There is a question concerning the relationship between guns and gangsterism that bedevils third world countries but the control of arms sounds suspiciously like that other ‘success story’: the war on drugs. Jack Straw’s keen attempt to follow the NGOs on this matter was publicised at a press conference today where he attempted to internationalise this issue through an “arms control” treaty. It is not surprising that this immoral act is perpetrated by the Blair administration: a clique that is unable to understand the simple connection between the rule of law and a well armed citizenry.
Straw argued that existing treaties covering chemical, biological and nuclear weapons should be matched by a new treaty covering smaller weapons. And he acknowledged that such weapons “account for far more misery and destruction across the world”. “The new treaty needs to include a wide range of signatories, including the world’s major arms exporters,” he said. “I certainly do not underestimate the difficulties of that. Many nations are concerned that a new arms trade treaty may restrict their defence industries; constrain their foreign policy; and lead to constant legal challenge of export licence decisions. Their approach may initially be one of scepticism, at best. “But in order for it to work properly, a new arms control treaty will need to include as many of the world’s nations as possible – especially those with strong defence industries of their own.
T
he NGO campaign for this solution stems from the revolutionary liberalism redolent of Enlightenment manure. Instead of undertaking the patient steps of building stable laws in these territories and defending property, these organisations prefer to build a bureaucratic edifice of controls, inspections and treaties, a job creation scheme for peace studies graduates.
The Control Arms Campaign is co-ordinated by Oxfam and Amnesty International. They view the proliferation of firearms as a key threat to peace and security. They are right in that technology has lowered the cost of owning firearms and has allowed the strong to plunder the weak; governments or gangs to maim, murder and steal. (although the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 did not require firearms, just edged weapons).
However, their solution is old-fashioned, insensitive to local conditions, and designed to reinforce the status quo in many states, rotten as they are. Their solution is global arms control:
Governments must introduce new laws and measures to incorporate the principles of the Arms Trade Treaty. They must also close the loopholes in their arms controls so that they can strictly monitor end use and effectively control arms brokers and licenced production overseas. They must stop the misuse of arms by security services and introduce systems of accountability and training for them, introduce measures for disarmament when a conflict has ended, develop good justice systems for prosecuting those who misuse arms, enforce all arms control legislation and develop and implement a national action plan to address and solve the country’s arms problems.
Communities and local authorities must help collect and destroy surplus and illegal weapons, introduce community education programs to end cultures of violence, provide assistance to victims of armed violence, and provide alternative livelihoods for those who depend on violence for a living.
Only the police are considered suitable to carry guns in protection of communities if they follow the requisite standards, set down by the United Nations:
International standards do exist to control the use of guns and other methods of force by police and other law enforcement officials, but in many countries they are not being followed.These standards centre on the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. At their heart is the principle of what constitutes legitimate force. Police must sometimes be permitted to use force or lethal force, in order to do their job of keeping communities safe and protecting themselves and the public from life-threatening attacks. But the force used must not be arbitrary; it must be proportionate, necessary and lawful. And, crucially, it must only be used in self defence or against the imminent threat of death or serious injury.
Self defence for the private individual in defence of life, liberty and property is not included within this ‘solution’.
Save yourselves.
The question is, how.
On the other hand, all that is just talk.
Can’t see how it’s gonna happen.
Hubris is running rampant in Controller’s circles.
That’s probably our saving grace.
… In plain English, that means criminalizing the use of force for self defense, something the British readers here should be familiar with.
Yeah, which country is experiencing a massive increase in armed home invasion crime? Oh, yeah, the one with the strict gun laws….
And, of course, when the Americans refuse to go along with this wonderful plan, citing the Bill of Rights and stating the the Federal Government doesn’t have the power to do what this wonderful plan demands, the Americans will get accused of being “unilateral” again…
Boy, I don’t understand why those atavistic Americans haven’t figured out that constitutional limits on government power are passé, and should be ignored in service of this kind of obvious program.
Nor is it excluded.
The cited article actually proposes solutions to the problems caused by large numbers of guns left over from numerous wars and conflicts, firearms use against local populations by uncontrolled and uncontrollable armies and police forces, and the likelihood of corrupt and failed systems doing nothing about the arbitrary and unwarranted use of armed force by agents of the state.
These are real problems. Some people consider that the solution is to allow anyone to have a gun (necessarily including the people whose possession of guns causes the problem in the first place). Others think the solution is to try and prevent guns falling into the hands of those who are causing the problems. This does not mean or even imply that everyone else should be forbidden from having guns.
I predict this will become another lengthy thread full of misinformation, paranoia and hysteria. This always seems to happen when guns are mentioned on Samizdata. Some facts do appear, but this is presumably accidental.
EG
What you read this blog for other things!
I only read this blog for the paranoia and hysteria.
Prove it.
EG
The main problem with guns leftover after a war is when they are mainly in the hands of a few. Be they government agents or criminal elements. Face it, violence is part of the nature of mankind. Ordinary citizens need to have the means to counter it, and discourage it. Genocides happen to unarmed and meek peoples. The first thing is to get people to realize is that they are the only ones who can protect themselves, and that doing so is right. The right to defend yourself is as god given as the right to live.A better solution to excess guns would be to distribute them to heads of household thoughout the land, with training in gun safety. Then have strict laws on misuse, equally applied to all.
EG: What’s to prove? Recorded history appears to have done that, regardless of revisionism.
Mr Chaston – My only quibble is with your pejorative “old fashioned”. Things are not automatically good or bad just because they are new or old (“the Constitution? Oh, that’s from the horse and buggy days! Ditch that C-64 and get with the times, Sparky!”).
Not necessarily true. For example, Rome was a paragon of legal virtue in its prime, yet it was illegal for private citizens to carry a weapon in the city – only the police/army and criminals had them. Sound familiar?
Throughout history, many societies have enacted more or less stringent controls on the possessions of weapons by the common people. Nevertheless, the rule of law has evolved and worked despite unarmed or disarmed populations.
There is at present no real debate outside paranoid and fringe elements about the rule of law in Britain. Britain is one of the least corrupt and most law-abiding nations in the west, despite its numerous problems and imperfections. Abuses of the judicial process by virtue of the position or money of the abuser do happen but are are extremely rare. All this with a disarmed population. Even before disarmament, the proportion of the British population which actually owned arms was miniscule – ISTR about 1% or so.
Comparisons between Britain and America are routinely made here, generally to the detriment of Britain, but it is perhaps worth noting that America is by commonly accepted measures more violent, more corrupt and less economically free than Britain. Corruption in the police and judiciary are more common than in Britain (although still uncommon by global standards).
Although it should be stressed that America is a relatively incorrupt and law-abiding nation and does have a good and working legal system, nevertheless it is not by any measure the top of the heap. The rule of law in the US is probably slightly weaker than it is in the UK, due variously to greater corruption, judicial activism and interest, and a greater ability to buy justice – although having said that, there isn’t much in it. But America is a nation where much of the population is armed, and in Britain the private possession of firearms is now all but illegal and has been frowned upon for decades. No connection there, then.
This isn’t an attack on America, but it is an illustration that there is no necessary causal link between an armed populace and the rule of law. There are many other – more important – factors which affect this, such as the propensity to and scope for corruption and the degree of background violence in society.
Of course, it is commonly objected that disarming the population leads to dictatorship or at least an overmighty state. I see no evidence that the armed US population has prevented the growth of the American state and such infelicities as the Patriot Act. It is complained that the British government can get away with things like the Prevention of Terrorism Act not least because the people are disarmed – so what’s the American excuse?
There isn’t a connection between armed populations and the rule of law. There is a connection between personal corruption and the rule of law, though.
EG
“… the simple connection between the rule of law and a well armed citizenry.”
Umm.. thinks.. I can’t even find a correlation between the two, much less a causative one. In fact, I see not connection. Can someone enlighten me?
I see Iraq before the recent invasion – an extremely strong rule of law (unpleasant law, but law nonetheless), and a well armed citizenry. And after the invasion – near anarchy, and a well armed citizenry. Slightly less well armed after the US took they heavy weapons away, but hey.
Lets see. UK – rule of law, unarmed citizenry. US – rule of law, armed citizenry. Oh, sorry, I remember, the UK is a den of thieves these days. As opposed to in, say 1790 when the citizenry was armed and we all lived in a utopia where there were no highwaymen or anything. Well, Japan will serve too. Or Canada, or whatever.
Actually, I can think of few countries where the rule of law has broken down, but the citizenry remain unarmed. So, it seems that perhaps the rule of law is required for a citizenry to be unarmed.
So, it would seem (and I’m not suggesting this is an argument – mere observation) that the arming of a citizenry occurs as the result of the collapse of the rule of law. It doesn’t necessarily cause this collapse, it merely results afterwards.
Incidentally, I agree that these efforts on global gun control are going to be about as helpful as the war on drugs, although actually I doubt they’ll get past the talking stage.
Euan, if you’re actually interested in reading some credible research about the issue, I’d suggest you check up on some of John R. Lott’s stuff. A simple google search brought me this. I don’t think the issue is as cut-and-dry as either extreme would like to make it, but I do know my guns will not be taken from me without force (“peacefully”). You can call it paranoia or whatever you like. The simple fact remains: I don’t lose sleep over civil liberty infringement. Preparation and paranoia are not exactly the same thing.
Lott’s information and “research” has been so thoroughly debunked so often that it is the stuff of legend on the internet.
EG
I would add that if a government is going to restrict something (call it “ban,” call it “civil liberty infringement,” it doesn’t matter what you call it) the burden of proof rests on the government, NOT the citizenry. Furthermore, even if they do prove security will increase without my guns, I prefer liberty to security, as does the majority of this blogs participants.
Would you please show me where? And I’ll pass on rhetoric.
But where is the evidence to show that increased ownership of guns promotes liberty?
This was discussed before, when I contrasted the low level of private gun ownership in Europe with the very high level in the Middle East, where the Kalashnikov is a badge of virility. Few would argue that the heavily armed Middle East is more free or more secure than the lightly armed (or in parts unarmed) Europe. No connection.
Furthermore, since the 1930s the US Federal government has, in common with almost all western governments, significantly eroded the personal liberties of its citizens. An armed population has done nothing whatsoever to prevent this. No connection again.
It is highly likely that disarming the Middle East civil population would make no difference to the level of violence and erosion of liberty there. It is highly likely too, IMO, that disarming the US population would not make America a less free place. Culture is more important in this respect than being armed.
I must make my ritual note that I DO support the right of private citizens to own guns if they want to. I do strongly feel, though, that the idea that private gun ownership is a defence of liberty against the depradations of the state is sheer fantasy.
EG
Winzeler, EG
I’ve never heared of John R. Lott’s, but here are my problems with the article cited above in this thread:
1. We were talking about the rule of law, not crime rates. It is the case that if crime reaches a certain point one would say that the rule of law had broken down, but one should not say that simple because a country as slightly more or less crime, that the rule of law applies slightly more or less in that country.
A person who has eaten 250g of paracetamol is dead. But a person who has eaten 4g of paracetamol is not ‘slightly more dead’ or ‘a bit less healthly’ that someone who has eaten 2g. Both are perfectly healthly. Likewise, UK, US, and Australia are all countries where the rule of law is entirely in effect, regardless of minor differences between their legal systems, crime rates, prison populations etc.
2. Mr Lott notices a coincidence or gun regulation and increased violent crime in some countries. But not in all. Other countries have regulated guns without the assocciated increase in violent crime.
3. Mr Lott notices a coincidence or gun regulation and increased violent crime in some countries. But he forgets to mention any other possible causative factors. In the case of the UK, one would suggest that it is immigration that is the main cause of increased gun crime – primarily from the West Indies and form Yugoslavia.
Personally, I do not think that gun control has _much_ effect on crime one way or another. It is a pity that no-one seems able to argue that it does not reduce crime, without also attempting to argue that it does increase crime.
Reducing crime in the UK is not about arming the populace. It is about making the sober.
For a start, try Googling “john lott debunk” and read through some stuff.
Brian Linse has links to a bunch of stuff.
Tim Lambert has some useful consideration.
There are numerous criticisms and analysis of Lott’s variously unethical, flawed, mendacious or disengenious methods of research and of his pushing his agenda. He carried out a “study” of the 2000 Florida election results which are apparently (I haven’t read it) just as full of holes as his gun “research.” I read once (can’t recall where now) that Lott’s gun statistics show that the execution of all black females over the age of 40 would do more to reduce crime than any other single measure, such is the flawed nature of his analysis. That sounds like a fun read, but I confess I haven’t bothered to look into that aspect of it.
I quite accept that there are many justifications both in theory and in practice for private gun ownership. Again, I do not oppose this. What I do say, though, is that frauds and fakers like Lott are not exactly good proselytes for the gun lobby.
There are extreme loonies on the anti-gun side who use all sorts of daft arguments and flawed stats to justify their position. There are similar people on the pro-gun side, and Lott is one of them. Accept his data at your peril.
EG
Indeed, and it was my contention that the different rules for gun ownership in these states makes no difference to the existence of a tolerable rule of law. Therefore, IMO, there is no necessary connection between an armed citizenry and the rule of law.
EG
EG: you make sense. However, you ask: “But where is the evidence to show that increased ownership of guns promotes liberty?” But this obviuously is not the point. The point is that in a free society government should not tell citizens what they can or cannot own, as long as they do not harm others. This should inlude guns, drugs, and possibly even Celine Dion CDs (as long as the owner uses headphones to listen).
With respect, it is precisely the point. The assertion made by Philip is that there is link between an armed populace and the rule of law. This manifestly untrue, as the real world shows repeatedly.
This is then diluted by Winzeler, essentially to the assertion that an armed populace preserves liberty. This is also manifestly untrue, as the real world again shows.
You’re saying the state should not prevent you owning a gun. Fine. I agree. But that isn’t anything to do with the ownership of guns preserving liberty in general (which they don’t) or preserving the rule of law (which they don’t).
EG
Surely the difference between an armed citizenry and an unarmed one, is that, while there may well be the same, or even more people ending up dead, the dead are more than likely to be the criminals than a householder defending his castle…
Well, the only way we could know is by looking at the relevant statistics – ah, no, we can’t do that, can we? All government statistics are lies (unless they back up a pet theory, in which case they are utterly reliable).
Sorry, cheap shot but I couldn’t resist.
EG
Euan,
That’s ok, to be expected…
Euan, I understand that you were responding to points made by others, and I also see your point. Like I said, you make sense.
The point I was trying to make is that some people are making a mistake when they are trying to back their demand for gun ownership with arguments that are basically saying “guns are good for society”. This is the same mistake the other side is making when they say “guns are bad for society”. Guns are inanimate objects, just as knives, baseball bats and even rocks are (and believe me, as an Israeli I can tell you that rocks can be almost as deadly as guns). As such they can be used for both good and bad, so these arguments are beside the point. We are not going to otlaw knives, bats and rocks, but at the same time it would be silly to argue that ownership of those three objects make for a more free or more law-abiding society, or that such ownership have any other influence on society, for that matter.
News to me.
It will indeed. I’m sure you’ll see to it.
Are you sure you’re not Neil Francis?
Yes, I agree.
Looked at overall, there is no credible evidence that widespread private ownership of guns:
decreases crime;
increases crime;
preserves popular liberty;
erodes popular liberty;
maintains the rule of law, or;
destroys the rule of law.
I think the answer is the culture of the people, and whether they have guns or not makes no difference. A disarmed America would be no less polite and free than it is now; a disarmed Middle East would be no less violent and illiberal than it is now. But if you swapped the populations around overnight, then the Middle East would quickly become free and prosperous, and America dictatorial and poor.
EG
test
If they really want to support gun control, then they should implement truly harsh measures for illegal gun possession. Like Machiavelli said, the only good laws are those backed by arms and the will to use them. Leaving morality aside for a moment, the effective rule of law can only be supported by the possession of force and the will to use that same force.
If Britain suddenly got tough on crime, by caning repeat offenders and sentencing those caught with illegal firearms to hanging, I can bet everybody that the crime rate will drop rapidly. Just look at my country, Singapore.
It’s not just gun control that’s the problem. It’s the fact that law and punishment in Britain have become too watered down to serve the purpose of deterrance and remediation.
That said, in the absence of effective laws, what do you need the state for, when the very rationale for Leviathan(law and order) no longer exists? Might as well take the law into your own hands. In other words, arm yourself.
TWG
I said I’d pass on rhetoric. I don’t think private ownership secures liberty in the social sense. I simply want to liberty to own guns. As I suspected, a very simple statement was complicated to the nth degree. I’m not going to assert that private gun ownership secures all other liberties, but I will assert that gun ownership in and of itself is a liberty -one that should not be curtailed without adequate demonstration that it infringes upon other, more essential liberties. This has not been done, and though Lott may show bias he provides all the “reasonable doubt” society needs to acquit gun ownership. I’m not necesarily saying he provides proof that gun ownership increases liberties as a whole, only that he offers enough evidence to “debunk” any notions that either gun control increases liberties as a whole or gun ownership decreases them. Again, refer back to my last post and think about what I really said.
Ownership of guns does preserve liberty, albeit only incidentally, in that gun ownership is a liberty.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “rule of law,” but if your definition matches dictionary.com, I would say gun ownership is distinct from rule of law either way (which I think means that I agree with you). Of course I could muddy the water by suggesting that soldiers and police officers (at least in the US) carry guns for only one reason -to enforce their law.
I meant to preview to proof-read, but posted instead. It should say, “I simply want THE liberty to own guns.”
In the same sense, then, that ownership of a washing machine preserves liberty since it is a liberty itself?
More seriously, though, I do understand the point you are making.
That all people in a state, whether street-sweeper or prime minister, are subject to the same law without exception or special case, that the state is itself subject to the law, and that those who make the law must themselves obey it.
The point I have been trying to make is that there is NO connection between the existence of such a state of affairs and the arming or otherwise of the populace.
EG
A lot of deep discussion on how to make the world a safe, happy, fuzzy place with no sharp edges.
Law abiding citizens should have the right to own a gun. Indivduals have the basic responsibility for their actions AND self protection…but most importantly…HAPPINESS. It’s none of your damn business if I want to own a crate full of weaponry. It makes me happy. I might sound hysterical but banning gun ownership, smoking, eating crap food, drinking brandy while surfing the internet at the wee hours of the morning “for my own good” would really piss me off.
This strange need to make the world a safe utopia is unrealistic. There will always be crap, violence, crime..and yes war as long as humans exsist. There will also be beauty, great inventions, art, achievment, glory, happiness and satisfaction. You have to take the bad with the good.
Maintain a strong rule of law but leave the responsible members of society their freedom. Quit trying to make the world a “happy nice group hug” place. As long as mankind exsists there will always be weapons of some sort.
I can’t remember who said it (P.J. O’Rourke??) and it’s probably not exact but.. those who think they know what’s better for us than we do are assholes (I think thats wrong..will have to look it up but it suits me at the moment)
Who’s Neil Francis? Another disingenuous professional sneerer, like Euan, who doesn’t seem to like John Lott very much?
You can’t provide proof of your own claims, you expect others to do the hard work of investigating what you say? Why can’t you do this, Euan?
Didn’t you take someone else to task for ignoring ‘evidence’ in favour of his own opinion? And here you give us all this loaded and opinionated language, with no supporting proof whatsoever. Do you expect to be taken seriously?
You haven’t read it, but you’re certain that it’s ‘full of holes’. How did you come to this conclusion? Influenced by a second-hand account of this study?
This sounds like you are taking your lead from another second-hand account – that’s if you’re not making it up. Again you expect us to accept hearsay as valid evidence. Are we supposed to take your word for it?
I’m not sure how anyone gets the idea that Lott’s work concerning guns leads to the conclusion that black women should be gassed…what a wild claim, and you take it as gospel. You say ‘the flawed nature of his analysis’, based on this assessment (that you can’t refer back to), as if it was fact.
No, but if it supports your opinions, there’s no need to go looking for evidence for or against it, is there?
And yet your eagerness to ‘debunk’ Lott’s work with the laziest, sloppiest way imaginable says otherwise. Your repeated claims that you do not oppose gun ownership just makes me think you’re a con artist.
You haven’t proven them to be frauds and fakers. All you’ve done is smear Lott, on very dubious grounds.
Like Michael Bellesiles (whose methodology resembles your own)?
Yup, definite smear. You prove your support for gun ownership by attacking someone who did a lot to debunk the lies that gun grabbers relied on to bamboozle the public. Of course gun grabbers would have a vested interest in destroying Lott’s reputation.
Do you think people around here are stupid and can’t read very well?
A chap that claims to support gun ownership, but his words say something different. Think John Kerry with a british accent perhaps.
A fellow who is obviously intelligent but doesn’t seem to wish to use same to do anything but run down those who don’t agree with him and use his intelligence and grasp of language to humiliate those who hold views he doesn’t like – not very sporting.
A profession butt pain.
I’m being a bit unfair on EG because I do believe he has something to add, but the manner is a little grating at times.
Mr Happy Rampager,
Please read what I have written before making glib comments on it.
Ad hominem arguments cut no ice with me.
I am not a statistician and have no specific interest in debunking Lott’s claims. However, I am aware that the claims have been thoroughly debunked – demolished, in fact – by a substantial series of commentators and academics. I pointed the commenter in this direction.
Furthermore, it is a standing recommendation on this blog not to quote verbatim lengthy pieces from other sites, but to link instead. This is what I have done.
No, I took certain people (plural, not specific) to task for ignoring real world data when it contradicted their thesis, but accepting it when it supported the thesis. The words I used to describe Lott’s work have been used by others who have made critical studies of his data and conclusions.
The key is the word “apparently” in my comment. This is a fairly common word, the meaning of which is hardly abstruse. Your comment is invalid because you are attacking a position which has not been claimed.
Again, a straw man. I wrote “I read once,” I did not write “I assert that…” If you followed the helpfully provided links (which you plainly have not), you could read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I make no assertion as to the validity or otherwise of the conclusion, merely noting that it has been made.
You must be creating a global shortage of straw by now.
Follow the links, read for yourself, draw your own conclusions. I at no time stated that Lott’s work results in the logical conclusion that black women over 40 should be executed, so there is little point in you attacking that position. The way the data has been processed does, it seems, give results which could be used to justify such a position – this is called a spurious correlation. Again, if you had actually followed the links or read anything on the subject you’d know this.
An unwarranted and speculative conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever. All evidence needs to be supported by other evidence, since argument from a single premise is unwise. Whether the data supports or opposes one’s position, it needs to be justified, and it needs to be taken account of at least until it can be shown conclusively that it is invalid.
I said above, and repeat here for your convenience, that I have no interest in debunking or otherwise Lott’s work, merely that it has been thoroughly debunked by others, including a series of reputable academics.
Others have produced comprehensive demolitions of Lott’s work, and not only on guns. I do not have to prove people are frauds or fakers, and make no attempt to do so. However, I reach the conclusion, based on demolition and debunking by others, and on similar exercises carried out on other of Lott’s work, and on Lott’s reputation, that he is certainly an unreliable source of data and at worst is a fraud. Evidence from people like this should not be relied upon.
Oh, there’s still some straw left?
Yes, exactly like Bellesiles. Lott has been described as “the Bellesiles of the right” and not by me.
Yes, they would. And of course pro-gun lobbyists would have a vested interest in papering over any cracks in Lott’s theses, wouldn’t they? My point was that there are dubious people on both sides, that both sides make use of flawed and inaccurate data, that both sides draw unwarranted and unsupported conclusions from the data. This is hardly an unreasonable position. I believe that Lott is one of the unreliable pro-gun people, and his conclusions should be treated with caution – particularly given that they have been thoroughly demolished more than once by a variety of people and other academics.
Whatever you may think, I do support the right of people to own guns. I have consistently said this on this blog. What I do not agree with, however, is the thesis that private gun ownership deters crime (or for that matter increases it, as the “gun-grabbers” would assert). There does not appear to be any CREDIBLE evidence one way or the other. My reason for supporting the right of people to own guns is simply that I see no reason why they should be deprived of such a right. I do not think it is necessary to produce statistical evidence, however reliable, to justify this position. The fact that the pro-gun lobby (or elements of it) make such a big deal about this evidence suggests to me that they are somewhat unsure of their case.
I suggest a more workable tactic for the pro-gun lobby is to demand the anti-gun lobby produce credible evidence to show that matters would improve if guns were banned. There is unlikely to be any such evidence, just as there is unlikely to be any evidence to the contrary. This would be a more intellectually defensible and respectable position.
Only some of them.
EG
Yes, I see what you mean, from his latest longwinded diatribe. I especially love how he tries to pull the ‘I did not say such and such, I merely repeated what someone else had said’ trick. In the same way that Stephen Pound did not call the public bastards…but he quoted someone who did so that you knew what he meant, but he would be able to deny his own sentiment.
Likewise, I hardly think that our Euan would have posted about Lott’s work indicating that black women should be gassed if he didn’t see some validity in it…I didn’t notice him saying that it was a stupid conclusion to reach, do you? But he did deliver a very contorted attack on me for nailing him for trying to debunk Lott’s work with what amounted to gossip…and he still expects me and everyone else to do the hard work of validating his claims.
I’m happier knowing he’s an arrogant windbag and as you put it, ‘a professional butt pain’. I have a hard time understanding what butt pains have to contribute to anything, though. You’re far too kind to him.
All the time and energy you spent sharing all this second-hand rubbish with us about Lott could have been spent justifying your case in a sensible manner, for instance, you could have paid a visit to these links of yours, and posted something less irrelevent and far-fetched – Lott’s work proves that executing black women is the best way to reduce crime? Jesus, is your BS detector broken or what?
Don’t lose your temper with me just because you couldn’t manage a convincing argument.
My case is NOT to debunk Lott.
My case IS to point out that Lott has been debunked. It is up to you to read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. If you don’t want to do that, this is not my problem. It’s fairly obvious you still haven’t bothered following the links yourself.
EG
You want us to think Lott’s work has been debunked, without offering compelling proof instead of gossip. Instead of doing so, you throw a hissy fit.
I ‘haven’t bothered following the links’ because it’s not my job to prove your case, it’s yours. This ‘you’d know I was right if you did as I told you’ routine is puerile.
You can’t even back up your own points. Pathetic.
Need I remind you that in your posts, you ‘proved’ Lott’s work had been discredited with evidence that you couldn’t remember properly, and hadn’t even read?
EG’s provided the links. Go educate yourself instead of expecting to be spoonfed the information. If you think the links EG’s provided are full of it, then provide counter arguments via more links.
Is this what passes for education nowdays? Gawds.
TWG
Just to make something clear: I perceived Euan’s links as his making of his case. There’s nothing wrong with citing what you see as an authority on a matter in order to make an argument. That said, I think the arguments didn’t hold up. Tim Lambert’s stuff was semantic hairsplitting. Brian Linse (Although I did not follow his links, I did read his comments.) seems to think that because data (especially in excess) is manipulatable it is, therefore, worthless. I do not completely agree.
Maybe you need some educating, TWG.
Euan could have provided us with some useful information from the sites he linked to. Instead he referred to stuff that he couldn’t recall, and hadn’t read. Otherwise known as ‘wasting people’s time’.
And Euan’s posting links, instead of elaborating on his assertions, which he alone has the burden of justifying, is otherwise known as ‘being lazy’.
But you could, more easily, have made a couple of clicks with your mouse and read for yourself. But no, instead you spend considerable time and your own effort making crude ad hominem attacks and tilting at straw men.
Which is exactly what you’re doing now, surely?
If you want to oppose the proposition, do so with evidence and a reasoned argument, not insult and hyperbole. From the fact that you have thus far failed to do anything remotely like this, I deduce that you are unable to manage it. If you can, do so and prove me wrong. I’m waiting (and suspect I will be for some time).
EG
You’re the one who doesn’t even want to back up his own points. Who are you to criticize me for not complying with your stupid demands?
If the stuff that we’re meant to read at the links you relied on was so important, you would have posted snippets from them. But you didn’t. You posted guff you weren’t even sure about.
Straw men? Ad hominems? Hyperbole? None of this is applicable, given that you admitted that you couldn’t remember where you read something, and hadn’t read a study by Lott that was criticized.
Oh, all the effort you put into trying to divert people’s attention away from this. And it’s all for naught.
Mr Rampager,
I put it to you that people of your ilk are the best possible allies the gun control lobby could wish for.
EG
I don’t suppose there is any danger of opposing the real fallacy of the story which is the implication that by restricting the supply of firearms to individuals will magically make oppressive governments accountable and democratic?
Thought not.
I have been reading all through this thread and feel at this point impelled to insert my two cents. Pleas forgive in advance any missed capitalizations as i have an aging and rather dodgy keyboard.
That said, I would like to address the corrollation, or lack thereof, between an armed citizenry and the rule of law. My own conclusion is that there isn’t one, at least not directly.
there are I think, other factors involved:
Tradition- If there is a tradition within a society of law abidence within a society, that tradition will probably carry on with or without gun control if certain conditions are met;
are the laws percieved to be fair and rational?
are they perceived to be impartially and credibly administered?
are they perceived to, at least to a reasonable degree, so constructed as to allow the citizan’s quiet enjoyment of his property?
also- a NON-tradition of governmental brutality and/or corruption. Are govermental agents viewed as public servents or public masters? Were the government acts in ways that are generally widely viewed as petty, cruel, overly intrusive or onerous, general respect for the law is commonly eroded.
Trust- Does the citizenry trust the government to act rightly, at least most of the time?
General obsevation about trust; learnt the hard way- To be able to trust is good
To not have to is better
This is why we have contracts.
The general problem a disarmed citizenry faces is that it places itself in a position where it must trust the government to continue its good behavior with little recourse if it is disappointed. Civil disobedience worked for Gandhi solely because the British are fundamentally decent and philanthropic people. How far would have Gandhi’s tactics have gone against a Stalin or a Hitler? Those gentlemen would, , no doubt, have wagered that the Indians would have run out of foolishness or themselves out of Indians, well before they would have run out of ammunition.
Where the above conditions are not met, only an armed citizanry can feel safe from tyranny. In virtually every instance, throughout the 20th century, on occasions when only police and criminals had guns,the private citizen ended up, sometimes with brutal alacrity , sometimes with slow subtlty, finding it increasingly hard put to tell the difference between them but for they way they are dressed.
In places like New Zealand, the UK and Australia violent crimes have spiked dramatically. Is it because of a dramatic decrease in gun ownership? Or is it something else?
How afraid are crimals of the police and the courts?
In the UK, criminal penalties, as they are actually meted out, are ludicrously light. In the case of the UK, however draconian certain laws are on paper, I have come across many examples of offenders arrested and convicted many many times before doing any serious time. I cite the Uk as an extreme case but the US was nearly as bad but is slowly improving. The death penalty has been damned far and wide as being non-deterrent to crime. Indeed? how much violent crime did the UK have a hundred years ago when they still hanged people for it? In truth the death penalty is not a deterrent when administered as it presently is; because the threat is not credible. The odds of the perpetrator of even the most heinous crime is statistically vanishingly small and the criminals know it. Even if this were not true it would not stop the suicidal bomber or gunman. Nevertheless, it is an ironclad guarantee against recidivism.
The United States is a case of society in transition. People do not have the almost instinctive trust that their government is fair and credible as they did, even in my own half century lifetime i have watched a steady growth of a cynical “us vs. them” attitude even among ordinary law-abiding types.
The slow steady pressure of the anti-gun lobby , who will admit, in unguarded moments, to their desire to take away ALL firearms from private citizens (e. g, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.) has created an atmosphere of distrust, hypocricy and mendacity around the firearm debate. Time and again the anti-gunners have, after winning another bit of (mostly useless and ineffective) legislation have offered fair promises of “thus far and no further” and time and again they have proven themselves liars.
On the other side, the gun-grabbers own actions have fostered and subsidized in the pro-gunners a rock-hard no compromise, pointless-even-to-talk-to-these-dirtbags, die-in the-last-ditch from-my-cold-dead-fingers mentality simply because they are sick of feeling lied to and betrayed. Thes are the same people who are also sick of the the same Lefty collectivist that routinely use tame judges to shove their daffy social engineering projects down the their throats when they fail in the legislature.
Then, we have a Republican government that regards the Constitution as an inconvenience and our southern border as a welcome mat.
Governments fail when the governed no longer feel the government is meeting its needs, when the gap between what is said and what is done becomes too wide to be bridged by faith, hope and patriotism.
Rome fell that way and we are heading in the same direction
I have been reading all through this thread and feel at this point impelled to insert my two cents. Pleas forgive in advance any missed capitalizations as i have an aging and rather dodgy keyboard.
That said, I would like to address the corrollation, or lack thereof, between an armed citizenry and the rule of law. My own conclusion is that there isn’t one, at least not directly.
there are I think, other factors involved:
Tradition- If there is a tradition within a society of law abidence within a society, that tradition will probably carry on with or without gun control if certain conditions are met;
are the laws percieved to be fair and rational?
are they perceived to be impartially and credibly administered?
are they perceived to, at least to a reasonable degree, so constructed as to allow the citizan’s quiet enjoyment of his property?
also- a NON-tradition of governmental brutality and/or corruption. Are govermental agents viewed as public servents or public masters? Were the government acts in ways that are generally widely viewed as petty, cruel, overly intrusive or onerous, general respect for the law is commonly eroded.
Trust- Does the citizenry trust the government to act rightly, at least most of the time?
General obsevation about trust; learnt the hard way- To be able to trust is good
To not have to is better
This is why we have contracts.
The general problem a disarmed citizenry faces is that it places itself in a position where it must trust the government to continue its good behavior with little recourse if it is disappointed. Civil disobedience worked for Gandhi solely because the British are fundamentally decent and philanthropic people. How far would have Gandhi’s tactics have gone against a Stalin or a Hitler? Those gentlemen would, , no doubt, have wagered that the Indians would have run out of foolishness or themselves out of Indians, well before they would have run out of ammunition.
Where the above conditions are not met, only an armed citizanry can feel safe from tyranny. In virtually every instance, throughout the 20th century, on occasions when only police and criminals had guns,the private citizen ended up, sometimes with brutal alacrity , sometimes with slow subtlty, finding it increasingly hard put to tell the difference between them but for they way they are dressed.
In places like New Zealand, the UK and Australia violent crimes have spiked dramatically. Is it because of a dramatic decrease in gun ownership? Or is it something else?
How afraid are crimals of the police and the courts?
In the UK, criminal penalties, as they are actually meted out, are ludicrously light. In the case of the UK, however draconian certain laws are on paper, I have come across many examples of offenders arrested and convicted many many times before doing any serious time. I cite the Uk as an extreme case but the US was nearly as bad but is slowly improving. The death penalty has been damned far and wide as being non-deterrent to crime. Indeed? how much violent crime did the UK have a hundred years ago when they still hanged people for it? In truth the death penalty is not a deterrent when administered as it presently is; because the threat is not credible. The odds of the perpetrator of even the most heinous crime is statistically vanishingly small and the criminals know it. Even if this were not true it would not stop the suicidal bomber or gunman. Nevertheless, it is an ironclad guarantee against recidivism.
The United States is a case of society in transition. People do not have the almost instinctive trust that their government is fair and credible as they did, even in my own half century lifetime i have watched a steady growth of a cynical “us vs. them” attitude even among ordinary law-abiding types.
The slow steady pressure of the anti-gun lobby , who will admit, in unguarded moments, to their desire to take away ALL firearms from private citizens (e. g, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.) has created an atmosphere of distrust, hypocricy and mendacity around the firearm debate. Time and again the anti-gunners have, after winning another bit of (mostly useless and ineffective) legislation have offered fair promises of “thus far and no further” and time and again they have proven themselves liars.
On the other side, the gun-grabbers own actions have fostered and subsidized in the pro-gunners a rock-hard no compromise, pointless-even-to-talk-to-these-dirtbags, die-in the-last-ditch from-my-cold-dead-fingers mentality simply because they are sick of feeling lied to and betrayed. Thes are the same people who are also sick of the the same Lefty collectivist that routinely use tame judges to shove their daffy social engineering projects down the their throats when they fail in the legislature.
Then, we have a Republican government that regards the Constitution as an inconvenience and our southern border as a welcome mat.
Governments fail when the governed no longer feel the government is meeting its needs, when the gap between what is said and what is done becomes too wide to be bridged by faith, hope and patriotism.
Rome fell that way and we are heading in the same direction
oops!, dammit!
One point I think we can all agree upon is that it is a damn sight tougher to tyrannize an armed populace than an unarmed one.
I think the lords of the early feudal era and the Swiss pikemen at Mortgarten near its ending both proved that point.
Point to ponder-
It may be a test for GOOD government that at once tolerates an armed populace AND is respected and effective.
As I understand it, the thesis of the report/recommendation is that the excessive and uncontrolled use of weapons by states and their servants against their citiziens is the problem. The report suggests that this can be mitigated by controlling this use. The report nowhere argues for restricting the use of firearms by responsible private citizens, nor is this even implied. The “real fallacy” you suggest simply doesn’t appear either directly or by implication anywhere in the report.
Obviously, it is hard for governments to use arms against their people if they don’t have the arms in the first place. Equally, though, just because the state has a preponderance of arms does not mean it will necessarily use them. ISTM that the first step is to cut down the exercise of arbitrary force used by the oppressive states. I think this can be done in one of two ways – remove the uncontrolled arms from the state, or arm the people.
Whilst I would expect the pro-gun lobby to argue for the second alternative, I think it should be borne in mind that there are many cultural issues to be considered. The US population, at least a third of which owns weapons of some sort, by and large exercises this right responsibly and safely. So too did the British population when arms were permitted, and so too do almost all European peoples. I do not think it is valid to extend this same logic to all other countries.
Heavily armed populations in the Middle East simply don’t have any effect on the tyranny of their governments. In much of Africa, widespread gun ownership simply leads to increased violent crime and facilitates civil war, much of which arises from chauvinistic tribal disputes. So, it is clear that popular firearms ownership as it works in the US and Europe will not necessarily achieve the desired effect in the areas which have the problems, and in some cases will actually make things worse.
It would appear logical, then, that a potentially successful first step would be to restrict the ability of the state and its servants to acquire arms, and where they do legitimately acquire them to make sure as far as possible that they are used responsibly – the report seems to have no problem with police forces having and using arms, provided it is done responsibly. This is really all the report argues, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
EG
Just as the heavily armed population of Iraq successfully resisted the tyranny of Saddam?
EG
Whilst I would expect the pro-gun lobby to argue for the second alternative, I think it should be borne in mind that there are many cultural issues to be considered.
EG, I think you really have something there. Cultural issues are a big determinent.
Chief among them is the HABIT of violence within a given society. The present day Norwegian, for example, by and large, doesn’t often regard violence ace a first, best solution to a problem; his 40times great-grandfather had other views. Accordingly, an M16A2 in the hands of the former is generally less dangerous than a broadaxe in the hands of the latter.
The state and it servants are going to aquire and use arms irrespective they are used responsably or not. No police force could function without weapons; it would never be taken seriously otherwise (the anomylous exception of a now vanished England is duly noted).
It said it was tougher, EG, not bloody impossible 🙂
Besides, the folks in Iraq tha were heavily armed (except for the Kurds away north, and they got gassed from the air), were people that Saddam thought (rightly or wrongly) were politically reliable.
On a purely stylistic note, I sometimes wonder why certain types of people feel justified in unnecessary (and linguistically erroneous) specificity when discussing military hardware. The simple word “gun” would have worked perfectly well in the quoted phrase, rather than M16A2. Does your phrase imply, then, that any other model of gun would NOT be less dangerous?
The police in Britain still do not routinely carry guns. Only certified officers can do this, and then only in specific circumstances with proper authorisation.
The point is, though, that there is no general link between an armed population and a non-tyrannical government. The general assertion that it is harder for a government to oppress an armed populace is not valid since there are many counter-examples, although in certain specific circumstances it can be true. For example, it makes no difference in the Middle East. Another example – I don’t think the US population would meekly accept tyranny, even if they were disarmed. It is nothing to do with armed or disarmed populations, but it is everything to do with the culture of that population.
EG
On a purely philosophical note, I sometimes wonder why certain types of people feel justified in unnecessary (and bloody annoying) exhibitions of pendantic, arrogant, condescending, anal-retentive, old-school-tie priggishness, thereby ruining a heretofore interesting discussion.
I specified M16A2 because it was a habit of thought and speech engendered by the fact that I’m one of those “certain types of people” who wore the uniform for several years.
I doubt you did, for in my Army, at least, your smug, fucked-up attitude would have been ass-kicked and bitched-slapped out of you in a big hurry, to the amusement of onlookers.
and
Hmm, odd. My puzzlement over irrelevant specificity only deepens. Why should a fairly innocuous comment evoke such a rude and intemperate response?
EG
Oh boy. Now we’re going to have to watch Euan treating Lucius to the sort of arrogant condescension he dared criticize.
‘Fraid not HR, Lucius has a life.
L. Severus Pertinax, ultimus romanorum:
Reading through your longer post again, I think you may be confused about the meaning of “rule of law.” It doesn’t mean that people obey the law. It means that the law (whatever it may be) is enforced equally on all people, regardless of position or wealth.
If it is possible to buy justice, such that the wealthy face different penalties from the poor, then to the extent that this is possible the rule of law does not exist. Equally, one can have a dictatorship which observes the rule of law – the concept concerns the administration of law, not whether those laws are good. To a large (but not complete) extent, Rome was such a dictatorship.
Really it doesn’t matter whether the people are armed or not. There is that I can see no connection whatever between the existence of the rule of law and the private possession of arms.
Much of the rest of yuor comment concerns crime and its relationship to the ownership of arms. This is more properly dealt with in the thread below, but I think a couple of points may usefully be made here.
Firstly, there appears to be no evidence that capital punishment deters crime. Given the controversy over the matter in much of the west, this has been analysed many times. It appears that no-one can find a correlation between rates of crime and the death penalty, one way or the other. If you’re aware of any correlation, I’d be most intrigued to read about it.
Secondly, your point about excessively lenient sentences and the low probability of trial, let alone conviction, in certain jurisdictions is probably the key issue in this regard.
Finally, on the logic of the anti-gun lobby. As a general principle, many people consider that if there is the rule of law, and if in addition to this there is a competent and efficient police system and a good system of courts such that criminals are invariably caught quickly and brought to meaningful justice, then there is theoretically no justification for the NEED to possess firearms for self-defence. This is the logic used in the UK, but whether it is applicable in the different culture of the US is another matter – what works in one doesn’t necessarily work in another.
The legal position in the two countries is somewhat different, of course, in that the US constitution grants a right to keep arms but there is no such right in the UK – or at least there is no such right that cannot be revoked.
I don’t, by the way, agree with your analysis of the reason for Rome’s collapse. This was much more complex than a simple growing distance between state and people. More important were things like declining wealth, failing military power, strategic overstretch, excessive domestic expenditure, and so on – the usual reasons why states eventually fail (as all do).
EG
That is because Euan, you make the mistake that the gun haters want you to – which is to believe that what they say they are doing is what their intention is to do.
Gun haters have been very good at distracting attention from their true aims. Hence we end up talking about what they propose implicitly and all the while move ever closer to their true misguided intentions. Do we really believe that rogue (or even just marginally oppressive) governments will be prevented from gaining small arms through these processes when North Korea have acheived nuclear weapon ownership and Iran seem rather close? We are fools to think it will be the case. Inevitably all that will occur is that the citizenry will be even less able to defend themselves against oppressive government and their sponsored thugs just as they are in Sudan.
The report is not about denying small arms to governments, rogue or not. It’s about making them use the weapons responsibly. As a gun enthusiast yourself, I am quite sure you would not have any problem with making people be responsible in their use of firearms. Having said that, it is difficult to make a sovereign state do what you want unless you are prepared to use force. I doubt anyone is going to invade the Congo because their police are a bit heavy handed.
I do not think that, even were they to ban all guns in these states, it would make the slightest difference to popular resistance against oppressive governments. There are many countries which have oppressive governments and armed populations, and it makes no difference. I think that the sort of cultures where the people would resist like this tend not to have that kind of government (not least because those governments tend to be drawn from the people & so to a large extent share the opposition to tyranny), and even if they did it is not necessary to own guns to oppose the state. Further, the sort of people who legally own guns, at least in the west, tend to be fairly law abiding and not of a revolutionary bent. Overall, there is no real need for any state to be afraid of an armed populace, because either they are so naturally craven they won’t revolt, or you live in the sort of state which does not provoke revolt.
In sum, in the sorts of places where the people are culturally capable of armed opposition to tyranny they generally never need to do it, and in the sorts of places where they do need to do it they tend on the whole to be not that sort of people. So all in all, I think the issue is irrelevant to the rule of law and domestic opposition to tyranny.
Widening the issue to a general prohibition on guns including for private use, yes, I accept that the anti-gun lobby will use the salami tactic of slicing ever closer to an outright and overall ban. I’m not a gun enthusiast myself, although I have used them (from air pistols through rifles & machine guns and up to 105mm artillery) and am not afraid of the things. The person using the thing is another matter, of course. Even so, I support the right of non-criminal private citizens to own guns if they want to, largely because I see no good reason for this right to be denied.
I do see the logic in denying the use for explicit self-defence, however, as I have outlined it above. I would personally like to see the situation where people did not own guns for self-defence – NOT because it was forbidden, but because society was sufficiently stable and orderly that nobody felt the need to do it. To that end, I would permit such possession, and use the number of permit holders as a barometer of popular feeling on the security of society.
As I have said before, the pro-gun lobby should be a bit more picky about the arguments it uses. The necessity of self-defence is a non-starter, because there is simply no CREDIBLE evidence that private arms possession makes the slightest difference to crime rates – effective policing and meaningfully deterrent punishment are the vital factors here. Defence against state tyranny is a non-starter, as has been described above. These arguments are so easily refuted that to continue making them only makes the gun lobby look stupid. The lobby should also be more picky about the way it argues its case, and should avoid pedantry, nit-picking, hysteria, misinformation, outright lies and the type of histrionic melodrama often seen on this blog when the subject comes up – all these things do is reinforce the anti-gun message than gun enthusiasts are a bunch of loons, jerks, monomaniacs and thuggish idiots. Similarly, the type of people used to make the case should be controlled a little more, since many of them convey exactly the same image.
In the US, the argument for guns is easier – there is a constitutional right to keep them, and therefore there msut be a very good reason indeed to curtail this right. It should be the obligation of the anti-gun lobby to demonstrate this reason, and of the pro-gun lobby to refute it – with decency, honesty and civility. Where the anti-gun lobby has a point, concede it. When you have a point, argue it, but always do so honestly and rationally.
In the UK, there is no inviolable right. Legally, the people have no rights whatsoever that cannot be taken away by parliament. The case is harder to make. Britain is not a violent nation, and so the self-defence argument holds even less water than in the US. People are less paranoid about government than in certain parts of America, so the tyranny thing just looks really stupid. Very few Britons ever owned guns, so you do not have the large-scale public familiarity with them to assist. People are on the whole afraid of them and don’t think rationally about it. I suggest adopting salami tactics of your own – increased shooting rights for sportsmen, followed by opening this up under very strictly controlled regulation to appropriate members of the general public, then to simply anyone who isn’t a criminal, then relaxing the general prohibition SLIGHTLY, then a bit more, etc. Demanding everything at once will get nowhere. It should also be recognised that about 95% of the population has no positive interest in guns whatsoever, so mass support simply isn’t going to happen. And again, be civil, be honest, be rational, lose gracefully and win magnanimously – a generally handy guide for life, I suppose, but especially important in this issue when you have, unfortunately, no small number of Neanderthal knuckle-draggers on your team and the opposition has some fine minds and cultured spirits.
NOW do you believe me when I say I support the right to own guns?
EG
But if society was stable and orderly, there would be no necessity to deny the ownership of guns for self-defence or any other positive or neutral purpose.
Unless the following statement makes sense to you – ‘Since people can be trusted not to misuse guns, we need to deprive them of guns’.
Oh well, I suppose this means you are a total and utter failure at life, then. Especially when you whinge about being spoken to in the same way you speak to others.
And the opposition prove how fine and cultured they are by slurring gun-owners as ignorant, violent, paranoid folk, portraying the ‘knuckledraggers’ as representative of the whole…oops! That’s similar to what you were doing!
Maybe it’s cultured to decry the use of guns for self-defence…which by extension means that you will never see such people carry guns to enable themselves to come to the aid of others. No, if they saw someone being attacked in the street, they’d rather walk past, and tell themselves there was nothing they could do. And try to make the kind of society in which that’s very true.
But if society was stable and orderly, there would be no necessity to deny the ownership of guns for self-defence or any other positive or neutral purpose.
Unless the following statement makes sense to you – ‘Since people can be trusted not to misuse guns, we need to deprive them of guns’.
Oh well, I suppose this means you are a total and utter failure at life, then. Especially when you whinge about being spoken to in the same way you speak to others.
And the opposition prove how fine and cultured they are by slurring gun-owners as ignorant, violent, paranoid folk, portraying the ‘knuckledraggers’ as representative of the whole…oops! That’s similar to what you were doing!
Maybe it’s cultured to decry the use of guns for self-defence…which by extension means that you will never see such people carry guns to enable themselves to come to the aid of others. No, if they saw someone being attacked in the street, they’d rather walk past, and tell themselves there was nothing they could do. And try to make the kind of society in which that’s very true.
Are these people really worthy of praise?
Perfectly correct. Perhaps you could point out where I advocated a contrary policy?
My point was that the private possession of firearms is likely (although not certain) to reflect to an extent the feelings of the people towards the degree of violence and instability in society. Where guns are freely available for this purpose, the pragmatic government would consider increasing levels of ownership as an indication (but not absolute proof) of decreasing popular satisfaction with the level of violence and disorder.
Now, obviously there are significant cultural factors to consider. The clearest example is when we consider the contrast between the US and the UK, useful not least because the legal systems are closely similar. The US has a per capita murder rate approximately four times that of the UK. About 30-40% of the US adult population owns at least one gun. In the UK, gun ownership is largely illegal, but even when it was not the proportion of people owning them was tiny – 1 or 2 per cent. On a simple view of the figures, and not allowing for cultural factors, the private possession of guns patently does not reduce the murder rate – it could be argued (without justification, IMO) that the private possession of guns actually increases the murder rate. The difference is, however, almost certainly due to cultural variations between the two nations.
Hardly. Perhaps you could point out where I made the ad hominem attacks, or where I constructed the straw men?
To be fair, many of the vocal pro-gun lobbyists are easy targets for this kind of slur. I suggested a way to avoid this. If you disagree, be so good as to provide a reasoned argument rather than insult.
Who’s praising them? And might not one just as easily ask whether the more histrionic and melodramatic pro-gunners are worthy of an audience?
EG
Euan, you said this:-
And then you said this:-
You also said:-
After saying:-
Now, should I put money on you eventually reaching the point where you realise how stupid much of the stuff you come up with is? Or would I be throwing that money down the drain?
Firstly, the FULL text of what I said on policy was:
Don’t you think that puts quite a different construction on matters? You can’t pick one clause from a sentence and impute to the sentence a meaning it would only have if the other clause(s) did not exist. So, another straw man.
Just before and shortly after the sentence you have misquoted, I explicitly said that I supported the right to own arms.
As for the second point, suggesting that your manner in advocating gun ownership actually only benefits the anti-gun lobby is not an ad hominem attack on any argument you have made, since you weren’t actually making any argument. Nor for that matter is it an insult. It is rather a suggestion (“I put it to you”) that your manner is counter-productive.
It would be ad hominem had I said something like “Your argument fails because of your manner.” However, I didn’t so it wasn’t.
I note that you have not rebutted a SINGLE argument I have made, nor have you presented ANY reasoned argument of your own. Do you have any argument to make?
EG
I will comment but I feel ill-equipped.
I have read over all this over the past two days.
I think of self defense as a fundamental human right. Guns are merely power. Not good and not bad as someone pointed out. But with power comes responsibility to those who granted it to use it responsibly.
In the US, we have the second amendment that grants individuals the right to own firearms. And in the US, that should be the end of it. But some people for whatever reason do not believe we should have this freedom.
The method that they use is the “salami” method via fear of crime. But the fear of crime does not seem to make sense as a good enough reason to strip the Second individual freedom granted by the constitution from citizens. The fear of crime is helpful in making people give up these freedoms.
I guess what I wonder is; “For what reason should citizens of the united states not have the freedom to own firearms or a lesser degree of firearms?”
Despite what maybe said I think Lucius had some great points that were never addressed namely for a few;
I feel this is very insightful. The problem of other things, such as people in this camp or that camp who see things at a different degree or have a different level of eloquence or a different snapping point or even a different amount of paranoia really can’t be helped. Politics is one of those things that make for strange and sometimes uncomfortable bedfellows. I understand EGs sentiments about some people being better spokespersons than others, but really all the pro-gun camp can do is amplify those that are better spokespersons. They can’t really just say, hey! You can’t talk because you don’t sound like we want you to.” That’s freedom of speech for you.
I do wonder if things are like they are EG, because it is votes and influence that matters at the end of the day in politics not the validity of the argument, unfortunately. And for the pro-gun side de-legislation is not something that is seen too often (by me anyway), which can lend them a sense of desperation.
Please for give the ramble.. it’s my first Blogging ever.
Rich
I do wonder if things are like they are EG, because it is votes and influence that matters at the end of the day in politics not the validity of the argument, unfortunately.
My point on this was, to explain why people try erronius arguements, unfair tactics or whatever sounds good. Maybe it’s just that they will throw crap against a wall to see what sticks, as long as something sticks (people believe it) they are successful in thier aims.
Rich
It’s not quite as simple as that. Although as I suggested above the legal argument is easier in the US than in the UK precisely because of the Second Amendment, it is not a cut-and-dried case. Whilst it is reasonable to suggest that the anti lobby has the burden of proof for removing the right, it should perhaps be pointed out that the right to keep and bear is not absolute.
Many pro-gunners overlook the actual wording of the Amendment, which is thus:
Now, pro-gunners generally focus on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is the statement of right. The preceding clause explains WHY the right is granted, and this is generally ignored or downplayed by the pro lobby – largely because it illustrates a weakness in their case.
It will be obvious that the pro lobby has not recently tried to overturn gun control legislation as unconstitutional, which one might expect them to do if the wording of the Amendment was as plain as they pretend. They have, however, tried this in the past, more than once. In each case, the Supreme Court has rejected the argument and refused to consider the Second Amendment in any light other than that supporting a militia, or in modern parlance the National Guard. This is why the pro lobby no longer promotes legal argument over the constitutionality of gun control law, but instead lobbies congressmen.
EG
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
The militia they refer to is all free men. not a standing army. I will endevour to find reference for this but I don’t have it on hand.
The “militia” is not the national guard as is sometimes thought. Otherwise the right would be a a state for the miltia and said arms however it is.. the right of the people.. like free speech, freedom of religion, etc. where “the right of the people..” is referenced. No one questions that freedom of speech is an individual right.
The Supreme Court “interprets” the law, not always correctly in everyones opinion, thus we have several supreme court judges, they do sometimes avoid controversy.. I think. Do you have references as to where they would not over-turn legislation, I would like to read up on it if you have links or know of books.
Here is a link to federalist paper # 46(Link). If you do a word search of the document for “standing army” and read there after you will see that there is a distinction between a standing army and a militia as the founding fathers defined it.
also as evidence from the same document,
..which mentions armed americans.
Rich,
The Founding Fathers are no longer with us, so we cannot ask them to judge the matter. They lived in a pre-industrial agrarian society of limited population and vast land area, and what they felt was appropriate then is not necessarily valid now in an utterly different society.
It is correct that the right is a right of the people, but you are simply doing what pro-gunners do on a regular basis – you are taking the words out of their proper context and imputing to them an absolute meaning they simply don’t have in the proper context. The right is NOT absolute, it is contingent – essentially on the need for an armed citizen militia in lieu of a standing army.
I am well aware of the difference between a militia and a standing army. The closest modern equivalent of the militia IS the National Guard – things evolve and change, you know. In the late 18th century, standing armies were controversial, as they had been for at least the previous 150 years. The Founding Fathers by and large objected to having a standing army, but recognised that the state needed to be defended – hence the militia. These circumstances simply don’t apply any more in a nation which has a vast standing army, and therefore the need for a militia (in the 18th century sense) is not really present. Therefore, RKBA is not strictly necessary and there is no real reason under the constitutional law of the US that it cannot be circumscribed or even, possibly, withdrawn altogether.
You argue that SCOTUS sometimes interprets the constitution in ways that are not always valid, at least according to some. Fair enough, but someone has to do it since this is the price of having a written constitution. Essentially you are suggesting that the “truth” is in the Federalist Papers – but that is just someone else interpreting a different document, and moreover a document which does not have force of law in the country.
It is really irrelevant what some books or papers say, how some people selectively interpret them, or what a literalist view of the constitution might say. The reality is that SCOTUS is the final arbiter, and in this matter it has already decided several times and consistently that RKBA is NOT absolute.
That has to end it, unless you want to argue that SCOTUS is competent to decide some matters (i.e. where you agree with them) but not others (i.e. where you disagree). This is unsatisfactory, to say the least.
EG
Firstly, I want to acknowledge your points (from my end- not for others who are not myself- I can’t speak for them)
I’ll give you the wording of the second amendment and the not an absolute right.
However, reading their other writings such as the federalist papers we see the spirit of the law and the fact that it is a right of individuals, not a state right to arm it’s individuals. I can’t reconcile the two to mean we really don’t have the right to bear arms as that was why it was included in the constitution, to prevent the state from disarming individuals.
Moving on,
Some books and some papers yes, but were these not written by those who wrote the constitution? This is where we see the specifics of the language that they used and why they wanted to ensure we have the freedoms we have.
SCOTUS is called upon to decide things repeatedly because as you say times change. They may be called upon to do so again and again, though until a shift in thought occurs it might not be fruitful. Much of the US is still rural where a different view of firearms is taken, but about half of the population is in densely populated cities. I see this as one of the largest causes of shifts in majority opinion, which very few seem to acknowledge or think about. In the 1860s we had a similar difference of populations however in those days it was split geographically.. north and south or something 😉 I would not compare today’s rural Americans to the south of 1860s in everyway however the difference in a half and half power struggle emerges in my mind. In those days it was entire states and these days it is only popular votes.
The reason I like the founding fathers so much is they had a respect for every man (they weren’t perfect mind you, no one is) they would allow for those that didn’t feel the same way. As long as you weren’t hurting people you could do what you want. It hurts me when people want to take away a freedom because it is not something they value personally. The real problem is that anti-gunners are selfish in that they want to give up something for me so I can have something I didn’t ask for (security).
I do wish that politics was kept more local, what works in the city and rural societies is different so, Why must the anti-gunners go for federal laws or state laws why not go for city ordinances instead? (I’m moaning. I don’t expect you to direct them that way). Why can’t the urbanites who are usually the ones who feel this way, make their laws and leave others out of it? I think it is that “knowing what is best for everyone” kick. I think that a more acceptable answer is- live and let live. More localized politics.
I think it is unfortunate that many people will give up freedom for security but they have different views and are entitled to them. And I wish in the legislature there was a burden of proof required for new laws such as you say for the burden to be on the anti-gunners but the “knowing what is best for everyone” thing is a driving force for them.
What is the moderate way ahead here, as you see it, when one side can not trust the other to leave well enough alone? I don’t think anti-gunners can be trusted to go to local politics and accept that some people will have firearms.
It is correct that the right is a right of the people, but you are simply doing what pro-gunners do on a regular basis – you are taking the words out of their proper context and imputing to them an absolute meaning they simply don’t have in the proper context. The right is NOT absolute, it is contingent – essentially on the need for an armed citizen militia in lieu of a standing army.
upon further thought, I feel the need to explain how I see this again.
I am not taking words out of proper context as you suggest. As I can see no rational reason in this case to give individuals rights for the benefit of a state government. I was however implying an absolute and that is what I will give you. and does “free state” mean a state like say, Alabama and New York or does it mean a state of affairs which promotes freedom?
upon refernce with Miriam-Webster it is, in fact, one of the original 13 colonies. hmmm.
I still contend that the second amendment has no conditional expiration clause that amounts to a reading like “until such time as we perfect the balance of standing armies and militias, the militia stands, and the right of the people to bear arms will not be infringed.”
The national guard is tucked up under the active army pretty well, as an augment to the federal army, as we can see with them depolying to Iraq and not just defending states so I wouldn’t put them quite under the same notion as the militias of yore.
But on the other hand, we really don’t have an similar situation in that most people feel no responsability for the peace they enjoy in their own areas. some do some don’t. But becuase some don’t do they forfiet the right to bear arms for themselves and all others? I would say NO, but here again we have some who feel they know what is best for everyone.
Rule of law.
Hmmmm,
Great, sitting in front of a computer in relative safety.
However,
In a dark alley, confronted by someone twice your size
it is VERY little comfort. (Gee, as I bleed out, I’m sure glad we have rule of law !!!!!!)
EG, may you never be faced with this situation. I don’t intend to ever be faced with it because of precautions I take.
Denying gov’t as well as the populace access to guns??. Not possible.
Exactly how would you do that ??
Firearms aren’t that difficult to manufacture (nor is ammunition) therefore you will NEVER eradicate them.
You can ban, outlaw etc. all you want but those that you fear having guns will STILL have them. Only the law abiding will be disarmed (as you have done so neatly in England) leaving the criminals a target-rich environment in which to do whatever they wish (somehow I suspect that they do not fear ‘rule of law’).
You say that if ‘society were stable enough…….’ .
Sorry, not in this lifetime.
Crime has been with us MUCH longer that firearms and will be with us forever. You’re dreaming of
Utopia. Hasn’t existed, doesn’t exist and will never exist.
Since I have to live in the real world where there are those who would do me or those I care about harm in order to satify their own needs/wants, I prefer my method of preparation rather than speculate about how wonderful things would be if only …….
Jerry,
You don’t know what “rule of law” means. I have explained it above, or you can Google it. It does not mean “low crime rate.”
Nobody is suggesting both (or either) state and people should be deprived of guns. Straw man arguments don’t work.
There is circumstantial evidence to suggest (NOTE – this is not the same as saying “there is empirical evidence which proves…”) that the widespread possession of guns actually increases the murder rate, although probably doesn’t affect many (if any) other crime rates. Certainly, there is no credible evidence that possessing guns reduces any crime rate, including murder. Your sense of preparedness is illusory at best.
Disarmed England has a per capita murder rate one quarter that of armed America. Our police don’t even carry guns. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?
EG
Tricky one. It doesn’t really mean anything, although it is probably most used to describe a republic. In the context of immediate post-revolutionary America, the most plausible meaning, IMO at least, would be a state not governed by another state, i.e. an independent nation.
No, it doesn’t. But it is nevertheless a grant of right contingent on the validity of the supposition that an armed citizen militia is necessary for national defence. Since this is no longer the case, it could be argued that the right is no longer as important as it was, and thus that it takes second place to legislation controlling the use and possession of guns. Certainly, this seems to be the view of SCOTUS, or at least a peripheral fact they consider, since otherwise one might expect them to strike down gun control law as unconstitutional.
Indeed not, but again this illustrates a change since 1789. America was never seen by its founders as a global military power, or as an imperial power like Britain. Over the years, however, America has gained territory by treaty, purchase, voluntary accession, expansion and conquest. It has become the pre-eminent military power of the late 20th/early 21st centuries, fielding an enormous standing army and the most powerful naval and air forces ever seen all over the world. The nature of America has changed utterly in 250 years. It is quite likely that the current position of America would have horrified a great many of the founders. So, assumptions valid in 1789 generally don’t apply in 2005. This includes the nature of armies, militias and the arming of the people.
EG
Euan
I know exactly what it means – nothing – when your life is on the line (nor do any other laws, bans etc.) and your ONLY interest is staying alive.
Never said it meant ‘low crime rate’.
Your murder rate may be lower but, fromwhat I read, you home invasions, robbery, muggings, rapes, etc. are sky high and climbing. ‘Hot’ home invasions are much rarer here than there (if what I read is true), wonder if that might be because of armed home owners and the fact that the invader is never quite sure which homes are armed and which aren’t.
Criminals here will tell you that the police can only arrest you, the homeowner can kill you.
Your police are unarmed, fine. If one is dumb enough to go into certain sections of your cities (all major cities have areas best avoided) then they have my sympathy for their foolhardiness.
As far as lower crime, I don’t give a d**n about statistics.
What I DO care about is my life.
I am continually amazed at people who honestly believe that since they have never been in danger/attacked/etc that it folllows that they never will be. They live in a fantasy land.
How many times does one have to attacked/killed/robbed before it becomes statictically relevent ? If it is YOU being set upon, the answer is once, however by that time, it is too late.
Fine rhetoric, but it actually just means the state obeys the law the same way the people are expected to.
In the thread below on English murders are links posted by me to US and UK crime statistics. Review them yourself and find out whether what you read really is true or not.
Then you should not comment about how common crime is in various countries, nor should you comment on methods of dealing with it, since statistics are the only meaningful way of assessing the facts.
So am I. Perhaps you could point out where anyone suggested this?
EG
EG,
I have posed two questions to you so far and I am still wondering what you think. The first I might not expect you to answer because I’ve seen nothing that suggests you participate for reasons other than debate “as steel sharpens steel..” but if you have one I’d like to hear it. The second however, I do expect you have thought about, though you may not have a solution. Though for me, here, right now.. an answer would interest me. the questions I asked were;
I guess what I wonder is; “For what reason should citizens of the united states not have the freedom to own firearms or a lesser degree of {rights to} firearms?”
and,
What is the moderate way ahead here, as you see it, when one side can not trust the other to leave well enough alone? I don’t think anti-gunners can be trusted to go to local politics and accept that some people will have firearms.
I suppose the most likely and most easily justifiable reason would be if it could be shown that reducing the ownership of guns reduces crime. As far as I am aware, this has not been proven, but there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that widespread gun ownership does lead to higher levels of murder at least:
It is often argued that murder in the “wild west” was not as common as many people think, and indeed uncommon compared to modern levels. What is overlooked in this is that many towns apparently had pretty strict gun control law, and so the availability of firearms was not great.
Switzerland is used as case to argue that widespread gun ownership (it is actually compulsory for males of military age) does not provoke high crime rates. Unfortunately, this assertion does not stand up under analysis – Switzerland has a per capita murder rate second in the western world only to the US, although markedly lower.
It seems, therefore, that the argument that gun control reduces the rate of murder does have some merit. If it could be shown that America’s ridiculously high murder rate could be significantly reduced by means of gun control, then the gun control lobby would have a pretty strong prima facie argument. Given the grant of right under the constitution, I suppose it is incumbent upon the control lobby to prove their case – but if they did honestly and equitably prove their case, it would be churlish to deny it.
Another justification could simply be the lack of need for an armed citizen militia in the radically changed circumstances. Then again, it would have to be shown that removing the guns would not cause other problems.
Another tricky question.
Given that 30-40% of American own at least one gun, any government proposing a reasonable and moderate review of the situation is unlikely to be popular – not least because of the hysteria which would inevitably be whipped up by the pro lobby.
I think it has to be accepted that different rules need to apply in different circumstances. Farmers need guns to do their job – killing vermin, etc. People in all types of place want guns for sport, such as hunting or target shooting, and I see no good reason to deny them.
Perhaps the idea of allowing local governments to set the rules is the best way. Rural areas would be more likely to permit guns, through simple need and because of the hunting business. Highly urbanised areas might be keener to restrict guns in an attempt to reduce murder rates.
I suggest this is the best way. As well as making decisions at a lower level, which is a generally sound principle, it would promote the gathering of data to assert or refute the case that restrictions cut crime. I think it would have to be acknowledged that hard evidence showing that gun control markedly reduces murder (and possibly other crimes) would need to be accepted by the pro-gun lobby. Equally, hard evidence showing that it makes no difference would have to be accepted by the anti lobby.
Assuming the worst case (from the pro side) that gun control is conclusively shown to reduce crime, it would be irresponsible not to widen gun control. Having said that, there could really be no justification for preventing farmers and sportsmen owning shotguns, hunting rifles, and so on. Equally, there could be no reason to prevent people using pistols and rifles at ranges for target shooting. If there is a link between gun ownership and crime, it is almost certainly confined to handguns, and it is very unlikely that restrictions on rifles, shotguns and target pistols would have the slightest impact on crime. Tighter restrcitions on handguns are more likely to have a measurable effect.
Taking the contrary view and assuming there was no evidence that gun control had any effect on crime levels, it would have to be accepted, I think, that the status quo should remain undisturbed.
To me this seems reasonable. My suspicion is that properly enforced restriction PROBABLY would reduce murder rates, and therefore I do not imagine the pro lobby would accept it.
EG
I would have to say local legislation is the best way to go for both.. repeal some state and federal restrictions under the intent of localization of legislation. And I will reinforce my point.
My suspicion is that properly enforced restriction PROBABLY would reduce murder rates, and therefore I do not imagine the pro lobby would accept it.
The key word would be properly enforced, just plain ENFORCED, or to change your words with permission I would suggest effectively enforced. And as there is no guarantee of this, moving to legislate might still be irresponsible. In a more free country, where we may travel and live without being search unless there is probable cause, gun control may be impossible or effectively impossible to enforce. In this situation, which there might be models of or close enough to observe, possibly Australia and Canada– I don’t know their laws so I’m reaching a little thus the first qualifier. I will just state with out all the clauses. In this situation, we begin to see armed criminals and unarmed law-abiding people. This is a recipe for more violent crime and heart ache.
I guess the bottom line is in a country where liberty and freedom abounds, it is inconsistent not to also grant the means for self-defence when this freedom greatly restricts the ability to ensure safety otherwise.
That aside, the place where the two sides reach stalemate, based on point of view is; does one value liberty/freedom or security/safety more? I value liberty more. This is why I would tolerate slightly higher levels of crime or other things that are bad in society over preventive type laws. If doing things “for our own good” (which I believe I have made clear how I feel about this) is the chief concern I would place alcohol and cigarettes as far more likely to take a toll on society than guns. We all remember how prohibition went. So perhaps this is inconsistent with what the country really wants or wanted then (i.e. protected from too much freedom or even themselves). If safety and security is valued more than freedom/liberty then one will eventually give up most or all of their rights and have to really hope government is always trustworthy.. all I can say is others may take that bet but I wouldn’t. I have nothing against those who would, except they scare me when they vote.
Perhaps the idea of allowing local governments to set the rules is the best way. Rural areas would be more likely to permit guns, through simple need and because of the hunting business. Highly urbanised areas might be keener to restrict guns in an attempt to reduce murder rates.
I think we agree now or have found an acceptable solution that is hard to refute in more localized government. There will be those who say if guns are legal in one place but ont another criminals will just get their guns there. My answer to them would be “enforce your laws”. if they complained, hey they can always try to take more of their peoples rights on a quest for utopia but leave others out of it.
As I understand it, gun control laws are much tighter in Canada than in the US. They are certainly much tighter in Australia, which is coming close to the British model.
The enforcement of all laws needs to be good to prevent crime. Possession of guns doesn’t have much, if any, measurable effect on crime rates despite numerous attempts to prove that it does. An honest and diligent police force, meaningful deterrent sentences and an efficient and equitable court system is FAR more important and really does make all the difference.
Not really. This tends to happen only where gun laws are weakly enforced. This is logical enough, since the law-abiding will naturally obey the law to turn in their guns, whereas the criminals won’t. If no serious effort is made to deal with armed criminals, they will in some cases tend to make increased use of guns because they know the penalties are not serious. The British experience, with low detection and conviction rates in general, illustrates this.
In general, if there is good law enforcement the fact that the population is disarmed does NOT actually lead to an increase in armed criminals. It is a combination of poor general law enforcement and a disarmed population that gives the appearance of a correlation, but it is only a correlation and not a cause-effect situation.
I understand this point of view, but don’t wholly agree with it. The point of having centralised law enforcement and deterrence is that it is cheaper and more efficient than relying on millions of citizens doing part time what a few thousand professionals can do full time. Simple division of labour, really.
Freedom is all very well, but the problem in this case is that the higher crime results in a more paranoid society. The oft-quoted quip about trading freedom for security and gaining neither is not an absolute statement of fact, it is largely rhetoric. Surrendering a little freedom to gain a lot of security in the form of much reduced crime rates is generally accepted by most people, otherwise why would we bother having police and laws? This breaks down when the freedom is sacrificed but the security is not delivered – but that is not inevitable. Given good law enforcement, the bargain works and up to a point it is a very good one.
This assumes government can never get better. Governments can be changed, society changes, expectations change. It is not reasonable to assume government can only ever get worse. Government also screws up, of course, and it is incumbent on the people to consider the freedoms they have sacrificed and the measure of security gained in return. When the bargain starts to fail, it needs to be renegotiated – but if the people don’t do that this is their own problem.
This doesn’t seem to happen. I read recently (will try to find the link again) about some experiments done with very tough local enforcement of gun law in some part of the US, carried out at the same time as close observation of the controlled and unchanged localities. Gun crime went down significantly in the controlled area and was not displaced to the unchanged.
EG
This tends to happen only where gun laws are weakly enforced.
This was exactly my point. I say again..
The key word would be properly enforced, just plain ENFORCED, or to change your words with permission I would suggest effectively enforced. And as there is no guarantee of this, moving to legislate might still be irresponsible. In a more free country, where we may travel and live without being search unless there is probable cause, gun control may be impossible or effectively impossible to enforce. In this situation, which there might be models of or close enough to observe, possibly Australia and Canada– I don’t know their laws so I’m reaching a little thus the first qualifier. I will just state with out all the clauses. In this situation, we begin to see armed criminals and unarmed law-abiding people. This is a recipe for more violent crime and heart ache.
The part I am more or less seeing if you agree is with.. In a more free country, where we may travel and live without being search unless there is probable cause, gun control may be impossible or effectively impossible to enforce.
My mention of Canada and Australia had to do with places where effective enforcement probably wasn’t happening. If they had known they wouldn’t be able to enforce it.. woulld they have passed the laws? I won’t answer that for them.
on a separate note,
Just so you know where I stand. I’m really not an anacrchist. I do understand there is give and take with freedom and security. I’m not suggesting we disband the police, I am merely saying I prefer freedom to security.
Freedom is all very well.
Ouch. It’s a little more than that to me, and I would suggest, it is the very premise to the founding of the US.
The oft-quoted quip about trading freedom for security and gaining neither is not an absolute statement of fact, it is largely rhetoric.
Not an absolute but also not MOSTLY rhetoric. I would put it in the realm of philosophy.
This assumes government can never get better. Governments can be changed, society changes, expectations change. It is not reasonable to assume government can only ever get worse. Government also screws up, of course, and it is incumbent on the people to consider the freedoms they have sacrificed and the measure of security gained in return. When the bargain starts to fail, it needs to be renegotiated – but if the people don’t do that this is their own problem.
The point is that if one don’t give more power to the government then one doesn’t have to trust them to behave. In a constitutional democracy based on individual freedom and limited government, the citizens have the responsibility TO themselves FOR the government and if things go poorly with it, they have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, few people in the US realize how good they have it. They also have to accept consequences of freedom. I guess some want to renegotiate the deal, which I believe you said. I personnally don’t want more security and would like a little even to negotiate for some more freedom. I resereve my right to paranoia.
This doesn’t seem to happen. I read recently (will try to find the link again) about some experiments done with very tough local enforcement of gun law in some part of the US, carried out at the same time as close observation of the controlled and unchanged localities. Gun crime went down significantly in the controlled area and was not displaced to the unchanged.
Then WE really, really, really, do agree that localized legislation is the way to go. I would like those links if you can find them, for GP.
I wonder if any one else would have reason for a different solution?
Yes, it would, IF it was impossible to search without probable cause.
Considering searches of houses, it is generally the case that probable cause is needed because, unless the householder consents to the search, a warrant is needed and (at least in the UK) the judge will need to be satisfied there is a valid reason.
However, considering searches on the street, roadblocks, etc., I think this is different. A few years ago, several police forces in Scotland collaborated for a weekend of random roadblocks and car searches with absolutely no advance publicity – a secret operation, in other words. They uncovered millions of pounds worth of stolen property, illegal drugs, etc., all in one weekend. As a pragmatic conservative, I suggest the state should have the right to do this sort of thing from time to time, and that it should have the right to stop people in the street and search them. BUT:
There is no need for a continuing series of random roadblocks, nor is there the need for continual stop-n-search of pedestrians. However, from time to time, and in appropriate areas, this sort of tactic can be justified. For example, if crime in general is going up in a certain area, stop and search and/or roadblocks could be an effective weapon in detecting and preventing crime. If the area is peaceful with a low crime rate, however, there is really no justification for it.
I think this goes to the heart of the liberty argument. Unless there is reason to believe someone is committing a serious crime in their house (e.g. murder, rape, drug manufacture or dealing, kidnap, etc.) then that person should be pretty much left alone. There is no justification otherwise for intruding.
But when we go out in public, this is different. We are NOT in a private space where we can expect and demand complete privacy of our person. We are in a PUBLIC place, and we have to observe the rules of that place – just as if we were in someone else’s home. In order to mix freely in public, we have to accept some curtailment of the liberty we might expect in our own home. This should be obvious.
Suppose, for example, you live alone and you think it is perfectly acceptable to walk around your own home completely naked. Fine, go ahead and do it, it is your house. But suppose you go to someone else’s house, and they don’t think this is acceptable. Would you nevertheless insist upon your view that it is acceptable? Of course not, you respect the rules of that other person’s property. So it is in a public place, where you must respect the rules of that public place, which is to say the general public law.
Different rules necessarily apply. Since we are dealing not with a small number of people well known to us, but with millions of people we don’t know the first thing about, and since a proportion of these unknown millions are criminals of one sort or another, then we have to expect some sacrifice of liberty in return for protection against them. You can argue that in return for liberty in public and no stop & search, you will take care of your own security. This is all very well in theory, but in practice is a complete disaster – which is why police systems were introduced. The reason it is a disaster is that the criminal element is also necessarily granted the liberty to take care of its own security, and thus we have openly armed criminals wandering the streets. It may sound fine in theory, but it just doesn’t work, especially not in large urban concentrations of people. If you wish to be a part of any society, you must cede some of your liberty and autonomy to that society. This applies whether it is public society in general or your local fishing club – in either case, you can only be a member if you agree to abide by the rules.
Even if there is no state and all law enforcement is private, you STILL need to cede autonomy. Crime cannot be detected without investigation, and that investigation is going to need coercion and intrusion now and then. You can fall back on the old libertarian “no initiation of force” concept, but the thing to remember is that stop & search is NOT initiation of force. Laws have been broken, which is the initiation. The stop & search is the retaliatory force, and since it is not always possible to know who precisely the lawbreaker is it will be necessary to stop innocent people. This is simply unavoidable. It makesno difference if it is a state police system or a private one, the same basic principle applies.
Liberty is not, and cannot be, absolute under any possible system, because you must then grant absolute liberty to people who want to destroy your absolute liberty. All this does in practice (whatever the theory says) is to create a violent and insecure society. This is not supposition, it is what really happened before the introduction of comprehensive police systems in the west 200 odd years ago. Moreover, the degree of liberty possible in practice varies from place place. A complete prohibition of search without probable cause in any circumstance is simply not realistic, unless you accept a very high level of persistent and insoluble crime.
It is reasonable to conclude that the circumstances in which gun control laws are completely unenforceable will never, and cannot, exist in practice.
EG