I am sure that, in any given situation when faced with a gun pointing at me, I would like to have a gun pointing back.
However, this is not the basis of an ideology; it is merely a statement of self-interest and perhaps common-sense.
Libertarianism purports to be an ideology; people claim to be libertarians; they promote libertarian values and principles; and they formulate and implement libertarian policies.
American and some British libertarians oppose gun control and argue that you and they have a fundamental right to "bear arms".
Their usual argument for doing so is that you and they should have the right to an armed defence: if one outlaws guns only the outlaws will have guns.
But this libertarian position has a stark implication which they will always seek to evade and avoid.
Anyone can point a gun at you; but only the libertarian believes that the person pointing that gun at you has a fundamental right to possess it.
I will admit that I would want, in my self-interest, a gun when faced with a gun; but libertarianism - as an ism - demands more than this; and I for one will never concede that the person already with the gun has a 'fundamental' right to bear that arm.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
When people talk about 'fundamental right' when it comes to bearing arms don't they usually mean fundamental in the sense of correction appended to historical document a few centuries old?
It's not as if it's in the bible.
As ever the issue is more nuanced and less stark than this position. Firstly - and I assume that there is not a fundamentalist position on guns (i.e. no-one should have one) presented here - someone has to decide who may and/or may not "bear arms" and this has to be done on some basis.
Secondly, the purpose is not to control the possession of guns per se but to prevent the misuse of guns.
We should (in my view) assume that the citizen is good and will use the gun responsibly - they have a "right" to possess such a thing. But it is also - given the risks associated with allowing possession - reasonable to expect the citizen to tell us of his ownership and to demonstrate the good purpose to which that ownership will be directed.
I've had debates with pro-gun USA friends, and often the defence they use is their age-old right to defend themselves against the government, should such occasion arise. I generally reply "the govt? Aren't they the ones with the tanks and nukes?".
If you have a right to bear arms then you have a right to anything potentially lethal, like poisons, etc, surely?
Couldn't agree more with Simon Cooke. As I see it, the non-US-centric Lib[eral|ertarian] position is that firearms ownership is a freedom like any other and shouldn't be removed without good reason. In the US, the Second Amendment (or rather one specific reading of it, probably not the one intended) has become a fetish quite separate from the issue as dealt with in the rest of the world.
Really, this is just another offshoot of the evidence-based vs panic-based policy debate. Britain has never had much of a problem with legally-owned firearms, but the panic reactions of governments (both flavours) to a small number of incidents* have led to a policy which is an equally nutty mirror-image of the US one.
*chiefly Hungerford and Dunblane, both which could and arguably should have been prevented by existing legislation.
"If you have a right to bear arms then you have a right to anything potentially lethal, like poisons, etc, surely?"
Well, yes, of course. And the only laws that need exist are those which are suitably sever enough to deter/punish those people who are anti-social enough to actually abuse their freedom by harming others in the process.
Legislation only goes so far.
Legislation, inexplicably, does not make it difficult for crims to get their hands on and use guns.
Only the law abiding observe legislation.
Sorry, but in the UK, only out-laws seem to have guns.
I'm all in favour of the social contract and understand that civilised society requires the individual to turn over right to self-help over to the State.
The issue is, how can you reasonably expect the State to bail you out of every life-threatening situation? For me, I'd rather do time than have a "get guns off our streets" campaign at my funeral.
Further, and I genuinely don't know - how many illegal firearms cases have arisen from licensed gun owners? I'm guessing very few.
Gimpy: "It's not as if it's in the bible."
Well, it sort of is.
"[Jesus said] But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one"
Luke - Chapter 22, Verse 36
;-)
The trouble with many "fundamental" rights is that they were first set out when the world was a very different place. In the late 18th Century guns were very expensive, and the "right" really extended only to male holders of property with rights of citizenship. Like a lot of other things when the situation has changed radically then the question of who can do what what may have to change. Once upon a time after a few pints I used to drive a twenty fivew year old car with dim lights,dodgy brakes, no seat belts, and bald tyres. These days it would be a bad idea.
And what is the end result of the lack of gun control legislation in the States? Here are the UN stats on intentional killings with firerams:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
@Tracy King
The US argument of protection against the government, while not one I'd subscribe to, does make a certain amount of sense. You don't need to be equivalently armed to the occupying forces to be a monumental pain in the neck (as we are learning, again, in Afghanistan).
This was elevated to the status of official policy in (at least) Israel, Yugoslavia and Switzerland, where mass arming and training of the populace was intended to make these countries un-invadable for all practical purposes in that the territory could be taken, but not held without prohibitive cost.
I am sure that, in any given situation when faced with a gun pointing at me, I would like to have a gun pointing back.
However, this is not the basis of an ideology; it is merely a statement of self-interest and perhaps common-sense.
A bit of a derail, but not sure what the evidence-based position would be re whether having a gun would improve individual safety (at least for those of us who don't have any extensive firearms training). It's not uncommon for people who have bought guns for safety to find them turned against them, and there's the risk of accidents...
An American without a gun is like an Englishman without a cup of tea.
Wasn't there a study reported just recently that showed that those who carry firearms (this was the US) were several times more likely to be shot.
They are unsure if this was because carrying a weapon gives you the confidence to go places and do things you would not otherwise do or perhaps when held up instead of being sensible they went to draw their weapon and simply weren't fast enough, as they were always second.
When someone already has a gun on you it is too late to go for yours, so having it is therefore pointless.
However self interest is the basis of an ideology, it's called Objectivism. For a brief introduction read Atlas Shrugged.
The majority of Libertarian ideology I have come across stresses the non initiation of physical violence. It does strongly support self defense against an aggressor.
You say "But this libertarian position has a stark implication which they will always seek to evade and avoid.
Anyone can point a gun at you; but only the libertarian believes that the person pointing that gun at you has a fundamental right to possess it. "
Nope, the libertarian wouldn't evade the point they may reply that you have the right to point one right back.
@Peter in Dundee
That study was one which did not correct for crime rates where the people lived (among other things). It would be like a study which showed crime to be more prevalent in cities, therefore concluding that one should not live in Mayfair.
As for your bald assertion that "When someone already has a gun on you it is too late to go for yours, so having it is therefore pointless" a quick read through this site would show that to be untrue:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
e.g.:
"GOLDENROD -- A home invasion ended with one of the suspects dead and several others injured early Saturday morning.
Seminole County deputies said two men returned to a home on Fernbrook Way, when witnesses said the two were confronted by armed suspects who forced their way inside and opened fire.
That, deputies said, was when one of the victims grabbed a gun and started shooting back."
or
"Preston said he pushed the barrel of the shotgun away with one hand and fired his handgun with the other, hitting the armed suspect in the torso."
or
"He said a boy with a pistol came into the house and pointed the gun at him.
That's when the 11-year old fired the .357. He said that scared the home invader off."
or
"The armed robber was shot when he tried to rob to his victim. The incident took place in the 6400 block of north 15th street in the city's Ogontz section in West Oak Lane.
The 24-year-old armed suspect was pronounced dead at the scene of a chest wound. Police say the victim who he had targeted to rob was carrying a hand gun. When the suspect demanded all his money, the victim pulled out a gun and fired a shot killing the suspect, who was pronounced dead at the scene."
"I am sure that, in any given situation when faced with a gun pointing at me, I would like to have a gun pointing back."
Really? Well perhaps if you value your property higher than your life. Or if you think that the person pointing the gun at you has a main aim of killing you. But mostly people point guns in relation to depriving another of property. In this situation, if only one party has a gun, it is much less likely that it might be used, but the person without the gun is much more likely to lose their property. But with two guns facing each other, it become much more likely that one will be fired, to get the shot in before the other fires. The risk that it might be the other who fires first is surely too large to be contemplated.
What you would like (in the short term) is a reputation for having a gun, so that a robber is discouraged from coming to rob you in the first place. And there is some evidence in the USA that burglars avoid households thought likely to be armed.
The difficulty is that obtaining a reputation for being armed is difficult unless many people have guns, which is undesirable because when many people have guns they are more likely to be fired, and criminals are more likely to carry guns when the non-criminals are more likely to have them. Even the Swiss, who historically have been in the unusual situation of having high gun possession with a low rate of use in anger, are coming around to this point of view.
Tracey King said, "I've had debates with pro-gun USA friends, and often the defence they use is their age-old right to defend themselves against the government, should such occasion arise."
That isn't what the second amendment to their constitution says.
Simon Cooke:
The problem with assuming that the citizen is good here is that, if we suppose that X% of the population is good, that X% will benefit so minimally from having guns whilst the (100-X)% who are bad will do so much harm. The required value of X here is absurdly high before permitting guns becomes a net good.
After all, what *are* the benefits of having a gun exactly? Pro-gun types like to cite crime prevention and self defence, but really how often does that happen, and how likely is a rank amateur to successfully prevent crime without causing significant collateral damage that negates the benefit to society in the first place? And how does that compare to the mean time before the average person becomes tempted to do something terrible which he might have thought better of, had the tools been harder to immediately acquire?
Clearly all these numbers are very small, but they must be measured and compared to have a hope of establishing what harm or benefit results from gun control.
Well first of all the Swiss situation is slightly different to the American one, in that Swiss citizens are in possession of rather hefty assault rifles while Americans are more likely to go for handguns in terms of defence, personal or national (I'm setting hunting to one side here as that's not really where the debate is). The chances of someone brandishing a SIG-552 in anger, or even getting into the situation where you'd provoke someone into doing so are minimal, for the rather obvious reason that you can't really conceal it on your person.
The wider issue though is that personal possession of a firearm is not a guarantor of safety, and can pose much greater general risks than the comparatively low one of being the victim of a robbery. To use a gun effectively you have to be trained effectively in handling, safety and marksmanship and, as the Paul Clarke case is showing, this is not an easy or straightforward affair.
Inaccuracy, technical incompetence and simple mechanical failure all complicate firearm use. The pitfalls are not obvious to the uninitiated, and can have potentially fatal consequences either for the user or bystander. When I was a member of a rifle club we ended up banning the use of pistols on the ranges because of this. More often than not, the pistols would jam, and the bad attitude of some members meant that they would simply leave the guns lying down on the table, pointing somewhere other than downrange. Fortunately nobody ever got injured, but that was just good luck. Replicate that by a factor of several hundred, remove the relatively controlled environment of a rifle range and presence of a range officer, and then add the heat of the moment you actually have to brandish a weapon in self-defence, and you're creating a recipe for disaster.
If society wants to permit the mass ownership of guns, it would have to be treated like that other potentially fatal piece of technology subject to mass ownership: the car. You need effective licensing and comprehensive training to reduce the risks, but even then the risks still remain high. Having a gun as some absolutely fundamental right is absurd on that basis alone. They need tight regulation, as even the wording of the second amendment implied.
Plus the underlying theory's rubbish, for reasons Burke outlined: the theoretical basis of it (self-defence) is, yes, a right, as Hobbes pointed out. But we surrender that right to the state in order to ensure a stable and peaceful society. It's basic social contract theory. You surrender some degree of your rights to commit violence in order to ensure a peaceful and stable society. That is the theoretical basis of a democratic government.
I am an American. I do not own any firearms. I do not have any desire to own any firearms.
This is a matter of some people deciding that some things are too dangerous for anyone. They claim that taking guns away from law abiding people will protect the law abiding people from criminals. However, the criminals are not known for obeying the law.
There appears to be more concern with the illegal possession of a gun, and many seem to desire that any possession of a gun be illegal, than there is concern for the actual crimes of violence.
We keep moving away from allowing individuals to make decisions for themselves, because of What if. . . ?
What if somebody is bad?
What if somebody makes a mistake?
What if somebody makes a bad decision?
We are creating an environment, where people are afraid to make decisions. People only want to follow flow charts of approved behaviors, because by just following orders they feel immune from responsibility for their actions.
Teaching people that certain inanimate objects are evil, whether, guns, knives, condoms, drugs, video games, et cetera, is discouraging rational thought. None of these items are inherently good or bad. It is only the action of the user that matters.
The laws that criminalize objects do not protect us from the objects. The criminals are the ones we need protection from, but they are not the ones who are likely to obey these laws.
The best defenses a free society has are an educated citizenry and free speech. Teaching that there are bogey men discourages education. Teaching that there are risks that must never be taken discourages progress.
"I am sure that, in any given situation when faced with a gun pointing at me, I would like to have a gun pointing back."
Really? What if that makes you more likely to get you shot?
If you are a law abiding citizen then most of the time when someone points a gun at you they don't intend to use it, they intend to threaten you with it to make them give you money. In which case I would much rather give them the money and claim it back on insurance, than reach for my gun, and either a) get shot or b) shoot someone.
Granted, there are some situations in which you'd want to shoot back, e.g. if someone goes crazy and starts shooting up a shopping centre or a school, however, the chance of this happening is quite low, especially in this country.
@Jack of Kent,
You say that libertarianism is unique because it recognizes the right of the person pointing the gun at you to have a gun.
Firstly, libertarianism isn't entirely unique here - conservatism, at least in the United States, Switzerland and some other countries, would be similar in this respect. There are also plenty of leftist justifications for a right to arms - either on the basis that it reduces crime or that there is no empirical justification for denying that right, or more fundamentally on some basis of equality or ability to resist an oppressive government (see for example George Orwell).
Secondly, it's at least questionable whether a libertarian really does recognize a right on the part of the 'pointer' to have a gun because the moment he points the gun he becomes a criminal. Libertarians believe in rights, but the rights of a right-violator can legitimately be violated so we might say that at the very moment of pointing the gun he lost his right to it.
But this aside, I think the most important point is: What makes guns special? Surely most any ideology recognizes the right of the 'pointer' to possess a knife or a sword or a baseball bat or an iron bar (at least to the same extent that libertarianism does vis a vis guns). Presumably you aren't troubled by this.
@Ivan and Neuroskeptic,
I do not know of anyone who carries a gun, let alone any instructor, who would in suggest drawing your weapon if a gun is being pointed at you during a robbery, unless there were very specific circumstances.
As you say, your wallet is not worth your life. However not all robberies are just that. A robber could of course shoot or otherwise harm or kill you after you have handed over your possessions, and if their demeanor suggests this is likely to be the case and they are close enough that you can swipe their gun away with one hand while drawing with the other then this may be the least worst option.
The 'layout' of the mugging or robbery may also allow you to defend yourself, see this incident from Ohio where one of the would-be victims used his colleague to conceal his drawing his firearm from the robber (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk).
But gun-muggings are far from the only potential threat. If the mugger is unarmed or armed with a knife, bat or other weapon then self-defence becomes much more viable. You might be caught up in a robbery (such as of a convenience store, bank, has station etc), someone might break into your home, try to carjack you, try to rape or sexually assault you (especially as a woman, obviously) or just plane beat or murder you for fun, madness, racial hatred etc. There are many, many documented instances of successful self-defence with a firearm.
@Benjamin Gray,
Firstly, in many US states the situation with guns is very much similar to that of cars. A typical state will: allow more or less uncontrolled ownership of guns except for criminals, the insane etc (anyone can buy a car in the UK), and require a license to carry it in public (a license is required to drive a car in public in the UK) with a training requirement. Admittedly, it is usually only training which is mandatory, not passing a test - but it's not far off. With such a test added, would you support that kind of gun control regime in the UK?
You say that a Hobbesian social contract means that we surrender our right to self-defence. But Hobbes stated that self-defence is the highest necessity and that it is an inalienable right, not ceded to the state. And surely this seems quite proper, people in the UK do have a right to self-defence per se, though its tools are banned. A social contract does not automatically mean that things are banned, there would need to be justification in terms of the common good for doing so - and progun advocates will argue that gun rights reduce crime or at least do not cause it.
And of course, social contract theory is far from settled, in fact it's quite unpopular in political philosophy - few accept the premise that there is 'implicit consent' to the state from all parties. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it can't be taken for granted.
Post a Comment