmann disregards, those who choose to use firearms for criminal purposes will be able to procure weapons illegally. Unfortunately, law-abiding citizens, like those in England, will be out-gunned if a violent crime occurs.

According to gun writer Christ Bird, 'A handgun is the hardest firearm to shoot accurately.' Thus, Sugarmann concludes that handguns are ineffective against stopping crime. However, law enforcement personal still choose handguns as their primary weapon of protection, and when used properly a handgun remains the best protection in close combat situations, such as stopping violent criminals.

Sugarmann argues that the founding fathers of our nation did not intend for the Second Amendment to give individuals the right to bear arms. Sugarmann claims that historians have 'all but unanimously come down in favor of an interpretation that the amendment was created to protect state-organized militias rather than guarantee and individual right to own a firearm.' Historical anecdotes, however, point otherwise.

George Washington wrote, 'The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.' James Madison said, 'Americans have the right and advantage of being armed unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.' Even Gandhi said, 'Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.'

Sugarmann furthers his argument by claiming that handguns were not as great a part of American history as is commonly believed. His evidence comes from periods prior to handguns being fully developed and effective. Although the automobile is important to America today, one wouldn't expect car ownership to be high in the nineteenth century. 'At most only a tenth of the nation's population individually owned guns,' he writes. A handgun's foremost use is for personal protection, and with a vast increase in the rate of violent crime between 1850 and 2001, one can expect to find an increase in the percentage of gun ownership.

Sugarmann employs the type of logic that a elementary student could pick apart. He appeals to the emotions, choosing dramatic exaggeration—shown so well in his title—to prove his points rather than logical or factual arguments. Factual arguments would only prove him wrong.

While Sugarmann is ready to revoke the Second Amendment and demonize pro-gunners, he'd surely cry out if his First Amendment rights to publish this useless drivel were revoked. It is, after all, this freedom to bear arms that preserves our liberty.

Handguns: Fighting for Freedom

Article Tools

Related Articles