Dr. Michael S. Brown
August 28, 2000

The history of the gun control debate has been marked by several
truly great documents that are eternally enshrined in cyberspace and
will be treasured by historians of the future. When these memorable
documents are examined in future centuries, which treatise will
stand above the rest as being the best, the most important, or the
most representative of the entire debate?

One candidate for greatest document of the gun control debate is a
1989 essay titled, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” by
highly respected legal scholar Sanford Levinson. A liberal himself,
he served notice to liberal opponents of gun ownership that they
could not simply ignore the Second Amendment. This single law
review article started an avalanche of research into the meaning of
the long neglected Second Amendment. The overwhelming majority
of the researchers say that it does indeed guarantee an individual
right to keep and bear arms, just as ordinary folks have believed for
two hundred years.

Another possibility is John Lott’s exhaustive scholarly study of the
relationship between guns and crime in America. To make this
complex study more accessible, he distilled it into quite a readable
book, “More Guns, Less Crime”, published in 1998 and currently
offered in an updated second edition. The chapter on how Lott has
been the victim of personal attacks, since his work is unassailable, is
worth the price of the book.

Some might vote for Olsen and Kopel’s 1999 law review article,
“All the Way Down the Slippery Slope”, a well written and well
researched description of the history of gun prohibition in England.
It elegantly demonstrates the historical relationship between
increased gun control and increased crime.

STILL A NATION OF COWARDS?

These are all great documents that will be treasured by history, but
my favorite is a 1993 article by Jeffrey R. Snyder: “A Nation of
Cowards”. Snyder distilled the arguments for private gun
ownership, disposed of the arguments against it, and claimed the
moral high ground in this landmark 5,800 word essay.

I first read “A Nation of Cowards” sometime in 1994 when I was
just beginning to realize the danger that America faced from the gun
prohibition lobby. Snyder’s writing helped me to focus the random
thoughts that I had already developed and added a few that had not
occurred to me yet.

He pointed out how the movement to ban guns was related to the
change in the way Americans are taught to think of themselves. A
few decades ago, before the gun hating really got started, young
people were encouraged to develop self-respect, dignity and a sense
of personal responsibility. This was built through their
accomplishments, by assuming responsibility, and honoring
obligations.

This traditional value system gradually changed to one where
self-esteem is now paramount. A young person is taught that they
are a precious and important member of society regardless of their
own efforts or accomplishments. Many observers have noted the
way in which this leads to a poor sense of responsibility and a
higher risk of criminal involvement, but Snyder takes the logical
chain a step further.

He demonstrates how our entire approach to fighting crime has
changed. Rather than accept the slightest risk to our precious skins,
we are taught that we must give in to criminals whenever the basic
precautions like locked doors and alarm systems fail to protect us.
Almost every American now believes that it is not worth hurting
someone, or being hurt, over stolen property. Even potential rape
victims are taught not to fight back. Recent articles in women’s
magazines suggest trying to chat with a rapist or even asking him to
use a condom.

In short, we are all to blame for our current crime problem, because
we have decided that fighting back is not appropriate. Crime
increased largely because we made it easier and safer. This is a
direct result of the changing value system that teaches us to value
life above pride and self-respect.

Anti-self-defense groups have tried to blame the crime problem on
law abiding gun owners for allowing their guns to fall into the hands
of young people who then turn to a life of crime. Snyder compared
this with a television commercial that urged people to lock their cars
with the slogan, “Don’t help a good boy go bad”. At the time, the ad
was considered offensive (and racist, I believe) by enough people
that it was soon dropped, but that same logic is still used today by
the gun haters.

“A Nation of Cowards” lays out the arguments for civilian gun
ownership that have only grown stronger in the last seven years. It
mentions the inability of the police to protect us from crime by any
means other than locking up criminals after the fact. It asks us to
consider what will happen if we are prevented from dialing 911 or
how we can protect ourselves if an attack is imminent and the
police response is less than instantaneous.

It was also the first article I recall that pointed out an interesting
paradox in the way that anti-gun individuals view the police. They
believe that the ability to dial 911 absolves them of all responsibility
for their personal defense. Although they consider it immoral and
dangerous to use a gun to defend themselves, they are perfectly
happy to allow underpaid police officers to bring guns into their
neighborhoods and do the dirty work for them. The fact that this is
a glitch in their moral system never seems to trouble the true gun
haters.

The elitist nature of the gun prohibitionists was obvious even in
1993. The politicians and elite journalists who spoke out against gun
ownership were either people who were protected by bodyguards,
or thought that gun prohibition would never apply to them because
of their exalted status. They demonized gun owners with coldly
calculated misleading statements similar to those they use today.

Some of their worst and most dishonest diatribes were directed at
laws allowing concealed carry. The idea of ordinary citizens
carrying guns responsibly drives them crazy. The success of these
laws in the last two decades proves their whole view of guns is
incorrect. Even before John Lott’s famous study, it was becoming
obvious that something was seriously wrong with the old theory that
guns cause crime.

Every point made by Jeffrey Snyder in “A Nation of Cowards” is
still valid today. I believe it will stand the test of time and deserves
to be called the greatest document of the modern American gun
debate.

References:

A Nation of Cowards
Jeffrey R. Snyder

Reply to A Nation of Cowards
George Will

All the Way Down the Slippery Slope
Joseph Olsen and David Kopel

The Embarrassing Second Amendment
Sanford Levinson

More Guns, Less Crime
John Lott

————————

Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist who moderates a large
e-mail list for discussion of gun issues in Washington state. He may
be reached at [email protected] or www.geocities.com/rkba2000