Under The Gun

Is "gun control" ever legitimate?

In an odd coincidence, I was already working on a post about gun rights when news broke that the DOJ was considering banning trans people from owning firearms. I must say I am somewhat surprised and pleased to see that at least some right-wing folks love the 2nd Amendment more than they hate trans people. Even the NRA issued a public statement against this latest idiocy from Trump’s administration! But make no mistake, the DOJ made this announcement because they know there is a lot of hatred out there — and also because it gives credence to the idea that trans people are mentally ill. I’ve written about this before, but I will quickly summarize my position: I don’t think the trans phenomenon is actually one thing. For some trans people, I think their condition is largely medical/biological, not psychological. For others, I think it clearly is psychological — but whether or not it is an illness depends on how it impacts their life and their ability to function in the world. I think for many (perhaps most), being trans is a variation from the norm (like being gay) — but is not a pathology. If they are allowed to live and express themselves as they see fit, they are able to lead happy, productive lives. That being said, there are some trans people who are mentally ill (like the recent Minneapolis shooter, whose horrifying killing spree provided the excuse for this DOJ announcement). Of course, the same is true of the population in general — and the reality remains that the vast majority of the mentally ill are not violent.

I know that most libertarians and conservatives, as well as many Objectivists, are staunchly against any kind of gun control. I am not — and here’s why. Regulating the use of force is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Of course, when gun lovers hear phrases like “regulation” or “gun control,” they often take this to mean someone is advocating for gun prohibition. That is NOT legitimate and not at all what I am talking about. I absolutely think people have a right to own guns (yay, 2nd Amendment) — but I also think the government not only has the right, but the obligation, to regulate them.

I’m not sure why this is so controversial. According to a Google search, every country on earth requires a license to drive on public roads — and nobody seem to object. Whether governments ought to be responsible for licensing drivers is a topic for another day, but it seems the vast majority of people think that since cars can be dangerous, it is important to know who is operating them in public spaces. I bring this up because I think this is actually very much how the regulation of guns should work. You need a license to drive a car, and to get that license, you need to pass a test. A gun is no less potentially deadly to innocent people than is a car, so I don’t see why there shouldn’t be rational criteria for gun ownership as well. A felony conviction or a history of violence should make it impossible (or at least extremely difficult) to buy a gun, in the same way that people with multiple DUIs are prevented from having a driver’s license.

I am not under any illusions that gun violence will disappear, no matter how rationally we regulate firearms. We still have drunk and reckless drivers, after all. But a proper government should try to prevent people who have proven themselves to be dangerous from owning guns. I believe it also should prevent the ownership of military-grade weapons whose sole purpose is killing humans. In a free society, nobody who isn’t in the military needs such a weapon for self-defense — and nobody has a right to an offensive weapon (since a proper government has a monopoly on the use of force).

So, what about the mentally ill? Well, here’s the thing, mental illness takes many forms, as does physical illness. A head cold is not cancer. And a mild anxiety disorder is not a complete dissociative state. I don’t think that “mental illness” in and of itself is a just reason to prohibit gun ownership. In case it’s not clear how quickly this line of reasoning can become political, Minnesota senators seek to add TDS (“Trump Derangement Syndrome”) to the state's definition of mental illness. Meanwhile, Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson has sponsored a bill called the TDS Research Act of 2025, which would “direct the Director of the National Institutes of Health to conduct or support research to advance the understanding of Trump Derangement Syndrome.” The obvious end-game here is to classify anyone who opposes Trump as “mentally ill” — and thus prevent them from owning a gun. This “trial balloon” floated by the DOJ is likely just the first step towards this goal.

Obviously, I don’t believe “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is a mental illness (I don’t think it’s even a real thing)! But I also don’t believe mental illness, in and of itself, means someone is dangerous or even unstable. Many of the most productive and heroic individuals in our society have suffered from some form of mental illness. Nobel-prize winning mathematician John Nash, whose story was told in A Beautiful Mind, is one of the more extreme examples. But I personally know many incredible people who suffer from anxiety, depression, OCD, and other disorders. This affects their ability to enjoy life, but does not necessarily impact their rational faculty and should have no bearing on whether they should be “allowed” to own a gun.

This administration is not expert at much (certainly not at creating jobs…), but it IS expert at “flooding the zone.” Statements like this one from the DOJ are just part of the daily barrage of unconstitutional, authoritarian crap they are generating. The constant stream of statements, tweets, and Executive Orders is designed to exhaust us — it’s impossible to maintain the level of outrage that is needed to fight back against each assault on the rights and institutions that actually once made America great. However, although I am tired, I am also not ready to give up on this country. I just hope there are enough of us left willing to fight through the exhaustion to keep this administration at least somewhat in check — and ultimately get us through to a better day.