RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : The Follies of Gun Control

Monday
July 21, 2008

The Follies of Gun Control by G. Stolyarov II

When it comes to restricting private individuals’ Second Amendment rights, it seems that the world must turn upside down to justify gun control. Criminals need to obey the law, limited human beings need to be present everywhere and respond to anything, inanimate objects need to assume a volition of their own, and parents all of a sudden need to become totally oblivious to what their children are doing. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (10 messages)

Post 0

Monday, July 21 - 9:43am

Link

Edit

Although I sanctioned this article because of its philosophically rational strengths, I considered the lack of citations such as statistics and so forth a glaring weakness that opens it to refutation by the advocates of gun control who appeal to empiricism.

I encourage the author to research such citations and incorporate them into future articles on this subject.

Leonard Peikoff published a pamphlet years ago based on a 1995 Ford Hall Forum speech called "What to Do about Crime" that did offer such citations.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/21, 9:44am)

Post 1

Monday, July 21 - 12:11pm

Link

Edit

Most of those citations can be found in Lott's books....

Post 2

Monday, July 21 - 3:46pm

Link

Edit

This is a great source for gun facts:

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

Post 3

Tuesday, July 22 - 8:33pm

Link

Edit

Gun control is really just another phrase for people control. And people control is really just another phrase for tyranny.

Gun control doesn't prevent serious and violent crime -- it is serious and violent crime.

Gun control is an ill-thought-out attack on society and the individual. It's the destruction of the peoples' inborn, inherent, inalienable rights. As such, it's morally wrong and practically unworkable.

Post 4

Thursday, July 24 - 4:09pm

Link

Edit

The Bill of Rights limits the federal government. Different states have different bills of rights. Though generally very similar to the federal Bill of Rights, the fact is that they are separate. Rights under the Constitution are incorporated to the states by judicial action. The Second Amendment stands out as the last one not so incorporated.

However, realize that until recent de facto changes in American culture were acknolwedged, you could be denied the right to vote or to serve on a jury if you were an atheist in Pennsylvania, Texas, and dozen other states.Most of those states were southern states that modeled their Reconstruction-era constitutions after those of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. In short, your First Amendment right to freedom from religion has never been formally incorporated to the states.

Moreover, regulations on the ownership of "long guns" (rifles, shotguns, etc.) have traditionally been more lax than those on handguns. Long guns are used for hunting. Handguns are used for killing people. Long guns are hard to conceal. Handguns are easy to conceal. (Sawed-off long guns are generally illegal.) So, we limit their ownership. Here in Michigan, we just loosened the rules on concealed carry, making them more like Florida's. Even so, you have to pass a criminal background check and pass an accredited (NRA-accredited) class in gun safety and operations. In New Mexico, it was easier: just the criminal records check; no training. I do not know about Wyoming today, but in my childhood, they were an open-carry state. You needed a permit to conceal a weapon, but not to wear one on your hip. Colorado was not and is not so liberal with handguns. (That may change, but realize the special status of Washington DC and consider also that the law that was struck down is being re-written to past muster.)

The question is: does the state have the right to regulate weaponry of any kind? Any kind?
The deeper question is: does the government have the right the prevent the ownership (or use or creation) of anything at all? Like, what if I made a black hole... Or just ran my lawnmower at 3:00 AM because it is convenient for me?
The deepest question -- the one you blanked out on -- is: Why do we have laws? If you answer that as an Objectivist, then you must admit that state and local regulation of handguns (or federal regulation of interstate commerce in them), is perfectly appropriate to the role of government.

Realize, of course, that like "society" the word "government" is only a convenience as there is no such thing. It cannot be reified. We, the people, are the government in a democratic republic and there are lots of governments: federal, state, county, township, city or village, even your neighborhood association, if you please.

In every case, we who "show up" (vote, get elected, get appointed -- I've done all three) and thereby decide enact such laws as are appropriate under the federal or state constutitons or local charters. Laws are subject to judicial review. Laws on the books go inactive as society changes and as those employed in the many various governments choose to ignore them. The police, as the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system, have astounding discretion about which laws to enforce. Laws can be repealed by referendum and officeholders can be unelected by recall. That's how the system works.

Different places have different laws. Here in Michigan,traditionally, it being the Motor State, pedestrians in crosswalks on the Walk or Green light did not (not!) have the right-of-way.

So, if your neighbors have a different view of the operant conditions of the ownership and use of concealable weapons, then you might consider either changing their minds, or else moving. (Personally, I'd move because it's easier.)

Post 5

Thursday, July 24 - 4:16pm

Link

Edit

LS: Although I sanctioned this article because of its philosophically rational strengths, I considered the lack of citations such as statistics and so forth a glaring weakness that opens it to refutation by the advocates of gun control who appeal to empiricism.

In other words, Luke, the article was not just "rational" but rationalist -- starting from unstated and arbitrary premises, it followed its own logic independent of empirical facts.

Objectivism is a rational-empirical philosophy which asserts that there can be no dichotomy between theory and practice, reason and the senses, logic and experiment, thought and action. So, when an Objectivist comes across a rationalist argument, there is usually some reservation, as in your case.

Post 6

Friday, July 25 - 12:43pm

Link

Edit

"The question is: does the state have the right to regulate weaponry of any kind? Any kind?"

No, according to the literal wording of the Second Amendment ("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."). This is an absolute prohibition on the state assuming any power to infringe on this fundamental right.

According to common sense: when your neighbor builds a nuke in their basement, and says it is for self-defense -- the accumulated danger to all the other residents in the blast zone, versus the rather shaky justification for building the nuke, should give the state the right to dismantle the nuke, just as the accumulated danger to everyone on the road from someone with a high blood alcohol level who is weaving across the center line should give the state the right to arrest them.

Which is a fancy way of saying that an amendment to the Second Amendment should be proposed modifying its absolute language to prohibit the private ownership of nukes -- which you would think would get enacted by overwhelming margins, with even the NRA signing on.

Post 7

Saturday, July 26 - 2:39pm

Link

Edit

I am not troubled by a lack of citations. The arguments made are not statistical. To provide statistical evidence would imply that readers need not understand the arguments being made, but should simply accept the weight of authority that such statistics pretend to lend.

I was more troubled by this: "Good people who obey the law will have disarmed themselves; evil people who ignore the law will continue to obtain weapons." This identifies morality with compliance to the law. Those who obey the law are sometimes simple cowards. Those who break the law may do so from other than evil motivations.

But both these possible criticisms are rhetorical. Neither invalidates the article's conclusion.

Post 8

Friday, August 22 - 12:04pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Setzer,

Thank you for your comments. I understand the value of empirical data and statistics in backing a position. I do think, however, that even the work referred to on this thread from Leonard Peikoff, John Lott, and GunFacts.info is more than adequate in presenting empirical evidence justifying an opposition to gun control. Other people have fortunately done this important work, so I do not have to.

What I wished to offer in this article is a refutation of the logical fallacies made by gun control proponents, and that in itself does not require citing statistics. Moreover, empirical observation of a much more immediately accessible nature is frequently available to refute certain ridiculous claims about human behavior – such as those advanced by many gun control proponents.

Moreover, there seems to be a tradeoff between including a lot of statistics in an article and trying to write a work that will endure for many decades, even once the statistics become dated. After all, even though the general case against gun control will always remain valid, the particular statistics will change over time, as there are no precise quantitative relationships in politics – although there are directional effects of particular policies.

Mr. Marotta,

You wrote: “the article was not just ‘rational’ but rationalist -- starting from unstated and arbitrary premises, it followed its own logic independent of empirical facts.”

Quite the contrary, my article was strongly grounded in empirical facts – facts so basic that they do not require extensive statistical studies to validate. These are facts such as “Possession of certain objects does not necessarily alter human behavior.”; “Parents typically care about the safety of their children.”; “Crime occurs in contemporary societies, despite police efforts to prevent it.”; “People who do not adhere major prohibitions are unlikely to adhere to minor ones.” Can anyone deny these facts, from simply everyday observation?

There is an immense difference between “empirical” (arising from observation of the external world) and “positivist-empirical” (requiring specific experiments to verify or falsify). To limit the realm of the “empirical” to the latter is not an Objectivist move, but a Positivist one.

I agree in full with Mr. Keer’s statement that “The arguments made are not statistical. To provide statistical evidence would imply that readers need not understand the arguments being made, but should simply accept the weight of authority that such statistics pretend to lend.”

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Author, Implied Consent, A Play on the Sanctity of Human Life: http://rationalargumentator.com/impliedconsent.html

Author, A Rational Cosmology: http://rationalargumentator.com/rc.html

Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html

Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/

Post 9

Friday, August 22 - 12:12pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Keer,

Thank you for your comments. I did not mean to equate goodness with obeying the law and evil with disobeying the law. But consider the following.

- I do not particularly care for evil people who obey the law. These are the people who use legal means to inflict injury on others. What happens to them under a regime of gun control is not, therefore, relevant for my purposes.

- Good people who disobey the law will not disobey the law in such ways as to inflict coercive harm on others. Thus, they will not become violent criminals, even under a regime of gun control. They might still, however, carry guns in defiance of the law in order to protect themselves.

So the only threat under a regime of gun control comes from evil people who disobey the law, because only those people would become violent criminals. And the only relevant increase in harm comes to good people who obey the law, since good people who disobey the law might still carry guns to defend themselves. For them, the law might as well not exist, except for the precautions they have to take to avoid detection by its agents.

I hope that clarifies why I used the phrasing I did. I certainly agree with your point that “Those who obey the law are sometimes simple cowards. Those who break the law may do so from other than evil motivations.” I believe that breaking unjust laws is quite justified and commendable under some circumstances.

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Author, Implied Consent, A Play on the Sanctity of Human Life: http://rationalargumentator.com/impliedconsent.html

Author, A Rational Cosmology: http://rationalargumentator.com/rc.html

Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html

Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/