A few months ago, I stumbled upon a blog called Southern Female Lawyer, written by an East Tennessee attorney who claims to be very liberal, and promises to “judge you when you use poor grammar.”  My kind of woman.

Not long ago, SFL posted an entry [UPDATE: The original post no longer exists] about a man who carried a gun into a grocery store without the proper permits, and apparently without the proper training.  The weapon fell out of his pocket, discharged, and the round struck an employee in the hip.  Southern Female Lawyer thinks this is a bad thing, and told us so.  This, of course, sparked a somewhat heated discussion with a Second Amendment advocate in Texas who calls himself Bob S. and runs a pro-gun blog called 3 Boxes of BS. Hilarity ensued.

Southern Female Lawyer does not hold the typically liberal position on these things, and doesn’t seem to have a problem with regulated concealed carry laws that require training and restrict where people can take their weapons.  But she also seems to have little faith in the ability of the average gun owner, carrying a pistol around town in a holster, to act appropriately in emergency situations. She rightly points out that whether or not an armed citizenry is a good idea, there is a time and place for everything, and idiots with firearms who cause accidents give gun ownership a bad name.

Bob S. responds with a typical Second Amendment rant.  He cannot be bothered to acknowledge that yes, the moron in the grocery store screwed up in a way that put others at risk, and should at least have to follow Tennessee’s fairly lax concealed carry laws.  He also musters little logical argument, much less support for his case–indeed, he makes the demonstrably false claim that “the average Concealed Handgun License holder does a better job then the cops.”

A look at 3 Boxes of BS suggests that Mr. S.’s argument for arming citizens goes beyond personal safety and crime control.  He also seems to think that the population needs firearms to protect themselves against a potentially despotic government.  Like many of those who hold this view, his writing proves long on romantic discussions of free armed citizens striking fear into the hearts of government officials, but very little insight into just what conditions would justify insurrection, and exactly what such an armed revolt would look like.

I have not written much about guns or the Second Amendment here (yeah, I know, I haven’t written much of anything here, and thanks for reminding me).  Briefly stated, I think that general gun ownership is a bad idea, from both a “most people are too irresponsible, stupid, or just plain evil to own guns” practical standpoint and because I think placing the safety and freedom of society in the hands of individuals harms us normatively by making collective action more difficult.  I do not believe that the Founders intended to protect an individual right to be armed, nor that such a right is not subject to modification by society.  While our system must protect minorities against tyrannical majorities, rights are contestable and depend on social agreement, nor violent assertion of self-proclaimed entitlement.

Wise people disagree, to be sure, and rightfully debate whether or not arming citizens makes society safer and freer.  A good case can be made that putting weapons in the hands of certain types of people could help control or limit crime, and deter offenses like home invasions.  And citizens must assert themselves when political institutions oppress them.  I think an objective look at the evidence supports my view, but I am willing to be convinced.  But “More kids are killed in drowning accidents then firearm accidents, more kids are killed in automobile accidents then accidental shootings” won’t get you there.  Try harder, Bob S.