Do Guns Make Us Free?: Democracy and the Armed Society Hardcover – May 19, 2015

Interesting book

Great book. I often argue with my pro-gun sister and her pro-gun husband about, not eliminating guns, but controlling their distribution more than we do in this country, especially at gun shows, and doing more and more thorough background checks to try to weed out those who might have the inclination to use guns on others. We Americans, I think, are getting so appalled, so disgusted, so fed up by all the mass killings in schools and malls and theaters and streets that we are ready for a book, like Firmin DeBrabander's, that analyzes both sides of the question with clarity, reason, and balance--fairly, without the kind of rhetoric that skews reason and facts. It's a scholarly book, its sources very carefully cited, but it's also a page-turner because of the specificity of DeBrabander's tale-telling. He reads the argument in terms of philosophy, but he also makes use of philosophers and political theorists, like Thomas Jefferson, who are familiar to most of us. I highly recommend this book for those looking for a book that poses fair questions to both sides of the gun problem and concludes that, in the end, the presence of too many guns will curtail free debate, not free us to debate.

Amazing book and great writer... I read his articles in the newspaper so I ordered his book. Whether I agree or disagree with him, I enjoyed his book and his good argument. Therefore, I strongly recommend this book!

I found this an enlightening perspective on the gun issue. It lays open the nitty gritty side of the NRA and their all or nothing stance on guns. Wrapping themselves in the flag they resist any form of compromise. Debrabander goes further examining the tenets of Toqueville and Machiavelli who describe the natural life cycle of a democracy which eventually destroys itself. We've seen the signs already in the rise of the nanny state, the antithesis of the Marlboro man and rugged individuality. This book goes the deepest into the gun issue and I highly recommend it.

I found Firmin's writing clear and his arguments sound and logical. His application of philosophy on modern political issues was refreshing and allowed for thoughtful reflection on the issue of guns in America. This is an excellent deconstruction of the NRA's false arguments.

If you’re looking for lilting prose that waxes poetically about guns and our need to possess them or ban them “Do Guns Make Us Free? Democracy and the Armed Society” is not the book for you. If, however, you want a fact-based, mutli-faceted scholarly discussion of one of the most critical issues facing the U.S. today then, by all means, read on.

Yes, this book deals with the issues and people you’ve heard before but it also ties in different angles and perspectives like what is the meaning of militia both then and now. There are issues here that, regardless of which side you come down on, should be heard. We all need to arm ourselves with the truth, pun intended.

And Gary MacFadden does the work justice by keeping an overall serious tone in his narration.

I was given this free review copy audiobook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.

I received a review copy of this book from Yale University Press for review in the Journal of Value Inquiry. Parts of my review are reproduced here.

The book is divided into five chapters, each criticizing common arguments made by the gun rights movement. Although DeBrabander’s book provides a very unique approach to the question of gun rights, it is not without problems. I shall briefly outline five issues that cast doubt on the strength of his arguments.

1. One serious problem that is evident throughout DeBrabander’s book is his failure to consider crucial background issues regarding the nature of rights, their scope, and the relationship between different types of rights (e.g. basic vs. derived rights, and natural vs, positive rights). Rights-talk is used throughout the book without any situating background or explication of what is meant! An overview of these preliminary issues is absolutely necessary for any serious philosophical treatment of gun ownership, for we cannot talk about the right to own a gun unless we first know what rights are and what type of right this would be. Recognizing this, both pro-gun and anti-gun philosophers alike have put forth detailed accounts of the nature, scope, and justification of gun rights. DeBrabander doesn't.

2. One would expect an academic treatment of gun ownership from a philosophical point of view to address the arguments of actual philosophers who defend gun ownership in their professional work. Yet DeBrabander does none of this. Of the more than ten articles published by professional philosophers on the ethics of gun ownership, DeBrabander cites none of them (This includes articles that favor his own position)! Instead, the bulk of his critique of the gun rights movement is directed more towards its popular side. This might be fine for a popular level critique of popular level arguments, but it is utterly unacceptable for a scholarly work.

3. DeBrabander’s treatment of the relevant empirical issues is seriously deficient. While empirical considerations do not exhaust the philosophical side of the gun control debate, any philosophically rigorous treatment of the issue must seriously consider the empirical data. DeBrabander's interaction with the criminological literature is limited to a few pages where he criticizes John Lott’s claim that right-to-carry laws decrease crime. Even here, his critiques are superficial and mostly one-sided. He seems unfamiliar with numerous other studies corroborating Lott’s findings, as well as replies by Lott and others. One gets the impression that DeBrabander simply searched for criticisms of Lott’s work while ignoring the other side of the debate. DeBrabander also ignores an entire category of empirical considerations that are very relevant to the debate: the prevalence of defensive gun uses and the efficacy of resistance with a gun. Together, these two considerations form a key component of the self-defense argument for gun ownership, so an omission of this level is simply inexcusable.

4. The lack of engagement with the literature manifests itself in the quality of DeBrabander’s arguments. Most of his critiques of gun ownership are entirely speculative, supported by nothing more than a series of quotations or naive psychoanalysis. We are told, for instance, that guns are a sign of “insecurity” that generate “distrust” and that gun owners are “disproportionately suspicious” people who “decide they will live under the influence of fear". Where exactly is the evidence for such a bold and disparaging claim about the psychology of gun owners? We are given none.

5. Finally, while DeBrabander clearly thinks that widespread gun ownership is bad public policy, he affirms in the preface that he is “not averse to others owning guns, provided ownership is wisely regulated". But he does not tell us what “wisely regulated” means! If gun ownership is sometimes permissible, then under what circumstances may individuals own a gun? And how are we to balance this admission with the later claim that gun ownership threatens democracy, freedom, and the rule of law? The lack of clarification on these seemingly contradictory statements makes it very unclear what DeBrabander is trying to accomplish. He seems more concerned with preaching the evils of gun ownership in vague and fiery terms than with providing actual solutions to the problems they pose, solutions aimed at balancing the interests of both sides.

Needless to say, I did not find the book to be very persuasive. The value of this book is limited to its critique of popular arguments for gun ownership. Those interested in the philosophy and ethics of gun ownership are better served by looking at the existing journal literature on the topic.