Written by Spencer Aland


There has been a lot of talk recently about gun registries since Canada has voted to disband its long gun registry. I wrote earlier that I am in favor of eliminating this registry, but I want to take some time to talk more about gun registries and how they relate to the 2^nd Amendment.


While I am not in favor of long gun registries, it is not for the same reasons as most gun advocates. I think a long gun registry is economically a waste of time and money; the number of crimes committed with long guns is so small that it is quite easy to trace them back to their original owners without any type of registry. Handguns however are a different story. Nearly all gun crimes are committed with handguns, almost all illegal sales are handguns, and handguns are among the top items stolen during home burglaries. I am in favor of a handgun registry and firmly believe that it does not infringe on the right to bear arms.


The idea of a gun registry is simple; it assists the police in discovering who was involved in a gun crime. I’m sorry to those of you that feel like a registry is a government conspiracy to be able to disarm the public at will, but I just don’t think there is any merit to that claim. If the government wanted to disarm the public I don’t think that a registry would make much of a difference since the military would likely have no problem going home to home if personal liberties were already so low that forcibly removing firearms was even an option.


The fact of the matter is that a handgun registry does not infringe on the right to bear arms. If you are a law abiding citizen you should be able to buy a gun whenever and wherever you want to, but the fact that you have to register that gun doesn’t block you from exercising your right. A registry does only one thing: it tells the police who purchased the weapon involved in a crime so that hopefully they can trace it back to whoever used it. I am a strong advocate of the 2^nd Amendment, but a gun registry has nothing to do with that. Arguing that a registry is an invasion of privacy is one thing, but please don’t drag the 2^nd Amendment into it.

Written by Spencer Aland



I’m afraid you’ll have to excuse me from blogging for about a weeks time. As a student I still have papers to write and reports to finish. I will be taking this week off from the blogging world in order to finish a policy paper I am writing on a flat tax for Britain.


Look back next week however for a new blog on gun rights.


In the meantime however, if anyone is so inclined as to send me a blog they have written on gun rights I would gladly post it this week. blogs@mygunsmyrights.com

Written by Spencer Aland


Call me weird, but I’m one of those people who really enjoys a good statistical report or looking at things through numbers. I was looking through the internet when I recently came across some interesting numbers, and I thought I might as well crunch them in a statistical model and see what comes out.


The numbers I found were the violent crime and murder rates by state as reported by the FBI, and the gun ownership percentages by state from the national firearms survey. I decided to go with the year 2003 because it was the most recent that had complete data from each state. All I wanted to see was if there was any type of correlation.


First lets look at the violent crime rates:

[For those interested, and can't read the graph (sorry about the resolution) the R-squared value is 0.0421, also the control variables were race (white value 0 and non-white value 1), educational attainment, median income, and population density.]

What does this prove? Nothing! I’m not going to say, “Look! crime actually goes down with more guns!” Because the correlation is practically non-existent. The important thing shown here is that crime does not go up or down dependent upon gun ownership. In fact, the number of privately owned firearms is completely uncorrelated with violent crime.


Next Murder rate:

[R-squared value of 0.0007 with same control variables]

The correlation with the murder rate is even lower. While this also serves to show that more legally owned guns don’t reduce crime it equally shows that more guns do not increase it. The problem with gun control is that it is entirely based upon the principle that reducing guns reduces crime.


I don’t believe that giving a gun to every law abiding citizen is the answer, but I would certainly argue that taking guns away from them is not the solution.

Written by Spencer Aland


A New Jersey Judge has ruled that a quadriplegic man has the right to own and operate a firearm. The man will have to mount the weapon on his wheelchair and operate it by blowing into a tube. The judge ruled that the man may hunt and use the firearm as long as he is surrounded by qualified individuals who can assist him in its operation.


I read this article several hours ago and have been unable to decide whether or not I actually support this decision. As a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment I feel obliged to say that the man has a right to own a firearm regardless of his circumstance, and that the ruling was just. However, I also understand the concern that some might feel towards a man with a firearm attached to his wheelchair bouncing through the forest. There is an obvious need for reasonable moderation when dealing with rights in order to preserve social order and safety; this is similar to the idea that an individual’s right to free speech does not outweigh the social costs involved should that individual yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.


I feel like I should revert back to what the meaning behind the 2nd amendment really is. The amendment represents an individual’s right to defend and preserve his self, family, and property. It also forces the government to live with an armed citizenry which would severely limit a government’s ability to become tyrannical should it ever choose to. The problem with the quadriplegic man in question is that he is physically unable to defend himself or his property without assistance. He is dependent upon others and/or technology to exercise his rights. Also his inability to use a firearm without assistance creates hazards not normally associated with personal gun ownership.


There are two main points that make me feel as if the 2nd amendment does not apply to this situation. Firstly, even if the man was allowed to own a firearm he would not be able to use it for defensive purposes even given the most inconceivable of circumstances. Secondly, the man cannot serve as a deterrent to criminals or any other type of tyrant for that matter. The man in question will only be able to use his weapon while hunting under strict surveillance, and quite frankly, the 2nd amendment was not written to protect hunting. Do I believe that the man should be granted the privilege to hunt under the circumstances the judge presented? Yes. But do I believe that the 2nd amendment should be used as justification for this man to have access to firearms. No.

Written by: Spencer Aland

(This is the first gun rights blog I ever posted, and since many of you may not have read it yet I thought a re-post of it might be appropriate – also, keep in mind that the context is set in England so that you are not confused)


The country’s top judge has demanded an increase in penalties to those arrested in possession of firearms. The Lord Chief Justice stated that, “Guns kill and maim, terrorise and intimidate” and that public safety must be paramount above all else. The main argument used by Lord Judge is one of deterrence, stating “deterrent and punitive sentences are required and should be imposed” such as mandatory minimum sentences for offenders including life sentences for distributors even if there was no intent to endanger life. In the debate over gun control there are a two major issues people often find themselves divided over: Firstly, where to draw the line between public protection and public dominion, and second, the trade-off between public and private deterrence.


At what point does the government change from protecting its citizens to controlling them? This is not an easy question, and it is one too often ignored by both citizens and governments. Government has a duty to protect its citizens from enemies and at times from each other. However, it is a slippery slope that leads governments down the path to total social control in the interest of protecting everyone everywhere all the time. Although the government should indeed be able to police its own citizens it should never be allowed to absolutely remove any single right. Does the government have a right to outlaw the possession of firearms by its citizens in the interest of protection if it means that they are severely limited in their own ability to protect themselves? Absolutely not.


The other question is that of deterrence. Is public or private deterrence a more useful method in fighting crime? In many crimes the use of public deterrence by the government is most often the best means. The government can do things not available to ordinary citizens such as fines and jail time. But in cases dealing with public or personal safety many times the best deterrence is private. A gun wielding criminal will be more afraid of a gun wielding citizen than of the possibility of incarceration. Private citizens concerned only for their own safety and not held back by court proceedings, warrants, or properly reading someone their rights can be the biggest deterrent of violent crime available.


If you discount the use of air-guns and only count real firearms, the use of firearms in violent crimes has continued to increase in the UK despite them being illegal (as reported by the Home Office Statistical Report on Firearms Offenses, pg 34). In a knee jerk reaction to horrific crimes committed in the past, the government is now controlling people instead of allowing them to protect themselves. Although it may be more difficult for criminals to get guns many will still get them. The problem is that the biggest deterrent against gun crime is no longer available.

Written by Spencer Aland


The city of Seattle is being sued over a recent mayoral ban on all guns in publicly owned lands or buildings. The mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, signed the new law even though Washington state law strictly prohibits any city or town from drawing up their own firearm laws. According to the existing state law, all cities are required to follow state law only without any additional restrictions. The law has no exceptions for individuals that have passed background checks or have legal conceal and carry permits. The mayor has even gone as far as to use tax payers’ money to post signs and media adds encouraging residents to call 911 if they suspect one of their fellow citizens is armed.


What I find most concerning about this situation is the fact that this is little more than a publicity stunt by a man who hates guns. There have been multiple cities that have attempted similar laws and they have all been defeated in court, and have been defeated very quickly and decisively – San Francisco being a prime example. Mayor Nickels knew very well that this law would be challenged and would be defeated and yet he still signed the law. Although I disagree with many people and groups, it is a fundamental right for them to be able to stand up for what they believe in – even if they will ultimately fail in their efforts. The problem I have with this situation is that the mayor is using his office, and tax payer money, to make a demonstration. It is wrong for a public official to squander away his duties as mayor in an attempt to picket gun rights. Greg Nickels can protest on his own time and his own money.

Under the 10th amendment any rights not directly granted to the federal government within the Constitution will fall under the authority of the states. However, the federal government has used the commerce clause to extend their authority to any and all things that “might” cross state lines, including firearms. Federal regulators have until now been able to force states to abide by specific gun control laws under these circumstances.


Montana has finally said that it will not follow federal gun control laws anymore. Montana now has a plan to label their firearms ‘made in Montana’ and they will only be for people in Montana. Since the firearms will not be distributed across state lines the people in Montana will finally be able to enjoy the full benefits of the 2nd Amendment.