PDA

View Full Version : Reason.org article.


gregorylucas
11-07-2009, 6:54 PM
I saw this on reason.org and did a seach for it on calguns, didn't see it so....

http://reason.org/blog/show/gun-control-laws-fail-to-preve


Out of Control Policy Blog
Gun-Control Laws Fail to Prevent Gun Crimes in England; Ayn Rand on Self-Defense

Adam Summers
November 5, 2009, 7:17pm

In England, gun crimes committed by youth gangs are becoming a big problem.

"Footage of boys, hardly out of childhood, wielding revolvers, shotguns and jumping on police cars was posted on YouTube just two weeks after Rhys Jones was killed.

Yet it was the 11-year-old's murder during an unprecedented feud between youths in Croxteth and neighbouring Norris Green which brought Liverpool's gang violence to public prominence.

The battle between the Croxteth Crew, to which Sean Mercer belonged, and the Strand Gang, operating in the city's L11 postcode, formed the backdrop to the schoolboy's murder an innocent victim caught in the crossfire of gangs blighted by a hatred for one another."

Despite the country's strict gun-control laws (or, more likely, because of them), gang members are still getting their hands on guns and using them to shoot and kill rivals and innocent bystanders. It seems that criminals do not obey laws on the other side of the pond either!

This is the point that gun-control advocates seem unable to grasp: gun control laws only work against law-abiding citizens. Moreover, as economist John Lott noted in his famous book, More Guns, Less Crime, gun-control laws prevent innocent, law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against those that would violate laws to commit crimes against them. Criminals don't like getting shot any more than do victims. When there are fewer gun laws, there is a greater chance a potential victim will be armed and able to fight back. This provides a greater deterrent to crime. Where citizens are forced to be unarmed, they are much easier targets for criminals.

Since we are celebrating the ideas of Ayn Rand this week at Reason (see here and the related articles and videos posted at reason.org and reason.tv), consider Rand's similar views on self-defense:

"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some "pacifist" society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."

[From "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)]

CALPsidewinder
11-08-2009, 5:53 AM
The Virtue of Selfishness is a book more people should read, as well as Capitalism the Unknown Ideal and Philosophy: Who Needs It. It is too bad that most people's idea of Rand is negative second hand information and they never actually read Rand.

Nice to see a publication recognizing Rand and the logic of individual self-preservation as a necessity to a rational societies continued survival.

socal2310
11-08-2009, 6:44 AM
It is too bad that most people's idea of Rand is negative second hand information and they never actually read Rand.

Nice to see a publication recognizing Rand and the logic of individual self-preservation as a necessity to a rational societies continued survival.

As a minarchist who leans toward anarcho-capitalism and who also happens to be religious; it's nothing personal, it's just business. Me and my ilk were excluded for being "irrational" long before I was even alive to protest.

Ryan

jb7706
11-08-2009, 10:03 AM
As a minarchist who leans toward anarcho-capitalism and who also happens to be religious; it's nothing personal, it's just business. Me and my ilk were excluded for being "irrational" long before I was even alive to protest.

Ryan

Wow, I had to research half of your statement just to understand it.

CALPsidewinder
11-08-2009, 10:53 AM
As a minarchist who leans toward anarcho-capitalism and who also happens to be religious; it's nothing personal, it's just business. Me and my ilk were excluded for being "irrational" long before I was even alive to protest.

Ryan

I can only assume that your protest would be in regards to Rand's views on Libertarians?


Any form of anarchy is illogical, even Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism. Government is needed in a limited form to be the go between in civil as well as criminal occurrences. Some form of centralized government is also needed when dealing with foreign policy and to organize a cohesive force against outside aggressors. To think that millions of small individual groups with their own mini-political/religious structures could defend against an outside force of aggression and do so effectively is just plain naive, and would in fact allow any large mob to seize control. Anarcho-capitalists rely on the benevolence of everyone else living in the society to keep the peace but there can be no guarantees without a conduit for society to come together as a whole and defend that peace when threatened.

As to Rand's atheism and her idea that Libertarianism is in contradiction with a reasonable capitalistic political system. The lack of the Libertarian party in seeing that a rational based political system can only be as consistent as the basic premise of it's members is why Rand found Libertarianism lacking. Anarchy as I described above is lacking in form to establish any long lasting society. Equally Rand saw that, religionists will always place their religion, god or faith, before reason. A rational political system needs to have its foundations rooted in reality and based on definable concretes. Individuals have rights not because a supposed god created us but because we are rational, self-aware entities whose highest value must be our own individual life. Knowing and agreeing to this premise we must therefore extend that concept and rights thereof to others of our species.

Now while I agree with Rand's basic analysis of the Libertarian party that she was familiar with, I must say that the party of today has greatly evolved. Most of the anarchists have left the party or changed many of their views in regards to anarchy's effectiveness in realizing a true free society. Also I do not believe that distancing people because of a slight difference in opinion (religion) is a way to win over people to Objectivism. Reality will be the final arbitrator and if a Libertarian finds a conflict with their political beliefs and their religious beliefs then they will of course need to make a decision (hopefully based on reason) as to which they will side with in the end.

Just as Libertarianism has evolved so has Objectivism. Rand may have assembled the pieces to create her philosophy but she is not the monopolizer on truth. If Objectivism has any truth then it will stand up to scrutiny and evolve accordingly, if not it will collapse. I have been an Objectivist for almost 40 years, and I am also a Libertarian. I see no contradiction in my acceptance of either school of thought, as I think they are the best we have at the current time to deal with the ethical, political and economical necessities of a productive free society.

My regards

yellowfin
11-08-2009, 11:08 AM
The all clenching problem in the matter is the assumption that gun control advocates want less crime; it is clear that they don't.

oldrifle
11-08-2009, 12:31 PM
Allow me to float a hypothesis by you guys and see if it sticks.

Gun control laws, as the article states, mostly affect the law-abiding. Who are the law abiding? People like you and me... people who go to work, pay our taxes and are productive members of society. Those of us who have a lot to lose if we get caught breaking the law.

When people like us buy guns, we go to an ostensibly reputable shop, pay for DROS, go through the waiting period and take the test or show the card for buying handguns.

As much as I hate to admit it, I can see how a waiting period can certainly cut down on murders amongst people who obey the law. It's a cooling off period. Now because people generally associate with people who are like themselves, the gun laws could be said to protect mainly those of us who are like ourselves (law abiding, productive members of society) from each other.

My suspicion is that those who make gun laws know that gang-bangers and other recalcitrant individuals in society are not affected by those laws because by their very nature, they will do whatever they can to circumvent them. That part is obvious. Also, because these people will still be able to obtain guns while we may not, we are put in danger from attack from them.

Could it be that gun control is a form of social engineering intended to keep our urban areas in disarray... intentionally? Could it also be that by setting up the laws in this way, they are guaranteeing higher numbers of criminal-on-criminal and criminal-on-law-abiding-person crimes? Is this part of a larger plan to spread chaos in order to later implement bigger controls when the law abiding become so overwhelmed with fear that they demand to be protected from it?

I'm just thinking out loud here... not sure if this even makes sense...

RedStripes
11-08-2009, 1:22 PM
The Second Amendment is what they really hope to eliminate. While that may be impossible currently (and I hope it remains so) gun control laws are all incremental steps toward the eventual goal of giving the state a monopoly of force. As long as the second amendment remains (even though tarnished and wounded it still works, a real triumph by our Founding Fathers) We the People have a guard against tyranny and against the oppressive collectivist state that is becoming so prevalent in modern times. Short of going to war with those that choose to bear arms, the only way for the goal of disarmament of the American People can be accomplished is through incremental steps over an extended period of time.

A true example of the brilliance of the great men who created this country is found within the Second Amendment and it is a shame that the average American does not understand this.

Meplat
11-08-2009, 1:47 PM
As much as I hate to admit it, I can see how a waiting period can certainly cut down on murders amongst people who obey the law. It's a cooling off period.

This is a fallacy. In otherwise sane people a "murderous rage" can occur under the right circumstances. But it lasts a matter of seconds, certainly no longer than a minute or two, before reason resumes control. It never lasts long enough to drive to the gun store, let alone make out the paperwork.

The only real service a waiting period serves is to reduce the number of firearms sales by short circuiting impulse buying. Ask any marketer of any other product what would happen to his sales if his customers had to wait two weeks to take delivery. That is exactly what it was designed to do. The name of the game is to hassle us out of existence.

I invite comment from any others on the forum who have training in human psychology.

oldrifle
11-08-2009, 1:58 PM
This is one issue on which I'd be glad to be wrong... I would like to hear some qualified opinions on this matter also.

This is a fallacy. In otherwise sane people a "murderous rage" can occur under the right circumstances. But it lasts a matter of seconds, certainly no longer than a minute or two, before reason resumes control. It never lasts long enough to drive to the gun store, let alone make out the paperwork.

The only real service a waiting period serves is to reduce the number of firearms sales by short circuiting impulse buying. Ask any marketer of any other product what would happen to his sales if his customers had to wait two weeks to take delivery. That is exactly what it was designed to do. The name of the game is to hassle us out of existence.

I invite comment from any others on the forum who have training in human psychology.

bigcalidave
11-08-2009, 2:30 PM
I thought that all gangs in England were poorly dressed street rappers like in Ali G, Indahouse!

http://afro-style.com/Images_films/ali_g/ali_g_00.gif


I don't believe in a "cooling off period"
As said before, if you're going to kill someone, you are going to grab the closest weapon. If you are planning a premeditated murder, you already have the weapon or figure the waiting period into the plan.