Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Xray]

About a week ago, I watched a short report on German TV about a US rural community (it was in Texas, I think), where virtually everyone is a gun owner and would not hesitate to use it as weapon. They proudly told the reporter that they don't need the police to regulate conflicts. They also have a "WE DON't DIAL 911" sign well visible to visitors.

I just googled a bit and found a whole collection of "WE DON'T DIAL 911" signs: https://www.google.de/search?hl=de&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=serp&tok=x7PcUXvzZ7Tryf4K7iZ1FQ&pq=we+don%27t+dial++village+in+texas+&cp=14&gs_id=8p&xhr=t&q=we+don%27t+dial+911&client=firefox-a&hs=Y8E&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.bGE&bpcl=40096503&biw=1280&bih=894&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=9FrcUMLBPMTTswbChIG4CQ

As a European who has not grown up with guns, it is difficult for me to assess whether those "We don't dial 911" signs are just some 'rough and tough' Texan variant of "Beware of the dog" signs, or if the people there really mean it. From the short snippets I've seen on TV, I had the impression though that they really were serious about it!!

A. Rand wrote in TVOS, The Nature of Government", p. 127:

"The use of physical force, even its retaliatory use, cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed agaist him by any of his neighbors at any moment."

Ayn Rand probably thought anarchic chaos would be the result if citizens had the monopoly on the use of force.

[Jonathan]

As a European who has not grown up with guns...

In listening to all of the discussions since the shooting, I think that people's having "not grown up with guns" is their primary reason for fearing and opposing them. Those who live in societies which are very strict about controlling access to guns seem to have become broken to the saddle, and so much so that they see their personal defenselessness and reliance on the state as virtuous, while seeing others' freedom and independence as shocking, threatening, and, more importantly, uncouth. More than anything, their mindset is a sort of programmed, snobby proselytism driven to spread submission as fashionable. I get the sense that if they had grown up needing permission from the state to speak, they'd be as disturbed at our freedom of speech as they are at our freedom of self defense.

J

[Selene]

About a week ago, I watched a short report on German TV about a US rural community (it was in Texas, I think), where virtually everyone is a gun owner and would not hesitate to use it as weapon. They proudly told the reporter that they don't need the police to regulate conflicts. They also have a "WE DON't DIAL 911" sign well visible to visitors.

As a European who has not grown up with guns, it is difficult for me to assess whether those "We don't dial 911" signs are just some 'rough and tough' Texan variant of "Beware of the dog" signs, or if the people there really mean it. From the short snippets I've seen on TV, I had the impression though that they really were serious about it!!

Was this "...short report on German TV..." too short to include the:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting March 11, 2009;

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shooting November 20, 2006;

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coburg_shooting July 2, 2003;

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre April 26, 2002;

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eppstein_school_shooting June 3, 1983;

6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre June 11, 1964; and

7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremen_school_shooting June 20, 1913;

Hmm glass houses and stones and arms to throw them comes to mind...

And I guess we will just skip over the industrialized organized mass murder during those "Hitler years." Guess they don't count.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

The Hitler stuff didn't help, Adam. It switched the category from bottom up to top down.

--Brant

[caroljane]

As a European who has not grown up with guns...

In listening to all of the discussions since the shooting, I think that people's having "not grown up with guns" is their primary reason for fearing and opposing them. Those who live in societies which are very strict about controlling access to guns seem to have become broken to the saddle, and so much so that they see their personal defenselessness and reliance on the state as virtuous, while seeing others' freedom and independence as shocking, threatening, and, more importantly, uncouth. More than anything, their mindset is a sort of programmed, snobby proselytism driven to spread submission as fashionable. I get the sense that if they had grown up needing permission from the state to speak, they'd be as disturbed at our freedom of speech as they are at our freedom of self defense.

J

As a European who has not grown up with guns...

In listening to all of the discussions since the shooting, I think that people's having "not grown up with guns" is their primary reason for fearing and opposing them. Those who live in societies which are very strict about controlling access to guns seem to have become broken to the saddle, and so much so that they see their personal defenselessness and reliance on the state as virtuous, while seeing others' freedom and independence as shocking, threatening, and, more importantly, uncouth. More than anything, their mindset is a sort of programmed, snobby proselytism driven to spread submission as fashionable. I get the sense that if they had grown up needing permission from the state to speak, they'd be as disturbed at our freedom of speech as they are at our freedom of self defense.

J

I think you presume too much here. I grew up with guns, not handguns admittedly, but all my family were hunters and most houses had a rifle somewhere. Nobody was murdered with one of them (that I know of...). I do not have a mindset of "programmed snobby proselytism". I may be programmed and proselytise sometimes, but I am no snobbier than you.

[Selene]

The Hitler stuff didn't help, Adam. It switched the category from bottom up to top down.

--Brant

Brant:

I can see how you can perceive that as a cheap shot.

However, the Nuremberg precedent clearly argued and concluded that it was a long line of "good Germans, etc." who provided the hands that threw the switches that moved the trains to the death camps.

That was certainly not top down.

However, your point is well taken.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

The German dictator was primarily responsible for the Holocaust. It was state policy. The "good Germans" are always with us, even in America.

--Brant

half German, half English--I might become King of England if I live long enough, ratcheting up the royal IQ (not bragging--dissing)

[Selene]

The German dictator was primarily responsible for the Holocaust. It was state policy. The "good Germans" are always with us, even in America.

--Brant

half German, half English--I might become King of England if I live long enough, ratcheting up the royal IQ (not bragging--dissing)

I agree that the "good Germans" are in America also. Boehner being one of my prime suspects.

[caroljane]

The German dictator was primarily responsible for the Holocaust. It was state policy. The "good Germans" are always with us, even in America.

--Brant

half German, half English--I might become King of England if I live long enough, ratcheting up the royal IQ (not bragging--dissing)

Not bloody likely, we Stuarts "in glory reing'd" before you bumptious Hanoverians usurped May you live to call me

HRH Caroline I.

PS My IQ is not much compared with yours but my grandsons are really smart. Vivat rex!

[Brant Gaede]

The German dictator was primarily responsible for the Holocaust. It was state policy. The "good Germans" are always with us, even in America.

--Brant

half German, half English--I might become King of England if I live long enough, ratcheting up the royal IQ (not bragging--dissing)

Not bloody likely, we Stuarts "in glory reing'd" before you bumptious Hanoverians usurped May you live to call me

HRH Caroline I.

Welcome! HRH Caroline I!

--Brant

didn't want the job anyway

[caroljane]

The German dictator was primarily responsible for the Holocaust. It was state policy. The "good Germans" are always with us, even in America.

--Brant

half German, half English--I might become King of England if I live long enough, ratcheting up the royal IQ (not bragging--dissing)

Not bloody likely, we Stuarts "in glory reing'd" before you bumptious Hanoverians usurped May you live to call me

HRH Caroline I.

Welcome! HRH Caroline I!

--Brant

didn't want the job anyway

Arise Sir Brant, Baron Justdesert, Chancellor of the Exchequer//

[Jonathan]

As a European who has not grown up with guns...

In listening to all of the discussions since the shooting, I think that people's having "not grown up with guns" is their primary reason for fearing and opposing them. Those who live in societies which are very strict about controlling access to guns seem to have become broken to the saddle, and so much so that they see their personal defenselessness and reliance on the state as virtuous, while seeing others' freedom and independence as shocking, threatening, and, more importantly, uncouth. More than anything, their mindset is a sort of programmed, snobby proselytism driven to spread submission as fashionable. I get the sense that if they had grown up needing permission from the state to speak, they'd be as disturbed at our freedom of speech as they are at our freedom of self defense.

J

I think you presume too much here. I grew up with guns, not handguns admittedly, but all my family were hunters and most houses had a rifle somewhere. Nobody was murdered with one of them (that I know of...). I do not have a mindset of "programmed snobby proselytism". I may be programmed and proselytise sometimes, but I am no snobbier than you.

I wasn't referring to you, but to the general attitudes of the ban-the-guns crowd on radio, television and elsewhere on the internet. You've only been very mildly snobby in comparison.

But you're way snobbier than I've ever been.

J

[caroljane]

I wasn't referring to you, but to the general attitudes of the ban-the-guns crowd on radio, television and elsewhere on the internet. You've only been very mildly snobby in comparison.

But you're way snobbier than I've ever been.

J

!!!!!!!!! What, never???

[Brant Gaede]

Being a snob per se would be okay if one could be one. Up or down the virtue ladder depends on what is added on. Something is always added on.

--Brant

did I actually say something?

[George H. Smith]

Libertarian attorney Marc Victor now has his own radio program. This one, which runs 90 minutes, is on gun control. I haven't watched this yet (I have a deadlline later today -- a review of a book on jazz for Reason Online), but knowing Marc as I do, it is probably excellent.

Ghs

[Selene]

Jackson grew up on the West Side, a few miles away from where he was gunned down, and had been released from prison this past summer after serving a sentence for robbery. He had been shot several years ago, after an earlier stint in jail, and Bates said she constantly warned him to be careful on the street.

As of Thursday night, homicides were up 17 percent over last year in Chicago, and shootings had increased by 11 percent, according to police statistics.

Largely contributing to the spike was the unusual number of homicides that occurred during the early part of the year, when the city experienced unseasonable warmth. In the first three months of the year, homicides ran about 60 percent ahead of the 2011 rate.

OMG, how incredibly stupid of me...the spike in the murder rate in Chicago is clearly due to anthropogenic global warming!

How could I not see the clear conclusion after this statistical "event" that the increase in violent, individually created violence, is therefore directly attributable to the rise in temperature in Chicago due to anthropogenic global warming!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-2012-homicide-toll-20121228,0,5456581.story

Strangely enough, at the same latitude [?} New York City reported the lowest murder rate in decades.

Hmm, must be a different type of anthropogenic global warming that has different effects in NY than Chicago.

A....

[Xray]

As a European who has not grown up with guns...

In listening to all of the discussions since the shooting, I think that people's having "not grown up with guns" is their primary reason for fearing and opposing them. Those who live in societies which are very strict about controlling access to guns seem to have become broken to the saddle, and so much so that they see their personal defenselessness and reliance on the state as virtuous, while seeing others' freedom and independence as shocking, threatening, and, more importantly, uncouth. More than anything, their mindset is a sort of programmed, snobby proselytism driven to spread submission as fashionable. I get the sense that if they had grown up needing permission from the state to speak, they'd be as disturbed at our freedom of speech as they are at our freedom of self defense.

J

This 'gun ownership' issue is clearly a 'loaded' (pun intended) topic, which makes it virtually impossble to discuss it sine ira et studio i. e., without one's personal set of values influencing the argumentation.

But being aware of our respective biases does not necessarily preclude a fruitful exchange.

A question I'd like to ask you in reference to post # 526: would you prefer living in a commuity where they don't dial 911 but regulate conflicts with the helpf of guns instead?

[Selene]

A question I'd like to ask you in reference to post # 526: would you prefer living in a commuity where they don't dial 911 but regulate conflicts with the helpf of guns instead?

Yes.

[Dglgmut]

I think there are three factors in this argument: 1. How legal guns benefit society. 2. How a ban on guns would benefit society (each individual). 3. Whether or not police are enough.

I believe advocates of gun control haven't yet honestly considered their own beliefs regarding these three factors. For example, they likely have not imagined themselves or a family member in a situation they would personally want themselves or their family member to have a gun. Supporters of gun control obviously do not desire to own a gun themselves, unless, of course, they work for the government. Then there is the fact that legal guns influence the behavior of government. This comes into the argument particularly concerning automatic weapons. Why would anyone need an automatic weapon? Well, it is certainly preventative at the least. A government that knows its population is armed is going to have to disarm it before it tries to extend its powers beyond what the majority will tolerate--and this serves as a definite warning sign.

Also, most arguments revolve around comparing American crime statistics to other countries. This does not take into account the fact that crime is not only determined by gun laws. What problems would be prevented by gun control? Accidental deaths involving firearms, yes. The odd overreaction while overly emotional, sure. What wouldn't it prevent? Gun crime involving illegally obtained guns. How do we know this wouldn't be prevented even if every gun was confiscated? Because prohibition in any form is ultimately unenforceable in a country with an ounce of freedom.

Again, I don't think people trying to ban guns are really considering the capabilities of a police force. What is physically possible right now is one thing, but whether or not the incentive is there to protect people to the best of law enforcement's ability is also debatable I guess.

What it comes down to is the lives saved by gun control is not nearly as high as its advocates would care to believe, and the cost is innocent lives--which needs to be acknowledged. "Why does anybody need a gun?" The person who asks the question can answer it themselves, if only they are willing to be honest.

[Selene]

Calvin:

I think there are three factors in this argument: 1. How legal guns benefit society. 2. How a ban on guns would benefit society (each individual). 3. Whether or not police are enough.

Bullshit.

The Second Amendment overrides all of the above.

If it did not exist, every individual has the primary right to preserve and protect their own self interest.

A....

[BaalChatzaf]

Thomas Hobbes makes this point in -Leviathan-. The right to self defense is absolute. Even the sovereign entity to whom we owe obedience cannot revoke this right.

If I require a fire arm to defend my life or the life of my family members, I will have a firearm regardless of the law.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Gary North's provides a serious defense of the Second Amendment in the following article:

He intelligently starts at the beginning:

FEUDALISM AND POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY

In English common law in medieval times, meaning as late as the 13th century, the feudal legal system limited ownership of military weapons to members of the knightly class, and those classes over the knights. In other words, the ownership of weapons had to do with legal status.

The common man, meaning a peasant, could not be called into military service. Military service was a matter of inheritance of land and status, and this inheritance mandated military training, which created a military mindset. Thus, the weapons associated with this class, which was also a matter of social status, were not to be shared with the peasantry. This placed the peasantry at an obvious disadvantage in terms of military power. It also extended to political power. They had little political power. They were represented mainly by priests.

He then argues that the advent and use of GUNPOWDER, which, "...signaled the end of feudalism. It did not cause this decline, but it accompanied it."

With the resultant rise of "professional armies," and. "The more that the armies depended upon conscription, or payment by the central government, the greater the demands for the right to vote by the lower classes."

Debates were held in 1647 within the New Model Army over what constituted the right to vote. The Levelers, who were not Communists, believed that the franchise should be extended to members of the New Model Army, irrespective of their wealth. This was opposed by the upper classes, including Cromwell, but there was an open debate over the issue.

In the second half of the 18th century, the common citizen in the British colonies of North America possessed a rifle. In most cases he was a man of the countryside. He had the ability to use it. For the first time, weapons that were available to common people had equal firepower to weapons available to the central government.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

The American Revolution was a revolution of common people who were armed with weapons. The long rifle, fired from a distance, was a formidable weapon. A man who could shoot straight at a distance of several hundred yards could kill an officer on horseback. Officers wore special uniforms. This enabled their troops to identify who was in charge. They rode on horseback, above the troops. There was a universal agreement among the warriors of Western Europe that they would not target the officers. This, of course, was an agreement among officers.

He them notes that, "This is why the militias were the formidable opponents of the British Army."

George Washington only had two major victories, Trenton in 1776 (won by surprise) and Yorktown in 1781 (won by the French Navy). ...

George Washington got the credit, as did the centralized army under his command, but it was the militia that had kept the British at bay for the previous five years.

Americans fully understood this when the leaders wrote the Bill of Rights in 1790. This is why the Second Amendment was inserted into the Constitution. The voters understood that it was their ability to fight any organized army, through the organization of the militia, which was basic to their concept of citizenship

Therefore, as the author clearly explains, "The whole concept of "we the people," which introduced the Constitution, rested on the well-known ability of the American citizen warrior to grab his rifle and fight."

DEMOCRACY AND WEAPONS

This is an extremely interesting section of the article, a must read.

MILITIAS: REAL AND PHONY

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that it is possible, under anything like present conditions, for Americans to take up arms against the central government. In a period of financial crisis, in which the central government can no longer deliver the goods economically, and which therefore begins to lose its power to control local communities, there may be confrontations between armed camps. The obvious armed camps that I am thinking of are the gangs. The gangs are well armed, and in comparison with most small-town police departments, far better armed than the law enforcement agencies. The police know this.

The gangs are ruthless, and they have something like a military chain of command. In a time of national economic breakdown, there will be some communities in which the gangs possess primary authority. This is true today in much of Latin America.

The best form of defense under such conditions would be for the local sheriff to deputize adult males and females who have proficiency in the use of weapons, and who are armed. This is the concept of the local posse. It is not an independent militia, because there is no such thing as an independent militia.*** In the early 20th century, under the direction of the New York lawyer Elihu Root, who is sometimes called the first chairman of the American Establishment, the federal government nationalized state militias. That was part of the Progressive movement's attempt to centralize political power in Washington. It was very effective. So, today, the militias are armed agencies of the federal government, even though they are technically under the command of governors. In any case, they are not local.

***Dennis's suggestion in the Feinstein thread.

This is an excellent section, which PDS touched on with power and emotion.

I think the advocates of gun control understand very little about this symbolic relationship. They are usually advocates of the right to vote. They officially come down on the side of citizens' rights. But they do not understand the symbolic nature of the right to keep and bear arms as an affirmation of the authority of the citizen, armed with a gun and armed with the right to vote, to veto the decisions of political rulers through politics.

The defenders of Second Amendment liberties understand far better than the gun control movement that there is a connection between the right to keep and bear arms and the fundamental assertion of political sovereignty by the citizenry. They understand that the federal government's violation of Second Amendment liberties is part of a comprehensive program to centralize political power and to overcome the ability of citizens to use the ballot box to resist the extension of this centralized political power.

He continues, concluding that:

I am arguing that the citizen who owns defensive weapons, and was trained in their use, constitutes the great barrier against centralized power from above and decentralized criminal violence from below. It is the man in the middle, the armed voter, who is the backbone of Western liberty.

SYMBOLIC OWNERSHIP

Symbols are important. A citizen who has the right to keep and bear arms, even though he is not planning to join the state militia, which is in fact an arm of the federal government, understands that he possesses a degree of sovereignty that is not possessed by citizens in nations that prohibit widespread firearm ownership. He understands that he is in a unique situation. He still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government's exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.

CONCLUSION

I believe we are coming close to the end of the nation-state as we have known it for the past 500 years. I believe that the military historian, Martin van Creveld, is correct. The central governments are running out of solvency, and their ability to provide protection against crime and also provide retirement benefits for the mass of humanity, is in decline.

Over the next half-century, and perhaps even less, politicians are going to realize that they can no longer protect citizens against armed criminals locally, and they cannot afford to support their aging populations. At that point, there will be a transfer of legitimacy back in the direction of local civil government. Local civil governments will rest heavily upon armed citizens who are in a position to be deputized.

So, I expect a greater decentralization. This decentralization will take place most rapidly in societies where citizens have never surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. This is why I think the United States is the most likely nation to be the working model for this process of decentralization. Americans are more heavily armed than any other people in the democratic world. They may not be as heavily armed as rural residents of Afghanistan, but they are surely better armed than any other Western nation except Switzerland.

Firearms are marks of political sovereignty. They should be defended on this basis, not on the basis of some hypothetical revolution, which is not going to take place. I am saying that such a revolution is not necessary, precisely because the people do possess the right to keep and bear arms. They need not take up arms against the government, precisely because they already possess the arms.

I think that this article is brilliant.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/10459.cfm

A...

[Dglgmut]

Calvin:

I think there are three factors in this argument: 1. How legal guns benefit society. 2. How a ban on guns would benefit society (each individual). 3. Whether or not police are enough.

Bullshit.

The Second Amendment overrides all of the above.

If it did not exist, every individual has the primary right to preserve and protect their own self interest.

A....

Adam, isn't all self-defense preemptive?

How do you know someone is a threat to you?

People supporting gun control generally support it for the same reason you support gun ownership--their own safety (and their family's).

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. If someone is building a nuclear bomb, though, do you have the right to destroy it in self-defense?

Showing that gun control is itself a poor form of self-defense--legal guns can save lives in the short run, and save countries in the long run--is what should be done.

[Selene]

Showing that gun control is itself a poor form of self-defense--legal guns can save lives in the short run, and save countries in the long run--is what should be done.

Calvin:

As a personal favor, please read Gary North's article on the Second Amendment in post #547 above.

A...

[Dglgmut]

I did read it, and I already acknowledge the benefits of having an armed public. But many people do not respect your right to protect yourself if it conflicts with their right to not be shot. There is no conflict of interests here, except for the few cases that I already mentioned: accidental deaths, and over reactions with accessible guns (which is a legitimate fear, considering the recent man pushed onto the subway tracks in NYC after an argument).

I'm just saying that this misconception of a conflict of interests needs to be straightened out before an understanding will be reached.