It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

The wrong argument

Comments

The debate about the right to bear arms is about the the limits to the power of the government and the ability to maintain sovereign government without complete monopoly of the use of force, or the threat to use force. It is potentially intellectually interesting debate (and in which I’m holding a non-libertarian position). It is sad that the debate is usually reduce to such dogmatic, and wrong, arguments like this:

As John Lott points out, Virginia Tech is a gun free zone.  Of course, all mass shootings occur where the gunman can be sure no one will shoot back.  Without knowing the details of the incident, I wonder how many deaths there would have been if law abiding citizens had been allowed to be armed and could have fought back?

What would most likely happened, would more guns were present at the area, was more mess and more shooting by hysteric crowd that make a bad day into a complete hell. The question should this effect the debate about the right to carry weapon is completely different, but arguments like this binding the right to wrongful use.

Tags:

No tag for this post.

Written by Rogel

April 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Posted in Opposing Opinions

« Never again?
“Its time to put force on the table and use it now” »

Viewing 13 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    You're probably right that more people shooting would have created a more hysterical situation. However, we must also consider whether or not this would have happened at all had the gunman known there were many people around him with guns as well.

    Think about it...burglars are probably less likely to break into a home if they see a big dog dish on the porch with the name "Maneater" printed on the side. Whether the dog exists or not, they perceive that their chance of success is decreased and are more likely to move along to another house.
    • ^
    • v
    Do you really believe that the shooter, which I assume was not completely mentally balanced, would be effected by the "success" chances? I doubt! Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, more guns and no central command would increase the casualties by an order of magnitude.

    I, as a libertarian, don't like the line of practical arguments that claims that more guns and more vigilant citizen will reduce crime. It is actually validates the arguments of Bush to increase security measure (regardless by who).
    Their is no doubt in my mind that we have the right to bear arms. However when we form civilized societies we gave up some of our rights so the government will guard our human rights, security included. A sovereign state should holds the monopoly on the use of violence, and therefore we gave up the unrestricted right to carry guns, tanks, submarines and so on.
    • ^
    • v
    Do you really think that if CCW holders had been allowed to have their guns on campus there would be "more mess and more shooting by hysteric crowd that make a bad day into a complete hell?" This is simply a gratuitous assertion based on no evidence but your own bias against individualism and self-reliance.

    As evidence to the contrary, I present the shooting in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in which two armed students brought the rampage to quick end and prevented it from becoming the "complete hell" which was in fact the result at Virginia Tech yesterday. Indeed, why do we not have mass shootings and gunfire from an "hysteric crowd" in any of the places, all over the country, where permit holders are carrying?

    I also take issue with the assumption that a mentally disturbed gunman is completely incapable of any rational thought. It is no accident that these mass killings almost always occur in gun free zones.

    The DC snipers, for example, were deranged killers, yet still took the precaution of using stealth and long range. If they were completely incapable of acting rationally, (or if they could be assured that no one would fight back) they would have simply walked up to people and shot them.
    • ^
    • v
    If you will look around in this blog you might find that categorizing me as "bias against individualism and self-reliance" is somewhat wrong :)
    I hate to bring personal experience as an argument in a debate but you kind of force me. In my personal experience, of 13 years of active duty as an officer in the Israeli defense Forces, more uncontrolled weapons in shooting zone increasing the risk of "Friendly Fire".
    Last but not least, I argue and this is the main point that the "practical arguments" are irrelevant to this debate. The question is about rights, role of government and monopoly on the means of violence. If someone would want to limit your ability to buy gloves because they might be useful as a murder tool would you try to claim that he is wrong, or would you argue about the principal?
    • ^
    • v
    What can be more misleading than the claim that the right to bear arms is effective (and therefore required) as a means to control government? Lets assume that every American bears a gun. Let us even assume that these guns are rifles, even military type assault rifles as the M16. How much real power will such a citizen group have against the world's most advanced military force? How will they counter the training and strategic and tactical knowledge? How will they bridge the technological superiority of command and communication systems? What fire power will they all possess as compared to the larger, faster and more destructive machine guns? New-age rocket or grenade launchers? What power will they possess against armored divisions? Modern tanks? How might they balance airborne gun-ships (attack helicopters like the US cobra, or apache)? Navy vassals? Airplane carriers? What about fighter jets? Laser guided ammunition? Napalm? Modern artillery? Chemical ammunition? Air to ground missiles? Ground to ground missiles? Nuclear capabilities? Tactical nuclear warheads?
    The government's basic monopoly of force is virtually un-competed by citizens holding guns. These guns may be life threatening to other citizens (perhaps discouraged burglars like some claim, and perhaps innocent bystanders) – but you really have to be naive (or just very funny) to claim that these are a counter-balance to the force of the state.
    • ^
    • v

    <font face="Calibri" size="2">Lets make it clear: I think that the government should restrict the ability to carry assault weapons. It is because I strongly believe that the role of just government it to protect human rights. </font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">By imposing a ban on assault weapon I don't claim that one has no right to bear arms. Obviously we do. But this right is already limited - we are practically restricted from owning Tanks, Sub-Marines etc. . Moreover, it is crucial for the government to impose its monopoly of the means of violence so it can perform its duty to protect human rights. </font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">I don't agree, however, with Zoolish assertion that:</font>



    <font face="Calibri" size="2">but you really have to be naive (or just very funny) to claim that these are a counter-balance to the force of the state</font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">examining the facts can demonstrate the contrary, The freedom to bear arm had devastating results on the ability of central government from performing its basic roles. Lebanon is great example, and its not the only one, were the government become irrelevant as citizens formed private militias armed, at least originally, with rifles and few machine guns. </font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2"></font> 

    • ^
    • v
    The only thing Lebanon is a good example of (is this context) is of a non-functioning government when it comes to basic requirement of sovereignty. What you have in Lebanon are non-state armed militias (not privately armed individuals), and I've not yet to read one proponent of democratic government that would promote the development of such (armed militias that is). You've not mentioned other examples you claim exist, but I would be surprised if they differ.
    Fact is, any regime not supported by a strong government monopoly of force is an instable one. Furthermore, a world wide examination of these regimes will also prove they are non-democratic. This is easily explained as democratic conduct requires rival political opponents to restrict their combat/competition to democratic competition (not restricted to electoral competition, but definitely not expended to armed conflict). When rivaling parties are armed to their teeth (take Lebanon for instance, or at the other side of Israel, the PA of another) you'll find there will always be someone who just can't resist the use of (military like) force.
    • ^
    • v
    "it is crucial for the government to impose its monopoly of the means of violence so it can perform its duty to protect human rights."

    Your position is confusing. You say that you believe in some right to bear arms, yet you believe the government should maintain a monopoly on the means of violence. That seems to me would require an absolute denial on the right to have any kind of gun (as well as knife etc., we are beginning to see this develop in the UK).

    It is clear to me that our founders (based on their philosophical traditions)never intended for the state to hold an absolute monopoly on the use of force, otherwise why have the 2d Amendment?

    I believe the 2d Amendment had two purposes:

    1. To ensure that individuals maintained the right to defend themselves and their property.(which the government cannot do for us and still have a free society in any meaningful sense) This was both against domestic criminals and foreign invaders.

    2. To ensure that, as free citizens, we maintained the ability to resist tyranny from our own government. Admittedly, in the age of modern military weaponry this may have been rendered impractical. However, I point to Rogen's examples from Lebanon and elsewhere as well as our current situation in Iraq.

    I believe that, in our founder's view, the government's monopoly on the use of force referred to the initiation of force, or the offensive use of force, to accomplish its goals. It does not refer to denying free citizens of the means (or the right) to use force for defensive purposes. And, as importantly, the government's power is limited by the rule of law (the Constitution) and by the consent of the governed.

    Part of the tragedy at VA Tech is that the students and faculty had it so ingrained in them that they neither could or should do nothing to defend themselves, but should simply wait for the government to come save them. Which the government inevitably failed to do.
    • ^
    • v
    To Zoolish's point. The situation in places like Lebanon is not created by the presence of an armed citizenry, but in the loss of the consent of the governed, plus, these societies have not established an effective and peaceful means for attaining that consent, i.e. representative "democracy", tempered by the rule of law.
    • ^
    • v

     



    <font face="Calibri" size="2">Your position is confusing. You say that you believe in some right to bear arms, yet you believe the government should maintain a monopoly on the means of violence. That seems to me would require an absolute denial on the right to have any kind of gun</font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">On the contrary Rob. In forming a society, people give up some of their rights so the government can provide security. The fact that the government restrict your right to own a tank, submarine and a jet fighter doesn't change the philosophical point that you have a natural right to own such toys. The only thing I claimed was that in order to maintain its ability to protect human rights the government should restrict the individuals rights to carry assault weapons. Obviously the government can, and often do, abuse its power to control people lives - if this is the case of knife' carrying in England, which I'm not familiar with, is another example of this practice. It isn't, however, effect the argument that government - by its nature - restricts some individual rights to protect other.</font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia are examples of what inability of the government to enforce its monopoly of the use of force. The fact that individuals, that were allowed to carry weapon, were also allowed to form groups made the situation worse but the main problem was that the central government wasn't able to impose its monopoly of use of force.</font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">If memory served I also believe that the in the second amendment is clearly written that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of maintain the militia. In other words the right to bear arms should be restricted to those who served in the national gourd :) . </font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">I agree with Zoolish observation that :</font>



    <font face="Calibri" size="2">a world wide examination of these regimes will also prove they are non-democratic</font>


    <font face="Calibri" size="2">I only wonder what is the cause and which is the effect...</font>

    • ^
    • v
    Rob: I've not stated that this was the cause for lack of democracy. I've only stated that this was a bad example for the right to bear arms. I wouldn't be that pretentious to try and explain the lack of democracy in Lebanon in such a short and single factor explanation. You do have some valid points, but they're the tip of an iceberg… and may themselves be the result of other factors. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find a reasonable academic explanation. Mainly because: (a) you'd be hard pressed to find a remotely logical explanation to the growth of any on of the world's democracies (speculations are abundant, but that's a different ballgame); and (b) there is scarce academic knowledge about the Lebanese regime and society (as there is for most un-democratic regimes and societies)

    Rogel: There are, according to Freedom House (probably the lead academic source on this matter) some 120 democratic regimes around the world. One of them has a constitutional right to bear arms. The others do not. It seems a rather large stretch of logic to link that to democratic development. Whatever the reasons why some countries develop a stable democratic government (and civic culture) and others do not – I doubt is has anything to do with the right to bear arms.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think that I ever did, at least not while in consciousness :)
    • ^
    • v
    In that case, all is well and dandy :)

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus