You can view part one here.
Continuing on the notion of natural rights, the right to self-defense is perhaps the most basic of all. In fact, you cannot have any other rights without first having the right to protect your most basic of possessions, your body. Surely the right to life enumerated in the Declaration of Independence is inseparable from the right to self-defense.
The most obvious extension of the right to self-defense is not arming as many people as possible or restricting guns to private citizens, but rather allowing individuals to decide for themselves the best means of self-protection. There is no one size fits all solution to defense, and best person to decide for you how to protect your person is you, not a non-responsive overbearing government that can only pretend to know specific solutions to a broad number of individual situations.
The ignorance and arrogance towards the natural right of self-defense in the anti-conceal carry lobby is the most infuriating of all positions. They think not of society, but only of themselves. Because they are in a stable and most likely affluent environment they see no need for others to protect themselves. They think a quick call to 9-1-1 is the only defense a person should ever need. These are the Rosie O’Donnell types who are more than willing to trample on the rights of others as long as it doesn’t affect them.
Lastly, the misogynist position on guns is control or abolition. Why? Because males physically have advantages over the vast majority of women when it comes to strength. Most men, stronger than most women. In society, the only thing that can, when it comes to an attack, create 'equalization' is a firearm. White men have tried to keep guns out of the hands of all downtrodden and oppressed peoples, they tried to keep them out of the hands of the "negros" post-slavery, they tried to keep them out of the hands of the Jews during the Nazi reign of terror, and even today, they and the morons that support anti-firearms restrictions attempt to keep guns out of female hands. If we de-armed society tomorrow, we'd still have to worry about the worst of all arms control... the trained and fit arms of aggressive and idiotic males. Society would be at the mercy of the physically strong in all matters as the lack of equalization that firearms bring would then unleash the oppression of numbers (gangs) or strength (most males vs. most females).
So what of all the gun violence in American then? Surely the numbers tell us that we are more apt to kill with a gun than any other industrialized nation in the World.
If people were really interested in curtailing the use of guns to end the life of others they’d attack the source of that violence, not the symptom. Simply repealing our unnecessary and oppressive drug laws would eliminate, almost overnite, the vast majority of needless violence in this country.
Switzerland has MORE guns then the United States; they actually issue the same assault weapons that have suburban moms in America fretting day and nite over to their citizens. Yet the Swiss don’t even register on statistics measuring homicides using firearms. Gun control advocates who rattle off statistics need to explain these numbers before they can use their selective figures to 'prove' guns cause more violence.
The Europeans I work with tell me the solution to America’s societal ills is more government control. Stricter drugs laws, stricter drug laws, censorship of our media, even prohibitions on our right to petition government. This, to them, is a ‘conservative’ approach. The conversation usually starts off something like, “You know, America is the greatest country in the World, but….” Followed by some sort of logic in which we should change our laws to be more like Europe. Ignoring the obvious conclusion that being NOT like Europe is the very thing that apparently made us “the greatest country in the World.”
Less government intrusions in our personal matters is the forward and progressive course of action. It is the true liberal approach. When government intrusions like unconstitutional drug laws create more violence, the solution is eliminating the government intrusion, NOT adding more nanny state regulations turning us more and more into a 1984 style regulated state in which “Big Brother” tells us what to eat, drink, smoke, where to go, what to think, who to interact with, and ultimately when to die.
America was, at one time, the greatest nation on Earth. And while most people can name something from the other side of the aisle that has tarnished our status, few can see that it is the sum of government itself that is the problem. Until we stop attributing moral value inanimate objects like guns and drugs, and start recognizing the truths that were the foundation of our nation, we'll only regress not progress.
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Gun Post, Part Two
Labels:
boomsticks,
drug laws,
guns,
liberalism,
nanny state nonsense,
self defense
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Well said Scott. It should be noted that gun control advocates like Rosie O’Donnell & Sarah Brady both walk about under the protection of armed guards. They seem keen on gun control, so long as they still have the protection afforded someone with a gun. What's the word for that?... oh, yes - hypocrite. (I am a fan of Rosie, but disagree with her completely on this issue) Unfortunately, note everyone can afford an armed posse.
Cyberkitten: Gun rights are not just about crime, they are about the balance of power in our society. A criminal can always get a gun, even in places with strict gun control. Gun control only disarms honest people. But a gun is also an equalizer (as Scott said). I am a 200 pound, 41 year old man and I don't look like an easy victim for crime. But some people, unarmed, are not so lucky. This is especially true of women, the elderly, and the infirmed.
Unfortunately, note everyone can afford an armed posse.
No they cannot, nor can a person under attack by a knife wielding individual afford the time to wait for the only legally armed citizens of a nation (the police) to arrive.
Not to mention that incompetence of said police and the accompanying justice system in actually protecting or bringing justice to rape victims in countries where only police have guns.
well done, Scott, you have very clearly and carefully put your thoughts out here. I didn't comment on your last post, because I didn't really have anything to add to the debate. I feel compelled to post here, (even though I don't have anything to add again) because I enjoy reading your thoughts.
Actually, the Swiss have a very high gun death rate compaed to th rest of europe - or even Canada (but we'll assume that is because canadians live so far apart from each other they rarely get the chance to see anyone else, let alone shoot them *grin*)
As a female, living in a high crime/low income area, i hav never felt the need for a gu in th UK. They may "always be available" to those who want them, but it really is a vanisingly small number of people that have them! Even when I lived in gang land central, I rarely saw guns - a lot of knives, and home made weapons, but only two individully owned gums in my life. I also do not know anyone who has ever been shot. Or anyone who has ever been killed by a criminal attacker. How many Americans living in similar circumstances can say the same?
I think it is th fac that it is a written "right" to own personal weapons of your choice that contributes to America's problems. No other country defines it in that way. Many countries allow individual gun ownership - usully within well defined limits and constraints, but as far as I am aware only the US make it a fundemental right of all people, against all the evidence that people are patently not to be trusted with even single shot rifles, let alone automatic machine guns, anti-tank missiles and surface to air torpedoes which seem to be what they want!
Thanks Sam, I appreciate the kind words always.
JM,
Actually, the Swiss have a very high gun death rate compaed to th rest of europe - or even Canada
Which is attributed to suicide. Homicides are next to none.
As a female, living in a high crime/low income area, i hav never felt the need for a gu in th UK.
Bully for you. Would you propose that all laws should be written based on the "feeling of need" that you have? You didn't read the story I posted above.
against all the evidence that people are patently not to be trusted with even single shot rifles
Unless those "people" are the enlightened members of society known as the government, right?
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" -T. Jefferson
"Would you propose that all laws should be written based on the "feeling of need" that you have" now you're just being silly - that was written in response to Godwacker telling me that i need a gun and he doesn't because he is big and strong and suburban, while I am small and weak and inner city. i think i have more right to comment on what i "need" than he does!
And I've posted on rape before and have no intention of subvertig this discussion into that debate. perhaps another time?
"Unless those "people" are the enlightened members of society known as the government" yeah right - cos we all know our governments use those guns so very wisely!
As you cliam t be Lbertarian rather than an anrchist, I assume you think there should be some form of government. What do yu see thei role as, if not to protect people from themselves & others?
Apologies for the awful typing - My computer is very old and sticky:-(
now you're just being silly - that was written in response to Godwacker telling me that i need a gun and he doesn't because he is big and strong and suburban, while I am small and weak and inner city. i think i have more right to comment on what i "need" than he does!
Well I don't think he was saying you *need* a gun, I think he was agreeing with me that people should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they *need* a gun.
And I've posted on rape before and have no intention of subvertig this discussion into that debate. perhaps another time?
The article wasn't just about rape, it was about self-defense. Self-defense isn't just about stopping a murderer, it's about stopping anyone that would harm your person or property. Read the last paragraph:
"One victim of rape, the feminist writer Andrea Dworkin, once said that women and children were not protected by the law as it stood from "men who rape, rape, rape", and would have to take the law into their own hands if justice was ever to be done. "Women should get guns and should be allowed to use them to defend themselves," she said. If women continue to be denied justice, there will be many who agree with her."
What do yu see thei role as, if not to protect people from themselves & others?
If we must have a government, I see their proper role as protecting individual rights, not protecting individuals from themselves. I've also seen that the only country that has ever been founded in that principle has degenerated into a invasive nanny state, so I do have little faith in the ability of them to maintain their limited position.
Apologies for the awful typing - My computer is very old and sticky:-(
Ha, no problem. I've been there before.
I certainly agree that in an ideal world where everyone respected everyone else that access to guns wouldn't be a problem. But we don't live there. I personally know no less than 6 people who have been shot and killed in random acts of violence, four of whom were struck down before their 21st birthdays by gun violence. One while we were still in high school.
I know there's always exceptions and that those exceptions can't make the rules. However, until we figure out what it is about American culture that makes us so violent, I cannot accept that owning a gun is a "right" of every citizen.
I also find it ironic that gun nuts are always harping on about inaliable rights to guns rather than positive things like inalieable rights to health care, or decent jobs. Why shouldn't those things be "rights" too? I know, they're not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so therefore they're less important.
What it, structurally speaking, it was the founders' collective obsession with the mistrust of government and access to guns that constructs our violent attitude in the first place? What if, by instilling in future generations the need and desire for guns as an individual right, they actually created a violence-prone society whose every solution to a problem is "fight it out" cowboy mentality? (Maybe we can all get flight-suits and cod-pieces so we can feel tough)...
American identity is a construct, it's not like "poof" one day American identity was born. So unless we can re-define ourselves away from violent tendencies, maybe we're totally screwed? A society is only as peaceful as its most violent citizens.
I'm far too much of a pacifist to approve of gun ownership, even under the self-defence justification.
I will say this, however: I think society has to take an all-or-nothing approach. Either the state should have a monopoly on the use of force (per Weber) or you're forced to arm every citizen, as you describe in Switzerland. A scenario where half the population is armed obviously lends itself to trouble.
And that's the problem with the debate in the USA, in my view. Too many people are already armed. There's no way to collect all the weapons, even if there was political will to do so. And that's why the pro-gun ownership, self-defence argument makes sense — it isn't the ideal, but it is a logical response to reality.
My solution is, I will never live in the USA. Not that I'm 100% safe from gun violence in Canada! It's probably a situation where half the population is armed! But Laura seems to be right: the USA is an extraordinarily violent society, for reasons that are not yet understood (and probably never will be).
stephen said: Too many people are already armed. There's no way to collect all the weapons, even if there was political will to do so.
Erm... Yes there is...
First you stop manufacturing and selling more guns to the public. You also stop the import of guns from abroad. Then you give a 90 day limit for people to hand in their firearms when they will be reimburshed at the going rate for the weapon. Then you make them illegal. Then you take guns off anyone who has registered a firearm but has failed to hand it in. Then you search for firearms whenever you search a person, an automobile or a property for anything else - as a matter of course. You also have huge fines and prison sentances for anyone caught in possession or especially using a firearm. Within a generations your state will be virtually gun free.
stephen said: the USA is an extraordinarily violent society, for reasons that are not yet understood (and probably never will be).
Agreed. The USA is a very violent society - but the cause is clearly cultural. So you analyse the culture looking for reasons, with diligence you find them, then you correct those parts of the culture that are resonsible and then gun crime is reduced.
If you look at a problem and start with the assumption can it can never be understood - never mind solved - then it never will be.
.....
Uh, wow.
That may be the most ridiculous comment I've seen on this blog.
You're going to get rid of guns how?
First you stop manufacturing and selling more guns to the public.
Great, you've just created a black market for guns. Now instead of being made in factories they'll be made in sweatshop style conditions by slave laborers. Instead of having a safe well regulated market for guns you've now got a market where the poor who need guns can get cheaply made ones that tend to blow up in their hands. Now instead of just imprisoning people who use guns for violence you're imprisoning people who don't have the skills to get a minimum wage level job and are forced to work in black market gun bazaars.
You also stop the import of guns from abroad.
el oh el.
Yeah, because drug importing isn't already illegal in America and that's been working so well. Now instead of just imprisoning people who use guns to harm others, and people who make guns, we'll also imprison impoverished "mules" who have no choice but to work running guns into the country.
Then you make them illegal.
Ah, so now making things illegal is effective in removing them from a society. Never mind our past experiences with alcohol or drugs, we're going to get it *right* this time. Now instead of just imprisoning people who use guns for harm, we're also imprisoning people who make guns, import guns, and own guns.
Then you take guns off anyone who has registered a firearm but has failed to hand it in.
Good idea, we'll just leave them in the hands of the "criminals" who didn't register them. They tend to follow laws and all.
Then you search for firearms whenever you search a person, an automobile or a property for anything else - as a matter of course.
Sure, fore go due process and all that out dated stuff. We've got an enlightened police state to run!
You also have huge fines and prison sentances for anyone caught in possession or especially using a firearm.
An exact template of our drug laws, which are OH-SO effective at eliminating drugs.
Within a generations your state will be virtually gun free.
No, within a generation you have a more violent, impoverished, and oppressed nation with thousands more people imprisoned for victimless crimes. And you have rich intellectuals looking for ways to *fix* our culture of it's ills. Of course this never happens and there is a never ending loop of problems caused by intrusive government being fixed my more government intrusions.
Stupid.
scott said: That may be the most ridiculous comment I've seen on this blog.
Gee, thanks! For everything there is a first time.
scott said: Stupid.
Well... I didn't say it was going to be easy... [grin].
Stephen said that it couldn't be done. With that kind of attitude it never could be. Pretty much any social change is possible with the right tools, enough effort and the will to see it through.
Noe of it will ever happen of course - because no one *wants* it to happen.
Great post Scott!
Best post and comment ever actually btw. Scott, you just blow me away.
@Juggling Mother
I would never presume to tell you that you need a gun, but I would defend your right to have one if you so chose. Owning a gun is a serious choice and I don't think it should be taken lightly. For the record, I didn't own a gun for years. In 2005, hurricane Wilma caused major damage where I lived and I observed near riot conditions at my safe local suburban grocery store. Phone lines were down, communications jammed, and contradictory information was coming out from all sources. In such a situation, people and families have the right to defend themselves. But if all you want as an option is to TRY to call 911, be my guest, you wont get through though.
@Laura
I personally know no less than 6 people who have been shot and killed in random acts of violence, four of whom were struck down before their 21st birthdays by gun violence. One while we were still in high school.
I have several friends who were killed on bicycles. Should we outlaw bikes? But my real question is "how many crimes have been prevented and how many lives saved by the fact that someone had a gun?" I know of at least one, and that person was my mother, so please excuse me if I don't go into a lot of statistical gibberish, but that one life saved is enough for me.
changing tack a little here:
"The Europeans I work with tell me the solution to America’s societal ills is more government control. Stricter drugs laws, stricter drug laws, censorship of our media, even prohibitions on our right to petition government"
Really? What kind of European do you work with then? Do they suggest you should have stricter drug laws like the Netherlands? Well known for their intolerance of any narcotics! Or perhaps censorship of the media like Scandinavia has? Iceland, Finland & Norway have been oted to have the most free press by "Reporters without Borders" every year I think. And Prohibition of your right to petition Government? In what way - in the way that the poor Swiss citizens do not have any say in their own law-making? There, Any Swiss citizen has the right to propose new legislation .
Europe is a pretty diverse place, but on most things we would consider ourselves to be WAY mor "liberal" than the USA. Gun control is about government control of who has guns and what thy have, not the removal of th gun from the whole of the country (although that may be a another discussion, focused on the violence discussed above, it is not directly relevant to the concept of gun control laws).
As I said, many countries allow any mentally able citizen to own firearms, but all others restrict or specify some aspects of this.
Well most of them are eastern Europeans, but there is a French fellow, a handful of Italians, and one authentic Austrian Nazi. The rest are mostly Poles, a Romanian, and an older gentleman from the former Yugoslavia.
I wouldn’t suggest that the views of each of these people represent their country as a whole, but there does seem to be a different way of looking at the State. That’s changing here though, or already has changed.
Scott: Yes, a good point (e.g. bicycles), but there are laws in place requiring people to wear helmets etc. Plus, most bicycle fatalities usually involve cars... something we need a state-sanctioned license to drive. Should we get rid of that too? If the state is bad and shouldn't be telling us what to do?
One could argue that my inherent right of pursuit of happiness includes running down little old ladies in the street with my car. But I'm not allowed to do that. The state or other form of social authority has always set rules of conduct and decided who was worthy of what rights.
If you prove yourself unworthy of a right (i.e. you commit murder with a gun) then you lose the right to that. But that involves government "intrusion" on an "inherent" right of everyone to own a gun. The fact that someone is a murderer doesn't take away their human-ness - which is, according to these arguments, the only thing that is necessary for these rights to be enacted.
But there always have been, and always must be limits - no matter if we like it or not. Because the plain truth is, some people are fuckers and their idea of happiness is the suffering of others. It's up to the majority of people in a democracy to decide who those people are.
Scott, you work with another Romanian, that's cool. Does he talk Romanian? Um...I guess you can just tell me at home...K, LOVE YOU!!!!
@Laura One could argue that my inherent right of pursuit of happiness includes running down little old ladies in the street with my car.
Yes, you could argue that, but it doesn't make any sense. Individual rights end where harm to another begins. My gun, locked in my house, is a danger to no one, least they try to break down my door. My car on the other hand is a "danger" to anyone on the road with me if I don't know how to drive it. It's a bit like comparing apples and coconuts. :)_
But cars kill far more people then guns in the U.S. Perhaps we should outlaw cars too? And knives? They are also dangerous. Cigarette? Dangerous. School busses, most of which still have no seat belts? Dangerous. Spinach? Yes spinach; it's potentially dangerous. And alcohol; I assume that's not olive oil you're chugging in that photo. At least 19 people died last year from alcohol poisoning. 17,941 died from DUIs, and hundreds of thousands more were injured. Sure DUI is already illegal, but so is shooting people without just cause. So maybe we should ban alcohol? But we tried that and it didn't work. Just like a gun ban won't work.
Life on earth has never been, nor will it ever be completely safe. Prohibitions work to create underground economies that breed crime and ultimately make us less safe.
Laura, I would add that I agree with the idea of governments existing to protect individual rights, like the right to life of those old ladies you mentioned. If there is an ethical argument for government, it is that.
My objection to government though is one that is based on our experience. We (the U.S.) started out with an extraordinarily well-written and binding constitution. We had the benefit of over throwing an over bearing government and opposition to such a system was etched in the country’s philosophy and people. Yet, not even 100 years later we had an overbearing Federal Government DECLARING WAR on individual States. And two hundred years later we’re here debating whether or not we’ve devolved into some type of “fascist” state.
Theoretically speaking, a limited government set up to protect the rights of individuals seems like a plausible and just idea. In practice, I don’t see it work.
I believe we can do better.
Godwhacker said: "Individual rights end where harm to another begins. My gun, locked in my house, is a danger to no one, least they try to break down my door."
Very true... but then, isn't that an argument for the regulation of guns right there? Guns in the wrong hands or under the wrong circumstances can cause harm to others... so they should be licensed and regulated as cars are... and those who do not, say, pass a competency test, and are not re-evaluated every few years, and do not have the basic skills to handle a gun are not licensed? Just like cars?
I'm not saying nobody ever should have guns... I'm saying there needs to be rules regarding who is allowed to have them, when, and how they are to be used so as not to cause undue harm to another person.
Hi Laura,
I don't think it's an argument for licensing, I think it's an argument for common sense. Owning a gun should not be a crime. Using a gun for a crime or criminal negligence with a gun is not protected by law and should not be protected by law.
"IF" someone causes a problem, "THEN" society/government has a right to step in. But to simply assume that possession of a gun, drug, drink, (fill in the blank) should be a crime has a history of deleterious effects on society. That's not just my opinion, it's history.
"But to simply assume that possession of a gun, drug, drink, (fill in the blank) should be a crime..."
That's not what I'm saying though. There are common sense ways to pro-actively prevent problems - by ensuring that people with guns (or who drive cars or semi-trucks, or manufacture food...) are at least minimally aware of safety and common sense procedures. That means regulation of some sort. That means a system of rules in place to decide what the penalties are for misuse. How are we to establish that with any generalizability and consistency without some governing body? By Quorum?
But Laura,
cars and guns are not comparable. Every day I “point” my car at hundreds, if not thousands of people. There is an action involved in driving my car. If I ran down the street pointing my gun at people, that would be completely unacceptable.
Reading your comments again, I think you are confused about what a “right” is. Under our constitution, a right is a right to action. If you claim that you have a right to a tangible item, then essentially what you are saying is that you, via the force of government, are willing to take that item (education, healthcare, food, shelter) from someone else. This is the blueprint for a totalitarian society. Note the difference between this concept of rights and the idea of “life, liberty, and the pursuit (but not the guarantee) of happiness”.
My “right to bare arms” is not a right to threaten anyone, it does not infringe on anyone. It requires no subsidy. I don’t walk into a gun shop or a government office and demand that I have a right to a gun. But if I work and earn enough to buy a gun, the Federal Government is prohibited from stopping me, at least it’s supposed to be.
Our constitution was written to protect us against evil people and systems. What you are saying might sound good on some levels, but the potential harm to our society by far outweighs the bennifits.
I'm not "confused" at all. I simply consider those things you mentioned - health, education, safe housing, economic security along with safety of person and civil and political rights as rights in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which the US is a signatory). I believe rights go far beyond those expressed in our constitution. But that also, as I said earlier, people are fuckers and there needs to be some system in place to ensure that those rights are respected and that those people who demostrate themselves undeserving of some of those rights, be adequately dealt with.
I also think that your separation of the tangible object vs. a right to an action is artificial. Gun rights as rights necessarily refer to tangible objects (i.e. ownership of the gun). The right allowed in the constitution is the right to bear arms in an organized militia. I.e., if the situation presents itself, we have the right as citizens to revolt. The conundrum here is that that right to revolt is dependent on our access to firearms or other such adequate armaments. So you cannot separate the tangible object from the action.
Hi Laura,
I'm not trying to be insulting. And in the realm of ethics, I agree with you. People should not be suffering needlessly. I don't live in a fancy house and I don't drive a fancy car, because most of my efforts go to charitable causes. But the moment you take those needs and make them rights, the type of government you end up with is a dictatorship. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the blueprint for a global dictatorship, and while I agree with many of it's goals, it's methods establish a global government that could easily devolve into some kind of Orwelian nightmare.
No offense taken. I like to argue (if you can't tell)
Yes, very true. I believe that ANY social system - be it a government or the free market or anything in between, in it's purest form looks great on paper. But the moment you add the human element to it (greed, self-serving nature, self-preservation, social privilege, etc.) it all goes to shit.
The only way any system works is with the full participation of people. Some people need a little extra help getting to a point where they're in a position to fully participate.
The ignorance and arrogance towards the natural right of self-defense in the anti-conceal carry lobby is the most infuriating of all positions. They think not of society, but only of themselves. Because they are in a stable and most likely affluent environment they see no need for others to protect themselves.
Well said. I'm going to do a post on this, and this alone one of these days.
Laura - with all due respect, I know a hell of a lot more than six people killed by cars, many before their 21st b-day. Now, I'd be all for making cars illegal, as long as I get a personal limo driver.
I also know a hell of a lot more than six people killed by heart disease. So, should we outlaw letting people get fat?
Where does it stop?
There are only two things in the world more fun than guns - heavy metal music and sex. Outlaw any of those three things, and I'm going to be really, really pissed.
Well to be fair to Laura I don't think she's in the outlaw all guns crowd. She's just for strict regulation.
Scott - Yeah, I know. Laura's one of my favorite bloggers, somebody I've followed since the beginning. We've had more than one argument about guns in the past.
The thing with regulation, is I trust the American people more than I trust the gov't.
The thing with regulation, is I trust the American people more than I trust the gov't.
Well that's certainly where you and I agree.
Post a Comment