There are lots of them, actually, but right up there is the fact that the ignorami who promote it know nothing about guns. Or rather, they know lots about them that is wrong.
106 thoughts on “The Problem With Gun Control”
Comments are closed.
There are lots of them, actually, but right up there is the fact that the ignorami who promote it know nothing about guns. Or rather, they know lots about them that is wrong.
Comments are closed.
Oh heck, Carl types faster.
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
“In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”
[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”
[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
The link Martin^^
I disagree Ken. The movement to restore intended 2nd amendment rights is stronger than it has been in decades.
As an aside I see a large number of unfamiliar posters with a gon control sentiment. Perhaps outside forces are trying to make a point?
To the trolls. Gun rights allow the weaker in society to not allow them selves to be subjected to the whims and coercion of the stronger. This is to protect the weak from the physically larger rapist of thief. The free American citizen from the tyranny of any government foreign or domestic. These rights come from God not the ruling classes – they are recognized in the constitution – not granted.
It amazes me that the left cannot find the right to bear arms in the second amendment but can easily find the right to abortion in other parts of the constitution. Seems to me a little disingenuous – or perhaps they are just playing politics while trying to remove a constitutionally guaranteed right that guarantees our freedom.
A perfect description of narcotics Prohibition.
The link Martin^^
Meh, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. How about this one:
God willing, the Republic shall endure as a bulwark of liberty.
Here the participle clearly indicates a condition, even though grammatically it may also mean because God wants (archaic: wills) it.
“Having dispatched Pete and sent him home crying to his mommy, I have to be honest now. I truly believe that gun control, for all our arguments, is pretty much a done deal. The gun control lobby is too powerful to be defeated politically. The deal has already been struck; at some point, we will have nationwide Wacos to disarm gun owners, as well as to kill them and their family members.
At what point will we choose to die like men, taking as many of them with us as possible, rather than being slaughtered like sheep?”
Ken, I think this is your depression talking.
Gun right are ascendent, the grass roots have never been stronger, we have the most pro-gun House and senate since before the NFA in the mid-30’s and we are winning court cases. The Brady Campaign and VPC were having to lay people off due to lack of money. There is no grass roots the antis call call on.
Look at the list of the top anti-gunners in the house and the senate, they are all very OLD and will soon be leaving politics one way or another. Their generation is on the wane.
This latest gun control push is a lost cause, they can’t hope to get within a light-year of the votes needed to pass it, hell the Speaker said he would not allow any such bills to move, it is a moot issue.
All this current push is is fodder for fundrasing for the Brady bunch, even the supporters will grudgingly admit the votes aren’t there.
Meanwhile, the bets selling long gun in North America is the AR-15 and the best seling handgun is the Glock 19. Millions of new firearms are being transferred into private hands each year on top of the hundreds of millions already there. There are billions of rounds of ammo sold every year in the American market.
If they are going to undo that Ken, they aren’t looking at an uphill battle, they are looking up a sheer cliff face.
You are looking at the most pro-gun climate in your life as a national whole.
Worth a read:
Why The Gun In Civilization? – Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) “An armed society is a polite society.”
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/ccw/37877-why-gun-civilization.html ^ | Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:11:34 PM by InfantryMarine
Edited on Monday, June 18, 2007 7:54:56 PM by Admin Moderator. [history]
Why The Gun In Civilization?
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
“When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.”
The average gun control advocate, reading this, will interpret it to mean you’re a psycho who was insufficiently socialized at school, and place you on the list of sorts who need to be rounded up and confined for your and society’s “own good.” The abiding fear of the progressive society-controller is people who just want to be left alone. That’s why news reports on psycho killers are always careful to point out that they are “loners.” Saying you “want to be left alone” is tantamount to saying you don’t care what other people think, which means you can’t be easily controlled by peer pressure. IOW, a danger to society.
Andre,
In the cotext he stated, it means he wants to not be hassled and threatened by low-lifes.
M Puckett, Do you know if Ken has depression? I do, but I’m not him.
[All rights] in the constitution are recognized – not granted.
FIFY.
This is why we should be oppose any talk of ‘rights’ which are not. The ‘rights’ the left recognizes are the right to take life, liberty and property from others. These are NOT rights and we need to keep the pressure on to prevent them from using that slight of hand.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
That’s a wee bit oversimplified. At least, I don’t think reason had much to do with why dear L consented to romp in the hay with me, 30 years ago this June. And I know there was no force involved.
M Puckett:
Um, I know that.
Andrea: I’m really interested to hear about other examples of rulers using criminals to bully the populace. I know present-day Britain is about as good an example as there is, but I’d love to see examples where the plot was later exposed by evidence.
Either way, a fascinating notion I’d like to explore.
Scott: open any history book about any country.
Er…Pete, did it occur to you that the guns weren’t used because it was a big crowd of people?
Yes – as you infer, hand guns do not appear to be as useful in practice as many seem to think.
And that folks saw that the guy was under control already?
A middle aged women (among others) proving faster, superior, and generally less useless than all those people around with hand guns – in this case.
Hand guns are not a panacea for all violent situations.
“Hand guns are not a panacea for all violent situations.”
Nobody’s claiming that they are. I’m sure we can all agree that nuclear weapons are much more effective in certain situations.
Akatsukami, sorry for my attempt at a joke about the US legal system – where I inferred that shooting someone dead would likely have fewer legal repercussions than accidentally killing someone with a generally non lethal restraint device.
The shotgun taser has I think run into trouble recently for potentially being able to kill some people with heart conditions – not safe enough, oh well, back to using standard shotguns instead.
I’m sure we can all agree that nuclear weapons are much more effective in certain situations.
Yes, though I have difficulty accepting the right of say North Korea to have them, let alone a private individual – even one who has passed a background check. Presumably a line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Rifles seem far less accident prone than hand guns to me – much more accurate, considered, effective and generally useful. A mostly non lethal hand gun equivalent is perhaps possible – it might result in a lot fewer lethal accidents, and be generally safer and more convenient for most people.
Hand guns are not a panacea for all violent situations.
Good grief, Pete, if that’s your only point, I wonder you bothered to type it. I mean, I’m pretty sure all statements of the form X is not a panacea for Y are true.
A mostly non lethal hand gun equivalent is perhaps possible
Well, in the first place, Pete — what makes you think so? There aren’t many ways of stopping a man in his tracks that don’t do a fair amount of damage, or don’t involve asking him to roll up his sleeve and hold still for a moment. What, exactly, do you have in mind? Magic paralysis beams? Phasers on stun?
In the second place, I’m not sure many people would bother. What’s the point? If a shithead breaks into my home in the middle of the night, what’s my motivation for stopping him using nonlethal means? That just means I have to go through endless court hearings, and possibly worry about him coming back for revenge when he gets out of pokey, assuming he goes up anyway. I’m fairly comfortable with the alternative, where he just gets carted away by the coroner for an autopsy. I’m really failing to see why I should bother to try to preserve his life. He’s already made it clear he isn’t worried about preserving it, by breaking into my home.
Finally, if your aim is to reduce violent crime, I am not sure how your “nonlethal” stopping instrument does the job. Sure, murder for hire gets slightly more complicated: first I have to stun my victim with your nonlethal widget, and then I have to cut his throat, throw him off a bridge, run over him with the car, whatever. But pretty much any other crime made easier with a weapon is still enabled with your “nonlethal” widget. You can still kidnap people or rob them. If you really want to kill them, you certainly can, once they’re rendered helpless. Just carry a knife, for example. So why is your magic nonlethal weapon going to make us all miles safer, even assuming we can make guns utterly unavailable?
But does anyone EVER think about WHY the USSR never tried a “Red Dawn” scenario? Or why China doesn’t now? IMHO, it’s because average Americans own too many trucks, dirt bikes, people have camping gear and backwoods skills and we own too many GUNS.
I suspect it’s more likely that they understand it’s beyond their capabilities to transport and supply an army large enough to conquer a continent sized nation of 300 million people across several thousand miles of ocean. Dealing with an armed US population would be a compartively small problem.
“I don’t like guns”
Hey, some of my best friends are guns. Not to say I want to hang out all night with some pearl handled revolver, but if I had to I could. And my daddy always said that if two rifles want to spend a lot of time together, well, that’s their business and nobody else’s.
All guns are created equal in the eyes of the bullet. Some are more equal of course, but that’s simply a matter of caliber, and doesn’t really reflect the content of their magazines.
Can’t we all just get along with our various guns, without prejudice?
Please people, your guns are the same as my guns, deep down inside.
“Dealing with an armed US population would be a compartively small problem.”
Like the armed Afghani population was a comparatively small problem for them.
Bennett, I am pro-choice. I think if you are law-abiding and adult, you should be able to choose any firearm you like.
Like the armed Afghani population was a comparatively small problem for them.
Just venting one of my pet peeves about the Red Dawn movie (which I liked). Before you can deal with the non-trivial task of an armed population, you have to deal with the impossible task of transporting and supplying a multi-million man army and all their equipment over several thousand miles of open ocean. Think about the logistics involved in the D-Day invasion and then try to imagine them if Great Britain had been occupied by Germany.
I’m with Pete — Matrix-style flip-kicks solve everything.
If a shithead breaks into my home in the middle of the night, what’s my motivation for stopping him using nonlethal means? That just means I have to go through endless court hearings, and possibly worry about him coming back for revenge when he gets out of pokey, assuming he goes up anyway.
I agree, but does not the legal system strike you as getting it fundamentally wrong in this regard? Where it is far less legally expensive to kill a person than restrain them? No three strikes and you are out, no due process – the rule of men not the rule of law.
Preaching to the choir here, but you’re talking about the end-product of people whose world-view tells them that economic riots in Greece are a good thing. A thug that breaks into Carl’s house is just economic rioting on a small scale.
“I can not help but suspect that many in the US have an almost paranoid attraction to penis compensating hand guns, and little interest in actual practical safety and defense. Would people seriously go hunting with hand guns? Hand guns seem to be weapons of terror not war in an otherwise civil society. ”
Four total BS lies in three sentences.
Pete is definitely a gun-grabber: only they can lie that fast and still expect to be taken seriously.
Oh, and Pete? I can tell the difference between a handgun and my penis.
Since you can’t, I request that you have steps taken to insure that you never own either and divest youself of any that you now posess.
For the good of the species, you understand.
I agree, but does not the legal system strike you as getting it fundamentally wrong in this regard?
Depends. If society as a whole decides the lives of burglars are worth preserving, then, yes, it should give me incentives to preserve his life while stopping his crime.
Conversely, it’s hard for me not to conclude that the present system implies that the society does not value the life of a burglar per se. Those who work in the justice system do, however, value my tax money, so when they have an opportunity (a live criminal) they will soak up as much of it as they can.
I think the justice system in general is pretty perverse because, with rare exception, only jackals and hyenas can stand to work in it for any length of time. Ordinary human beings, with ordinary common sense and empathy, are driven out by the insanity and hopelessness. This may be an unfixable problem. Only smelly people are happy to pick up garbage, and if the garbage needs to be picked up, you have to resign yourself to it being done by smelly people.
Or I guess you could take the ancient Greek solution, and select citizens by lot and rotation (you don’t have to do it again until everyone else has had a go) to be judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, probation officers, jailors, et cetera. Way less efficient, but perhaps better at preserving the broad agreements and insights into other lives that keep society together.
“A mostly non lethal hand gun equivalent is perhaps possible”
Well, in the first place, Pete — what makes you think so? There aren’t many ways of stopping a man in his tracks that don’t do a fair amount of damage, or don’t involve asking him to roll up his sleeve and hold still for a moment. What, exactly, do you have in mind? Magic paralysis beams? Phasers on stun?
There are a great many ways of stopping or even just disrupting a person. I am sure many on this forum could come up with some very creative solutions. Some interesting technologies are becoming possible.
Miniature UAVs that record everything, perhaps take DNA, perhaps have offensive capability, perhaps track criminals until the militia gets there. Explosive ammo/air bags that could knock a person over, probably without killing them. Mesh network tranquilizer darts that monitor life signs and actively administer sedatives. Miniature UAVs that actively shine lasers in eyes, sound in ears, and so forth. Eye sprays, smoke bombs, stink bombs, ballistic nets, bolas, etc.
A wireless personal surveillance device that made capture and prosecution fairly inevitable could quickly remove a large part of the criminal population.
A smart phone app panic button that alerted other smart phone users in close proximity to your plight might enable fast help.
Nearby quadcopters that responded to a cell phone call and provided fast response active surveillance.
Miniature UAVs that record everything, perhaps take DNA, perhaps have offensive capability, perhaps track criminals until the militia gets there. Explosive ammo/air bags that could knock a person over, probably without killing them. Mesh network tranquilizer darts that monitor life signs and actively administer sedatives. Miniature UAVs that actively shine lasers in eyes, sound in ears, and so forth. Eye sprays, smoke bombs, stink bombs, ballistic nets, bolas, etc.
Yes, because several million dollars worth of needlessly complicated, and unreliable, high-tech gizmos is preferable to a highly reliable and relatively inexpensive handgun. /eyeroll
Yes, because several million dollars worth of needlessly complicated, and unreliable, high-tech gizmos is preferable to a highly reliable and relatively inexpensive handgun. /eyeroll
I take it you have not been following recent advances in low cost small UAVs. Some of them are already cheaper than handguns, and unlike handguns they have improved significantly in the last hundred years and continue to do so at a rather fast pace.
I take it you have not been following recent advances in low cost small UAVs.
Actually I have, surprisingly enough I work in one of the military program offices that procures small UAVs…..they aren’t that low cost, they aren’t that small, they don’t operate that well in small spaces, like my house, and they aren’t anywhere near as reliable as my .357 magnum revolver.
Miniature UAVs that record everything…
Well, I won’t say no when the state says it’s cool for me to deploy my own mini-UAVs that take the DNA of people bugging me. Power to the people!
Except it sounds like you intend all this glorious technocrackery to be in the service of the police, not J. Random Citizen. And that…begins to bother the civil libertarian (not to mention 20th century historian) in me. See, if you want the police to be able to respond in the few seconds or half minute it takes for a dangerous situation to develop (like Tucson!) then you are going to want those mini-UAVs sniffing around all the time, everywhere. Nothing can be private any more.
In short, what you’re describing is a police state. And it is, indeed, possible to greatly reduce crime levels in a police state without trusting the citizenry with guns. But I don’t want to live there.
Smart phone controlled miniature quadrotors was one thought – on demand security camera that could walk people home. Bypass the need for police – could link it to a private security firm. But all the systems that will become practical over the next few years are far beyond my capacity to conceive. In contrast, the handgun has improved little in the last hundred years.
UAV DNA sampling is a rather scary prospect, though I have to suspect it will eventually happen. For example, drop a large number of miniature UAVs from a predator on terrorist groups and use them to characterize the DNA and relationships.
Long term I am not sure if DNA is something we will practically be able to keep to ourselves, sample a population and it should be possible to extrapolate most of the rest in some regards. People leave DNA behind them all the time – in public places. Presumably private groups will gain the capacity to collect and aggregate DNA.
Oh God. Pete really does think The Matrix is real. (Psst. Don’t tell him!)
http://www.ndesign-studio.com/blog/parrot-ar-drone-iphone-controlled-helicopter
Rrrrg. It’s not that I think you’re wrong, Andrea. My gut tells me you’re right on the money. However, I want to know more about these phenomena and I’d love a little guidance in my research. Is there a name for this phenomenon? Is there an example you could point me towards? I’d really appreciate it.
if your aim is to reduce violent crime
A minor percentage of all people do a major percentage of the violence. Given that fact, killing in self defense would be the fastest way to reduce violent crime.
If somebody is intent on killing you, not killing them first is just plain stupid.
Then again, catch and release has worked so well with Al Queda from Gitmo. Hasn’t it?
Well OK then, Pete. So I get to deploy my own dog pod grid. But why do you want me to be sure it’s nonlethal? What’s the point? Is this just an all life is sacred argument, so that you want to preserve even the lives of the wicked…in the hopes they’ll turn around or something? I can respect pure Christian charity, a feeling that life and death must be left in God’s hands.
But otherwise, I think you should explain with care why you believe the lives of those who threaten the lives of others are to be preserved.
I mean, there’s an extent to which I think adults who behave extremely criminally (children are another story, unfinished as they are) are simply wasting oxygen that could be put to better use by someone else. A little pruning might do the species good.
Furthermore, on the whole, I prefer the pruning to be done on the spot, immediately as the crime is committed or contemplated, and by the victim or would-be victim himself, rather than years later, in sadistic cold blood, by people who have nothing personal invested and are merely hired to be executioners.
That is, my preferred outcome to an attempt to commit violent rape is that the would-be victim shoots the would-be rapist in the head at the very moment of his savagery and her fear. That best serves her needs, best serves notice on the rest of the world that we are a just society, and ironically enough best preserves the human dignity of the criminal. To be gunned down at the height of your rage is one thing, more or less like dying in battle. But to be manacled, dragged through endless Court proceedings where you are treated like a nonperson, a side of beef, and then to be shut into a cage like an animal — or strapped to a board and euthanized like a mad dog — are grotesquely destructive of human dignity. I believe even depraved criminals are made in the image of Christ, so to speak — if nothing else, they were once innocent babies — and I would rather see them die like men than be sadistically degraded like farm animals.
But otherwise, I think you should explain with care why you believe the lives of those who threaten the lives of others are to be preserved.
I do not – I favor general rifle ownership and handguns where they come with the job (or circumstance). It is handguns for the sake of handguns that I object to, such people come across as dicks to me.
If the job that is trying to be accomplished is ensuring safety then handguns are a very poor product of marginal benefit – the vast majority of people in the world are genuinely much happier without them. There would seem a great opportunity for self protection product improvement here, though I am not exactly sure what that improvement would entail, but I do not see it encouraging a police state (which handguns kind of do a bit – the arms race).
I am also against the death penalty, for libertarian reasons. I see it as the job of the state to set a fair playing field, not simultaneously play the game and referee. When the power of the state conflicts with the power of the individual bad things tend to happen.
I differ from you in that I think that killing someone should be a considered, non spontaneous and non trigger happy act. If you feel it morally necessary to kill someone then you should be willing to demonstrate the depth of your conviction by willfully accepting a lengthy prison term as a consequence, if so decided by a court of law. Killing should be a last resort, and not done lightly, it should also be generally discouraged by society. It is in societies best interests that people compete via productivity, not violence.
If you are an advocate of killing people, then I would also expect you to be an advocate of contraception and even abortion in some circumstances – fixing the problem at the source. To be otherwise is rather hypocritical, there are no innocents and if life is sacred then killing people (proactively and retroactively) should be against your religion.
I dunno, Pete. Your philosophy looks like it could use some more thought to iron out inconsistencies and some frank factual nonsense. For example, if you’re thinking handguns are routes to mad murderous chaos, how do you explain the amazingly low number of cases of people mistakenly killed by legal handgun owners who thought they were being attacked? Something like 70 million people in the United States own guns. Have you even heard of one case in which one of them mistakenly killed someone he thought was burglarizing his home or attacking his wife? (I don’t doubt there’s one, and even dozens, but there sure as hell aren’t thousands every year.) So far as I can tell, the police commit many more accidental and stupid shootings than citizens do.
Here are some facts for you. Even allowing for the source, they are impressive. As I said way above, I don’t like guns. They are instruments of death, and I don’t like death. But I don’t argue with the facts, and the facts are that they work to deter evil behaviour, and they do it almost always without actually being fired, i.e. without any serious consequences.
I differ from you in that I think that killing someone should be a considered, non spontaneous and non trigger happy act
Who says otherwise, Pete? It’s a long, long jump to assume that because I care more about the lives of the innocent that I don’t care at all about the lives of the guilty, or the wretched.
If you are an advocate of killing people
I’m not. I’m an advocate of saving people’s lives, and I recognize that the threat of killing appears sometimes necessary to do that. I didn’t invent this world, so I’m not responsible for that regrettable fact.
I would also expect you to be an advocate of contraception and even abortion in some circumstances
A weird conclusion. As it is, I think contraception is great, and I would cheerfully embrace using my tax money to provide it free to everyone, and pursue research in still cheaper, more reliable, and more carefree methods. I always encourage people not to breed, as it should be undertaken only by serious people.
On the other hand I think abortion is appalling and I would probably readily vote to criminalize it past 12 weeks. I can think of no reasonable moral calculus that sets 6 months of mild physical and possibly significant psychological discomfort to the mother plus the modest risks of childbirth ahead of the life of a child.
I forgot: I, too, oppose the death penalty as applied by the state, for two reasons: first, I do not trust the justice system to get it right. Secondly, I think it does something disgusting to those who are tasked with judging it and carrying it out in an inhuman cold and cynical way.
The only cases where I would legalize a death penalty, so to speak, is by the victim during the actual commission of a crime. I would give a homeowner the right to kill anyone who breaks into his house. I would give a woman permission to kill her rapist during the rape, or attempted rape. I would give an old woman of whom a thug demanded her purse the right to draw her pistol and kill her assailant.
But if any of those things did not happen, I would not give the state the right to do them instead, later. The state may perhaps lock away criminals, or put them to work growing cotton, digging ditches, whatever. But it may not kill. The awful responsibility and right to take life which a victim acquires may not be delegated to others, if the victim does not or cannot use it.
Killing should be a last resort
This is a philosophy that has caused the death of many innocent people. No person put to death has ever gone on to kill others.
I would have to also look at indirect consequences of a handgun culture. As first world countries go the USA is I think near the top of the violent crime list, whether this is increased by the prevalence of handguns or not I could not say, but saying that a handgun culture, all up, substantially reduces the murder rate is I suspect a bit of a push. The vast majority of homicides in the USA are by handgun, though I am not sure how elastic the relationship is. Direct cause and effect is not so easy to establish, presumably there is something significantly different about the USA that prompts the higher murder rate. I would note that in most other first world countries, a handgun culture is not deemed worth the hassle by individuals – it is not seen as cost effective, so to speak.
Handguns are probably more appropriate for some parts of the USA than others, and handgun laws should probably be under state rather than federal law – so that they can vary accordingly. Above a certain violent crime rate a handgun culture probably becomes appropriate, below it, it become less appropriate. I suspect a large proportion of gun control arguments arise due to a lack of appreciation of what works for other cultures. I have never lived in a place where a handgun was warranted, so a handgun culture in such places has always been a net loss to me.
If it really was substantially to the benefit of society for a dangerous criminal to be killed then I would expect a private citizen to stand up and do so, and then voluntarily go to jail to demonstrate the seriousness of their convictions. To show that they did not take such action lightly and were willing to trade some of their freedom to take all the freedom of another. That very few private citizens choose to do this suggests to me that few think that killing is ever really justified. I see no real difference between killing in the moment or later on, the outcome is the same. I remember a line in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress to this effect – something along the lines of sometimes it was necessary to push people out airlocks, but only after serious consideration.
Obviously no one likes abortion, however evolution does it both proactively and retroactively all the time. Often it is in the best genetic interests of the fetus to abort (and they often do). It is not a simple moral question and ultimately the survival of the less than fittest is not a luxury anyone can afford (or morally justify). Human beings have few offspring and so have to make everyone really count – that is life. Personally I am hoping for technological improvements that enable most every pregnancy to be wanted – so abortion, among many other things, is largely eliminated. Obviously sex is not just about pregnancy (perhaps fewer than a thousand copulations result in pregnancy), so abstinence is not really a practical solution.
“Killing should be a last resort”
This is a philosophy that has caused the death of many innocent people. No person put to death has ever gone on to kill others.
True, it is a luxury of a society not struggling for daily survival. Although by last resort I was assuming for the preventative reasons you infer.
If survival is a daily struggle then survival of the fittest comes into play. The criminals, the mentally ill, the unhealthy, the poor, the old – all eventually get sacrificed. And if that is not culling enough, war often results (and our history is full of that).
“If it really was substantially to the benefit of society for a dangerous criminal to be killed then I would expect a private citizen to stand up and do so, and then voluntarily go to jail to demonstrate the seriousness of their convictions. To show that they did not take such action lightly and were willing to trade some of their freedom to take all the freedom of another. That very few private citizens choose to do this suggests to me that few think that killing is ever really justified.”
I’m sorry, but that’s just plain batshit. When you kill someone as a law-abiding citizen, you are knowingly placing yourself at the mercy of society. Law-abiding citizens who kill criminals do not then attempt to cover up the fact, despite what you may have seen in crummy suspense thrillers. They are immediately subjected to the scrutiny of the legal system. There is no thought at all that the shooter’s actions will go unnoticed. Therefore, they necessarily believe that their actions will survive legal scrutiny and be considered justified. You can argue that a defensive shooting is a momentary decision, but that would be missing the point. They bought the gun, loaded it, kept it where it could be reached in an emergency. They are not taking the decision “lightly”. That is a slur. If they had killed without cause, the legal system will punish them for it. If they had good legal cause, they deserve the freedom for which they fought. Their having a cavalier attitude about the whole thing is of no concern to any legal system. It is a subjective variable that has no bearing on the facts on the ground. You are simply prosecuting attitudes you find undesirable.
Furthermore, you have it all exactly backwards. How does voluntarily submitting to punishment mean that one DOES believe the killing was truly justified? Just because they’re willing to endure more suffering? Why should they suffer at all? They were attacked without cause by a malevolent individual who meant them harm. Why should their only choices be to rely on the mercy of a violent felon or accept the horrors of incarceration? Why is their prosperity and freedom forfeit because of the actions of the worst individuals that society has to offer?
But they could use less-lethal means, you say? Good, let’s send that signal to the criminals. “Whatever you try to do to those nice people, you’ll be safe from any permanent harm. It’s not like the thought of a painful death would deter you from unwanted behavior. When has THAT ever worked? I mean, sure, all police officers use guns to protect life, but that’s different. They’re wearing a 25 cent piece of pot metal on their chest.”
Violent crime is a revolting phenomenon that must be combated at every turn. You are seeking to tip the scales in favor of the criminal simply because you have a distaste for a particular crime-fighting tool.
it is a luxury of a society not struggling for daily survival
It has nothing to do with luxury and it’s not even all about survival. It’s about a very old and dusty concept called right and wrong.
The moment a person attempt to murder another they forfeit their life. Notice I said murder and not kill. Why? Because to prevent a murder anyone can kill a person that has forfeited their life. They will either be protecting their own life or someone elses. Often a murderer is not killed on the scene but captured. Then we hand them over to courts who should kill the murderer. Keeping a murderer alive does no justice to anyone. It is an allowance we make to a perverted modern society that has little understanding of right and wrong.
Biblically, not one of the ten commandments says, “Thou shalt not kill” that’s a mistranslation. What it actually says is “Thou shall not murder.” That difference is everything. Killing a murderer is no sin.
I think you maybe missing my point. In less clear cut cases of self defense people do have a rational option of doing away with a nasty criminal and then doing the time for doing so. If the criminal is evil enough and likely to kill others, that may just be a trade worth making. What I like about this approach is that it maintains the rule of law over the rule of men, which is I think critical (the self appointed executioner is held to account by the law) while also taking the death penalty out of the province of the state. It is one thing for an individual to take the life of another, quite another for the state to have such power.
As things currently stand, lethal self defense is really only permissible in the moment, generally when the assailant has the element of surprise and has chosen the time, the place and the weapon. This is a rather unbalanced situation, not conducive to considered action, and very dis-empowering for the victim. I for one have no wish to walk around in perpetual fear of surprise attack, continually having to watch my back and never knowing quite what the situation is – I have much better and more constructive things to do with my life. Violent criminals can often be dealt with much more safely and effectively after the fact, when the power balance tends to favor the victim/law enforcement (if circumstances allow), it depends on the place (and the effectiveness of law enforcement).
Just because a handgun culture maybe warranted in some places does not mean that it is warranted in all places. Most of the world lives quite happily without them. Please do not assume that the right to carry handguns should be a universal law. In some places, other laws seem to work better, it just depends on the place/state/country.
New Zealand for instance has a high rate of gun ownership but it does not really have a handgun culture, gun related violent crime there is significantly less than in the USA (there is significant physical fighting – almost a national sport). However the law does tend to eventually catch up with people there. In New Zealand a person who carried a handgun without an exceptionally good reason (like it was in their job description) would generally be seen as psychotic and an extreme danger to themselves and everyone around them – a normal person would not do such a thing. If you lived there for some years, you would probably come to a similar view point, it is just not a handgun kind of place.
In what proportion of the USA is a handgun really warranted?