The World Is Not a Peaceful Place

During my summer class on "Firearms and Crime" one of my students handed me Natalie J. Goldring's article "Creating a Global Transparency Regime" from the SAIS Review. ¹ He said he thought I would find it interesting. I did. As a criminologist, I do not usually find the time to read many articles by political scientists, unless they appear in criminological or criminal justice journals. At first, the concept of global transparency that Professor Goldring advocated intrigued me. Then I started to reflect upon all the issues involved.

The first aspect of global transparency with which I had a problem was the inclusion of all small arms in the transparency program. According to the latest Small Arms Survey (2002), ² there are about 639 million firearms in the world today, and civilians legally own about 59 percent of these. There is scant evidence that insurgents in various parts of the world are purchasing and using many of these legally owned weapons—certainly not enough to justify the creation of another UN bureaucracy to monitor small arms.

The second aspect of Professor Goldring's argument to which I objected was her use of the term "gray market." What is a gray market? Though intended as a negative term, it has no real meaning. If one does not like a certain legal way of selling something, one can call it a gray market and make people think it is wrong. An example of the gray market controversy in small arms can be found in recent debates about whether sales at gun shows by private individuals should be subject to the same background checks currently required for sales by licensed gun dealers. Recent criminological research indicates that instituting background checks at gun shows would only displace gun sales into other segments of the private market. ³

In my judgment, Professor Goldring's transparency regime will do little to harm the black market, but would cause problems for law-abiding citizens. Her argument is reminiscent of statements I have read by Hand Gun Control, Inc. and the Physicians for Social Responsibility. It may sound more scholarly, but its real goal is to regulate legal commerce. Her comments at the Hague Appeal for Peace Seminar point to her real agenda. "Almost without exception," she stated, "every illicit gun starts out as a legal gun. Eventually, a criminal may acquire that weapon. But it's the licensed dealer or the lawful gun owner who provides the gun. Whether it's by sale, by neglect or by theft, the transfer from the legal to the illegal market is by definition performed by a so-called law-abiding gun owner." ⁴ Apparently, Professor Goldring believes that there is no need for even law-abiding persons to own guns. She and I do not live in the same world. Many in the United States find it comforting to make believe that violence has played no useful role in the shaping of our country. In reality, violence has been a central aspect of some of the most significant and productive events in U.S. history. Historically, citizens of the United States have had to use their personal firearms to ensure that they shared in the nation's riches. Some examples of this include Shays' Rebellion (1785), the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794), and John Fries Rebellion (1799-1800). In addition, the experiences of social bandits, such as Henry Berry Lowry, Jesse and Frank James, and Billy the Kid also indicate that it has been necessary to use firearms to share in the nation's wealth.

Gun control activists are quick to point out the murders in which firearms are involved, but it is amazing that they never reference the lives that have been saved because there was no gun control and someone defended himself or his family with his personal firearm. I wonder, how many Jews and Gypsies might have been saved in 1941 at Babi Yar if they had possessed guns...