Politics
§Despite professing that I'm some kind of liberal, I tend to find myself in regular disagreement with articles posted over at the Thoughts on Freedom, the Australian Libertarian Society Blog. This week there have been a few articles posted there which I thought were worth pointing out.
I've posted before on guns and how I think they're generally a Bad Thing. Temujin posted a really good roundup of the research into the relationship between guns and crime. His conclusion comes in two parts: (a) there's not really enough evidence to conclude strongly in either direction, and (b) given the lack of evidence the only way to conclude is that gun laws should be less restrictive.
At the risk of putting a dent in my libertarian cred1, I'm going to say I agree with (a) but not with (b). Preferring greater availability of something which provides deadly force, simply because you can't conclude given the available evidence whether it creates a positive or negative externality (the effect on the crime rate is an externality), in my opinion, is the wrong conclusion. Deadly Force is bad, mmmmk.
Another good article over there points out some ALP silliness which I hope stops very soon.
- Like I had any to begin with. [↩]
Comments
Your argument makes no sense. You're saying that if the laws have no effect you should keep them because they have an effect. Um, no.
This isn't about externalities.
All government intervention is coercive. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. But it needs to be understood that freedom is better than violence, choice is better than coercion and voluntary is better than involuntary.
Once this is accepted, it follows very obviously that the government should only intervene if it can show that it will produce a better outcome. Given the huge track-record of government failure, we should be fairly diligent in checking the government's claims of benefit. It shouldn't be a "we hope our massive tax & spend project will work" or "maybe if we invade this country then happiness will prevail". They need to have a good argument.
The evidence I cited in my post clearly showed that consequential argument was on the pro-gun side of things. My conclusion that I had no strong opinion was because it's always good to be modest about our understanding of difficult issues. But it is a gross distortion of logic to then conclude that:
1) despite most evidence showing guns are a net benefit; 2) and despite the fact that gun laws are coercive, overly-restrictive and hugely costly
... then I'll just ban them anyway because I just hate people and like banning things.
I know you didn't describe it that way, but I can't see any logical way to come to your conclusion, so there must be something else at play in your thinking process.
Follow up rhetorical questions to dwell on...
If guns are so bad, why do you want to allow cops to have them. In case you haven't met any police, let me guarantee you that they're not necessarily the best of humanity. How can you trust them, but not me? Or you? It's weird. Surely, if guns are bad for metaphysical reasons ("just because, ok") then they are bad for everybody.
If you believe in guns for defence (ie for cops) then why don't you believe in guns for defence (ie for me)?
You say "deadly force" is bad. Fine. But wouldn't it be more useful to say that "murder, rape, theft etc are bad". Surely "self-defence" is good. So it's not the gun that's the problem. It's the crime. And that's exactly what my article addressed.
Wow, that was quick! As usual, someone who has thought about this a whole lot more than me has trounced my arguement. If I even had an argument.
You're right, I didn't describe it that way because I don't hate people nor do I like banning things without good reason.
The reason I concluded as I did isn't, as you suggest, for metaphysical reasons. It's because I have the belief (not backed up by evidence) that easy access to guns, or a high level of gun ownership has more bad outcomes than good. As with any belief (especially those not backed up by evidence) it's open to change under more consideration and closer study.
That statement would definitely be more useful when only looking at the relationship between gun availabiliy and crime (which I acknowledge is what you're looking at) but it's not just the crime that's the (potential) problem with having lots of guns floating around. Guns are dangerous for many more reasons than that they (might) let people commit crimes with greater ease.
Simon,
Be bold and step outside your prejudice for a day. Go to a rifle range where there is a very high rate of gun ownership and meet some of the roughly 1 in 12 Australians that have ready access to a gun. Ask a few of them politely if they think the rifle range has a lot of bad stuff happening there. You still won't have any evidence but you may have more perspective.
Guns are not bad. But also gun ownership is not bad. And gun owners are not typically bad. Rapists, murders and thieves are bad.
TerjeP, I'm not arguing with any of that. I think the vast majority of gun owners (just like the vast majority of citizens) are very responsible. I'm sure most of them take the responsibilty of owning a gun very seriously. I believe that the more readily available you make guns (and especially hand guns) the higher the percentage (and number) of less than 100% responsible and dilligent gun owners will be. Among the people who are actively involved in shooting as a sport is not going to be a place to find reasons to object to liberal ownership gun laws.
Respond