If you debate gun issues, whatever side, you come across variations of this question: “Why do you need that type of gun” or “that many guns” or “a gun that fast.” The assumption is that there are no grounds to oppose a proposal that does not stand in the way of a need, or more broadly, that rights are dependent upon needs.

Such a question always has struck me as an imperious conceit ? it turns on its head our American tradition of making government answer to us when, in fact, the proper question always has been “Does the government need to do that?” In other words, I should be free to possess any type of property (gun or otherwise) or partake in any activity unless the government proves need (and power) to regulate or forbid it.

That assertion, of course, brings up the question of just what the “need” is behind gun control. Citations of murder rates are not prima facie evidence of a need for gun control, but of crime control. Gun control is but one proposed means. Means require proof.

Show me that a proposal both respects rights (including limited powers) and truly works to meet a real need, and I probably won’t complain. Fail on either count, and I’ll oppose it. Is it too much to ask not only that the government demonstrate its proposals can work, but that it back off if those proposals are proven ineffective ? regardless of my rights and its powers?

For example, I don’t even get to a question of rights in opposing waiting periods. The proponents have failed to prove that the means of waiting periods will work. In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated: waiting periods don’t help crime. Thus defense of waiting periods rests in the morally bankrupt hypothetical of “if it saves just one life…”

In fact, this “just one life” measurement is behind the gun control side’s confusion of end with means. As they see it, “saving just one life” ? if only in the hypothetical ? qualifies as a need. They are so certain of the outcome that hypothetical that they equate proposal with solution.

That assumption leads to their belief that my side is selfish and callous, standing in the way of a societal need. We aren’t ? we’re standing in the way of ineffective and/or risky proposals for fulfilling the *true* societal need ? crime control. Actually, by opposing an ineffective means, we are trying to force society to effectively addressing the problem. If the need is crime control, and the proposal (waiting periods) doesn’t work, then isn’t it morally wrong to pump in time and money that could be used for real solution? We need to ask questions along that line.

But more disturbing, we on the gun rights side often fall into the confusion about who owes answers and about who must prove both need and effectiveness. We must remind them: “I don’t have to explain why I need a gun. You have to explain why you need to take it away.” And keep questioning every step: “Is gun control the need or the means?” and “Will that work?”

You see, whoever demands answers is the dominant party. It’s time we started putting gun controllers in the position of answering our questions. It’s time we took back our traditional dominant role of demanding to know why someone needs to control us.