Preface: I wrote this article back when the media was focused on the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT but I decided to wait a bit before I released it because the media seems to amplify emotional pragmatism on topics of gun control and I wanted to wait until emotions have subsided and rational thought could be applied to issues of this nature. I also hope you have entertained all other perspectives so that you can read this and decide for yourself what is right and practical. Thanks.
A popular perspective on gun control laws is to restrict citizens from owning and using “high powered assault weapons” but to allow police and military to use them for law enforcement. First of all I’m still trying to figure out what a “high powered assault weapon” is, but I think it’s just a political term used to make guns sound scary, so I’ll stay in foggy vague no man’s land and just call them “Big Scary Guns” (BSGs).
I could start on the local scale and give the example of Kennesaw, GA where it’s recommended (required with exceptions) that homeowners own a gun necessary for self-defense. Since the ordinance was in effect in 1982 all categories of crime and homicide have dropped dramatically, and surrounding areas without the ordinance haven’t had dramatic reductions in crime. I could go bigger and give examples of Nazi Germany restricting gun ownership of citizens (especially enforced on Jewish citizens); I’m sure you know how that played out after the laws were enforced. I could give the example of China under rule of Mao implementing gun control legislation on the citizens and not only did crime and homicide rates skyrocket but the Chinese government tortured and killed millions because the citizens were not able to defend themselves. Soon after the utopian gun restricting laws were enforced on citizens in Soviet Russia; the Gulags became the popular destination of millions of Russian citizens. The Chechens resisted these laws and retained their libertarian sovereignty for a while, until other Soviet citizens became so submissive and obedient to Soviet power that the Soviet citizens turned on their own Chechen neighbors. It was all in the name of “fairness” at that point. If we are going to submit to Soviet power, then the Chechens must also submit. If you want to read a book that will ruin your day, but make you appreciate your life; pick up “The Gulag Archipelago”.
Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel all currently have high rates of gun ownership and low rates of crime and murder. Other countries of similar size and GDP like Germany, France, and others have low rates of gun ownership and high rates of crime and murder. Throughout history and around the world, as the freedom to own a gun increases, crime rates decrease, and when guns are restricted from citizens, crime increases. There are a few anomalies to this trend but there are other variables not pertaining to gun laws that change the outcome. Once you understand the effects that gun control laws have on humanity, you will not restrict citizens from owning and using guns for self-defense.
Many supporters of laws against Big Scary Guns think that it will reduce the ability for criminals to do business. Of course criminals will use BSGs whether legal or not, but the problem is not so much in crime, it’s in making the State powerful and the citizens weak. In the 20th century governments killed 5 times as many of its own citizens as did criminals in the society. “Feel good” laws with compassionate intentions lead to the death of millions of innocent people. We don’t need to worry about defending against criminals as much as we should worry about defending against the State.
But let’s briefly focus on the local criminal rather than the government. Any rational person that values self-ownership will own and use whatever tool of defense necessary that meets the criteria to defend ones natural property rights.
If someone lives in a gated community with private security then they probably don’t need anything more than pepper spray and a whistle for self-defense. If someone lives in a high crime area or maybe out in the woods then the demand for a more potent weapon, maybe even a BSG, becomes more necessary for self-defense. Some folks might think that nice gated communities with private security have less crime because the residents own fewer guns. That is just a logical fallacy of circular reasoning where cause is effect and effect is cause. There are other variables and causations to low crime rates in these areas that are not related to weapon ownership. You know, there are many ways to defend against predators other than using weapons, but that doesn’t mean weapons are never necessary for defense. It might be fun to explore that thought sometime.
If I were a criminal I would prefer to do business in an area with strict gun control laws against citizens rather than an area with freedom. My chances of success in crime are greater when I have more certainty of power over my disarmed victim.
My incentive to be a criminal in a free and voluntary society would disappear into a fog of uncertainty. I wouldn’t know who is armed with what, and I would have more of an incentive to just cooperate peacefully with others since there is no imbalance of power. In a free and voluntary society people would of course be free to not have a gun in the home if that’s their belief, and they would be at liberty to announce that their premises is a gun free zone. And if I were a criminal, that’s the first house I would target.
But everything I’ve mentioned so far doesn’t matter. I apologize for dragging you through a field of secondary arguments but we are now at the wall of primary principles. Even if the argument for restricting BSG somehow did result in its altruistic intentions, it still is wrong. If you say “BSGs are bad” then I’m on board with you. If you say “BSGs are bad for some (citizens), and good for others (officers of the government)”, then I’m not on board with you. We must remember to be universally consistent. You can’t logically say that BSGs are bad for one group, but good for another group. If you say that BSGs are bad for some, but good for others, then you’re saying humans are not equal by nature and that we don’t have equality of self-ownership rights.
Either Self-defense is good, or self-defense is bad. Either people should be allowed to use BSGs or they should not be allowed to use BSGs. It can’t be a wishy-washy yes for some and no for others. If you can agree that we have a natural right to equal justice, and we have an equal right to defend self-ownership then let’s continue, if you don’t agree then I would invite you to read some of my previous writings, “Natures Ethics” perhaps.
If you say ownership and use of BSGs is bad for citizens, but good for State officers (government). Why? Is it because police and military need BSGs to defend themselves, or defend you against criminals? Why do only the State officers need to defend against criminals and not citizens? Is it because officers of the State have training to use BSGs? What about citizens with gun training, or an off duty officer, or retired officer of the State? Does the ethical nature of a human being who uses a BSG change when the uniform is put on or taken off? What if a citizen puts on the uniform? These are all dead end inconsistencies when applied to primary principles.
Defense against criminals is better than no defense against criminals. So if defense of property is important, then it’s better for that defense to occur sooner rather than later. If a citizen can defend against a criminal sooner than a State agent, then that is a good thing, and let the citizen defend equally.
The argument put forth by those that support restriction of BSGs for citizens but not for State officers is full of contradictions. They are saying you need BSGs to get rid of BSGs. Or more broadly, you have to have guns, because guns are bad. A State officer must put a gun to your head so that you will be restricted from using a gun. You need violence to prevent violence. “But Jeremy, if BSGs were restricted, you wouldn’t see State agents violently pointing guns to citizen’s heads to restrict them from owning a BSG”. I know, but the obedience of the citizens always cloaks the reality of violence. Let’s walk through this. Let’s say there are laws of the State against owning a gun. I understand that no human being is superior over another by nature, and no human being has a right to ownership of another human being without consent, therefore self-defense of equal justice is a natural right. It would be reasonable for me to obey the laws of nature rather than obeying an arbitrary law of man that’s based upon force and coercion. So If I am living peacefully and not harming anyone else’s property rights and I enforce my natural right of self-defense, and an officer of the State attempts to take my gun and I refuse, there are progressive steps of protocol that will be taken, such as a warning, then a fine (extortion), then perhaps a group of State officers would come on my land armed with guns and attempt to take me into custody and maybe jail or prison (kidnapping and eventually rape), if I refuse to get kidnapped, it would probably end with guns pointed at me ready to shoot and kill. The citizen can be peaceful and respectful of the equal rights of others while the State commits violence against the peaceful citizen. If you apply the standard procedure of enforcement of any positive law (check out my article “Natures Ethics” for a description of positive law) by the State (government) it will always result with kidnapping or guns aimed at you ready to shoot. The State is a monopoly on the use of force and violence.
You shouldn’t restrict a tool that’s used for force and violence in one context, while that same tool is used to prevent force and violence in another context. The restriction should be on the force and violence, not the tool (weapon). If I rape someone, that is a violent crime. If it’s voluntary sex, then it’s not violent. It’s sort of the same act, but different context. If I tell some girl to have sex with me or else I’ll kill her children or her dog or something, and she has sex with me, was that a violent act even though no one was injured or killed? Yes, it’s violence, rape, and it’s unconsented force. The obedience cloaks the violence. We don’t see the violence of the State for what it is because we are so blindly obedient. Of course as long as we have the de rigueur Fabian Socialist conformity factories of public schooling, we will always have a population of programmable automatons without critical thinking skills, blindly obedient to subjective authority figures. Anyone who is actively involved in supporting the legislation and enforcement of positive laws of the State is supporting violence.
If you Support the restriction of certain firearms for citizens but not for Government officers, you may have compassionate intentions but your ignorance of consequences in reality makes you a supporter of violence, enslavement, and cruel death of humanity. I refuse to support any form of man-made positive law that results in coercion and violence of my fellow human beings.
4 Responses to A Proposition For Equal Justice