patrick.net

Opponents of gun control often use Switzerland as evidence that access to guns is not linked to crime or violence. They argue that since virtually all adult males are members of the army and have military weapons, there is nearly universal access to deadly weapons yet few gun-related problems in Switzerland. However, Swiss criminologist Martin Killias, of the Université de Lausanne, argues that the rate of households with firearms is actually comparable to that of Canada (27.2%). There is strict screening of army officers and ammunition is stored in sealed boxes and inspected regularly. Despite these controls, Switzerland has rates of gun suicide second only to the US among the countries Killias surveyed and a gun murder rate comparable to Canada's. Although firearms regulations in Switzerland is fragmented and controlled at the regional level, wide ranging reforms are being undertaken to establish national standards.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html

All conspiracy realists are called Sean, heh

Greetings all,

Sorry I haven’t been around for most of the day, but there are occasions that my employer requires me to perform actual work. ;-)

There are far too many comments directed at me for me to adequately respond, so I will instead offer up choice excerpts of what I consider to be excellent insights by other bloggers:

Randy H
Unfortunately, taxation is the only mechanism yet discovered which corrects for externalization of costs in a large society. Without taxation, some clever people figure out how to be productive at the cost of society; effectively shifting the costs of their endeavors onto others. However, with taxation other clever people figure out how to do the same. The notion is that, at least with taxation by a democratic state, there is some means to correct for tragedy of the commons. In a capitalist anarchy, there is not.

RMB
In an ideal world with rational people there would be no need for group organizations. But this is not an ideal world and people can not be islands, so there is a need for group organizations (governments). What those government do is another question. If they provide basic services (legal, defense, safety) they will fit with Libertarian ideas….
I would agree that all taxation is confiscation, but in some cases if the money is used for purposes that the individual can not accomplish alone (see above) and agrees to then it becomes a purchase transaction. I am paying for these services, which I value and would like to have someone else perform.

Requiem
It is my opinion that capitalism and democracy (is there a more “capitalistic” form of government besides an anarchy?) are inherently unstable. A democracy, it is said, can only exist until people discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. At that point, another form of government can “buy” its way into power. Similarly, unfettered capitalism will see the most effective operators build up monopolies, then find ways to maintain them.

Sunnyvale_Renter
Sadly, every health and OSHA etc regulation came into being literally over the dead bodies of one or more victims, often many of them….
If you want to get money out there in the economy and circulating, give it to poor people! Give people some breathing room, make college and tech training possible instead of a cruel dream, etc., and you’ll get tons of new companies and innovation.

MjrMjr
Here’s something to think about… Somalia doesn’t have a government right now. It ought to be a libertarian paradise, right? Without the encumbering, paternalistic hand of government, ought not free enterprise be flourishing? Free from any gov’t coercion, shouldn’t it be the best place in the world for an entrepreneur to be right now?
It may be fun for some folks to rant and rave about how evil government is but practically speaking, granting gov’t certain powers and the ability to tax us to provide a minimum level of common services is the *least worst* solution that any society thus far has been able to come up with.

Newsfreak
the real point of welfare
is to help those who cannot help themselves.
but the ideal point got
transformed in the real world
and then became generational entitlement.

Nomadtoons2
As far as Libertarianism and it’s perception in the US, I think that just as ultra conservatism casts a negative shadow on the republican party, Ultra Liberals do the same kind of damage to the democratic party. To be Libertarian is in itself a fairly abused word, where people these days seem to confine it to very exacting details. The same can be said for conservatism. The fact is that most people in this country are right in the middle, with liberal and conservative opinions. Unfortunately, these people usually don’t do much about voicing their opinions….
So what we have now are 2 vehemently opposed parties who will not listen to each other. This country must have BOTH liberal and conservative minds at work together.

SQT
Unfortunately we seem to be in a period where everyone is so polarized by their party. I also believe that most people sit somewhere between the conservative and liberal point of view. Most people I talk to anymore define themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” I tend to define myself the same way. But for some reason, the two parties usually in power can’t seem to grasp this and continue to force a greater divide between them.

Max
(quoted from The Federalist):
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Different Sean
Let me know the day you get transparency from corporations and government. Remember the big stick of government and the judiciary is what makes corporations accountable (often after the fact). The big stick in turn for government is the electorate…

Peter P
Criticism is not the necessarily the same as opposition.

They easily could have intercepted a commercial aircraft, even flying low. But only if they are armed by someone. They don’t leave these things sitting there on automatic launch...

Randy H,

That makes sense to me. It also leads me to ask why we have such equipment in place if not to respond to threats from commercial or private aircraft. Basically it tells me that the command structure needed to arm the equipment was not able to respond effectively. Not that I know anything about the business of protecting the Pentagon.

SQT,

I think many of us have learned an enormous amount from the contributions here.

But, if everyone carried a weapon (as was intended, even needed, in America) then the bad guys would think twice.

Very true. Instead of banning small knives on planes, all passengers can instead be given samuri swords. This way, no hijacking can occur.

And now California is having trouble killing a murderer (not Davis) who was found guilty in the late 70’s for killing an innocent young girl. The ... are coming up with any excuse they can to force California to not destroy this murderer.

That person should have been executed in the late 70's. We are still debating 30 years later? I really want to see capital punishment applied to more crimes. I am against lethal injection though. Execution is not a medical procedure. It should be held public to deter future crimess.

It's getting ugly for people. Even well paid people are starting to struggle
with finances. Many people are not experienced on how to cut back on expences. They think that they should eat less or shop at cheaper stores, but it's that big fat mortgage that's eating them alive. Pride will keep them from ever becoming a renter. They'd rather go down with the ship.

I see it in peoples faces that I deal with. Young people are starting to look old for there age. It's the stress from debt. I think it's going to get worse, much worse.

On the positive side, many of the 43 year old boomers(come lately's) will be fine because they are over-educated renters. They are in denial about actually being boomers themselves. There's nothing worse than a hypocrite, politically correct, crybaby.

Instead of banning small knives on planes, all passengers can instead be given samuri swords. This way, no hijacking can occur.

Realistically, it is useless to ban small knives. However, once passengers are told that a hijacked plane will be shot down, they will do everything possible to fight the hijackers if they are armed with such primitive weapons. Problem is solved.

Bombs are much bigger threats and they deserve more resources to defeat.

I dunno; we require licensing for driving a car, yet look how many people screw that up, and most practice every day!

I think people are not necessarily bad drivers. They are just over-confident and they think that it is possible to get away. We need more traffic enforcement, including automated cameras and monitoring systems.

I’m not sure arming everyone would help, since most people

1. don’t know how to react in emergencies
2. don’t know how to operate a gun

Very true.

Bap33, we share beliefs but I just cannot get myself to hate people with different views. (Except perhaps those who insist that foie gras has rights ;) )

All of this shall pass away and then things get really bad, then really good. I’m scared and excited.

This is what faith is all about, right?

Personally, I don't see how taking guns away from non-criminal non-insane Americans makes us "safer". As someone already pointed out, the police cannot be be everywhere at once. Sometimes you have no choice but be prepared to protect yourself and your family until the cavalry arrives. Can't think of a more effective home crime "deterrant".

California has some of the strictest (and most arbitrary) gun laws in the country, and yet --surprise, surprise-- criminals still manage to get all the guns they want --and they USE them. A lot.

Here they've outlawed above-10 round pistol magazines, detachable rifle clips, pistol grips, "Saturday Night specials", guns that just look scary (but aren't any more deadly than legal guns), you name it. Meanwhile, lawful gun owners have to go to absurd lengths in order to legally transport a registered weapon (unloaded, open breech, trigger lock on, bullets/magazines separate, in locked trunk/case, etc.). And of course, you're not allowed to actually carry a weapon where you might NEED it the most --in dangerous urban areas. Shit, I'm surprised they don't put your picture, name and address on a "gun perverts" website, so parents can know where all the "dangerous" gun-wackos live.

I can't recall the exact quote, but I think it was 19th century British explorer, Richard Burton (not to be confused with Liz Taylor's old flame) that said something like, "if all men carried firearms, we would all be gentlemen."

I also don't buy that the ONLY reason for the Second Amendment was to provide for a local police force/militia. The Founding Fathers had a deep distrust of governments and centralized power. They wanted to balance the equation a bit.

However... I do see the wisdom in requiring some form of background checks and safety training. And not giving guns to violent felons or the mentally ill. Guns should always be secured away from children as well.

Bap33,

Isn't there stuff in the Bible (NT) about everyone being your neighbour, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbour, and letting he who has never sinned cast the first stone? What happened to God being a God of love, and Jesus redeeming the sinner, etc? Isn't it just as bloodthirsty to punish someone by killing them as the murderer's initial act? (Which may have been a crime of passion or desperation.) Haven't you lowered yourself to their own moral level? You don't have a better response than that? Their killing is wrong, but your killing is right? I see why killing is so wrong now, it is so bad that it deserves to be punished by killing...

You seem to have a lot of hate-filled invective involving killing people a lot... Is that Biblical or Christian? Just curious...

So, if my Christianity is different from your Christianity, which one is 'correct', and which one should serve to inform the legal system?

Note that not many countries in the OECD still have the death penalty - just the US - so you are really saying that you want to bring back the system that you already have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

Regarding gun control, the idea of everyone carrying a lethal weapon suggests that no-one can be trusted in your own society. What sort of society is that? A good one? Why would anyone be proud to live in a society where no-one can be trusted and you all have to have itchy trigger fingers? (Note that not many urbanites in America pro rata seem to believe this or want to carry a gun.) So, how is social order possible? Only at the point of a gun? Is that how deficient you are in social skills and conflict resolution?

A lot of arguments put up by people defending the status quo are straw man ones - they point to terrible fictitious murderers all around them as the need to own a gun, have the death penalty, etc. when in fact there is a great deal of social control around them that prevents such a thing from happening... Alternatively, I think if you set yourselves up to expect that everyone is a deranged gun-carrying murderer, you start to create such attitudes in more and more people...

HARM,

Why on Earth would you want to associate yourself with people who would question the propriety of laws against slavery and child labor? Libertarian ideas are naive — they just won’t work in any modern society. It’d be great if we didn’t have to worry about taxes and rules. It’d be great if I (but not you) could do exactly what I wanted all the time and no one could complain.

Sean,

This is an extremely narrow (and inaccurate) definition of Libertarianism. To be more precise, there is no ONE definition of Libertarianism. This is mainly what I was trying to get at with this thread topic. I don't believe you should have to check your code of ethics/morality at the door to remain a "true" Libertarian, even though many (if not most) people seem to believe this, including far too many Libertarians themselves.

We might as well go the fount (or is it the "Fountainhead"? ;-)) of all web knowledge, Wikipedia:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they allow others the same liberty, by not initiating physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others.

Doesn't sound too amoral or selfish so far, right?

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual, with some viewing it as a natural right.

Doesn't sound too anti-social or pro-slavery to me. Perhaps you are thinking of Anarchism: "an extreme version of libertarianism favoring no governmental constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers and laws are unnecessary." That's not the type of Libertarianism I'd follow.

So in what branch of Libertarianism would I fit? Hmmm...

Some libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, oppose all taxation, but most who self-identify as libertarians support minimal taxation as a "necessary evil"... This concept of minimalist government is found in minarchism.

Libertarians favor separation of government and economy; therefore, they also oppose all collusion between government and corporations, often termed crony capitalism, that would override the free market.

Libertarians oppose corporate welfare, which is seen as forcing individuals to subsidize unprofitable businesses through taxation. Likewise, they oppose trade barriers to maintain businesses who would otherwise fail in the face of international competition... Libertarians believe government spending and government programs should be eliminated unless they are directly involved in protecting liberty (such as national defense) and that private institutions should replace them wherever possible.

Well, that's probably about as close a match as I'm going to find between my own personal philosophy and a branch of Libertarianism. While it's not a perfect match, it's pretty good.

\hessesfan Says:

March 4th, 2006 at 2:34 am
dear all
read www.businessjive.com, the darkside of the looking glass.
excellent must read for all the bloggers here. gives an insight into the trading problems on wall street.
The state governement of utah and connecticut are suuing DTCC over this issue. BTW I think that this time the brokerage houses are fighting among themselves. and i read somewhere that lehmanbros are being heavily shorted.
full dislosure: this is not investment grade advice. i am neither long nor short paper stocks. i do own physical gold and putting it away in different countries.

Congratulations everyone
I successfully convinced one of my friends from buying a house for 600k in losbanos.

The point is, that many other countries have strong gun controls, low levels of illegal gun ownership, and do fine. There is no need to construct hypothetical societies where most people are 'disarmed', they already exist. They're called the high income economies of the OECD.

The United Kingdom has long had strict controls on firearms. Increased gun controls in the UK swiftly came into being following the March 1996 killings of 16 primary school children and their teacher, as well as 15 injured victims, by a local gun club member in Dunblane, Scotland. In response to the outcry following this massacre, a public inquiry was called which examined many aspects of firearms regulation in an international context. Subsequently, a new law was passed which banned 95% of handguns and required that the remainder (.22 calibre pistols) be stored at gun clubs. When the Labour party took power it introduced a total ban on handguns. Other regulatory changes are under consideration. The Report of the Inquiry, headed by Lord Cullen, into the Dunblane massacre declared that "The right to bear arms is not a live issue in the United Kingdom."

@Different Sean,

Regarding gun control, the idea of everyone carrying a lethal weapon suggests that no-one can be trusted in your own society. What sort of society is that? A good one? Why would anyone be proud to live in a society where no-one can be trusted and you all have to have itchy trigger fingers? (Note that not many urbanites in America pro rata seem to believe this or want to carry a gun.) So, how is social order possible? Only at the point of a gun? Is that how deficient you are in social skills and conflict resolution?

A lot of arguments put up by people defending the status quo are straw man ones - they point to terrible fictitious murderers all around them as the need to own a gun, have the death penalty, etc. when in fact there is a great deal of social control around them that prevents such a thing from happening… Alternatively, I think if you set yourselves up to expect that everyone is a deranged gun-carrying murderer, you start to create such attitudes in more and more people...

For someone quick to attack other people's alleged "straw man" arguments, you sure don't mind setting up a few yourself ;-). Oh, where to begin...?

First off, no sane pro-gun advocate would ever say "no one can be trusted" or that "everyone is a deranged gun-carrying murderer". You imply that all pro-gun rights advocates are somehow living in a permanent state of fear and paranoia --simply absurd.

And why do all gun owners necessarily have "itchy trigger fingers"? Talk about paranoia! This is the type of extreme rhetoric that I would expect from someone who is not comfortable handling or being around firearms. Which is fine --you don't have to own one. No one is seriously advocating requiring everyone to own or carry firearms. Even Burton was just exaggerating to make a point (that an armed public is not necessarily a more violent one).

And would confiscating all non-government owned guns make crime go away? Would a lack of guns make people more trustworthy or less prone to violence? I seriously doubt it. Life was far more violent and brutal during ancient times than in America today, and yet --amazingly-- there were no gunpowder based weapons.

@Different Sean,

Yes that wonderfully "effective" gun ban in Britain. How well did that work out? Let's see...

Overall, Britain now suffers from a higher violent crime rate than the U.S., and has reverted to its medieval status of being substantially more dangerous than most of the European continent. (Continental gun laws are generally more repressive than in the U.S., but more liberal than in England.) The lesson: More gun bans, more violent crime.

And yet there are signs that the public is finally awakening to the fact that the gun-prohibition movement can deliver hatred and repression, but comes up very short on public safety. The 1997 handgun ban is perceived by many as a failure, as gun crime has risen substantially since then.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.asp

Different Sean,

Let me recap a couple of my earlier points:

Personally, I don’t see how taking guns away from non-criminal non-insane Americans makes us “safer”. As someone already pointed out, the police cannot be be everywhere at once. Sometimes you have no choice but be prepared to protect yourself and your family until the cavalry arrives. Can’t think of a more effective home crime “deterrant”.

...However… I do see the wisdom in requiring some form of background checks and safety training. And not giving guns to violent felons or the mentally ill. Guns should always be secured away from children as well.

Does this sound like the maniacal ravings of a machine-gun-toting lunatic with an "itchy trigger-finger"? Does my entertaining the very POSSIBILITY (but relatively low PROBABILITY) of being the victim of a crime at some point mean that I'm an anti-social paranoid freak?

C'mon, now. Extreme, irrational arguments can come from both sides of the debate.

Extreme, irrational arguments can come from both sides of the debate.

Hmm, I'm not making an extreme, irrational argument, just making international comparisons. The US statistics show that guns are much more likely to be accidentally discharged, killing or maiming one's one family members, or be used to assist in suicide, or to be used by someone under the onset of a psychiatric disorder (sane at the time they obtained the gun). There is also a huge grey market and black market leakage effect to criminals when guns are in such plentiful supply and the dream is 'for everyone to own one', stable or otherwise.

What are the statistics on effective deterrence? They demonstrate that actually instances of deterrence are very low, and that very often the presence of a gun escalates a situation.

Remember these are highly technical, expensive items prone to malfunction, but apparently absolutely necessary for the good civil society to exist...

Regarding the 'statistics' quoted from http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.asp, I need to see those credibly verified - pro-gun types are known to heavily skew international positions to suit their domestic arguments. I've lived in both Britain and Australia for long periods, and I know the rates of personal assault etc have NOTHING to do with ownership of guns, because no-one used to carry a gun or had one at home for deterrence reasons anyway - it's just not in the culture of those people - the pro-gun people love to make these spurious connections based on statistical coincidences or other changes in law and order practices. For instance, the onset of a recession or depression may well lead to higher crime levels completely independently of any gun control laws passed at around the same time. One thing that I know is that the UK and Australian governments will not change their stance on gun bans in the foreseeable future, as they do not see commonplace gun ownership as part of a civilised society, and nor do the citizens.

hmm, if you shoot someone and deliver 'summary justice' of your own, aren't you in a lot of trouble? and is 'the world' nevada?

the point is that in modern society, most people have handed over the legal use of force to the police as an institution - this is Sociology 101. you shoot someone in the street at high noon at your own peril - in fact, the early gun-toters of the Wild West were put in place by concerned townspeople who had law and order problems and not enough sanctioned officers to carry them out at that time, expanding westward at a furious pace as they were. That was a very temporary emergency arrangement.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment was insisted upon by the state of Massachusetts in forming the Union mostly to protect against recurrent attempted invasions by the British to get their old colony back, being keenly aware of that possibility. I think the time and necessity for that has passed now, don't you?

The statistics show much higher deaths in the US due to gun ownership levels. If you're happy with that arrangement, fine. However, a US-style gun culture is an export the civilised world doesn't want...

What about the rights of citizenship? What does it mean to be a citizen of a country if there is no government worth talking about, and no social guarantees? Why defend a nation that is cruel and uncaring (in other words, how do you raise a loyal army of bitter, disaffected people)? What’s good about that? What about the role of the welfare state in delivering healthcare, education, pensions, law and order, justice, roads, hospitals and myriad other public and social goods to form a decent social settlement?

Different Sean,

I thought I had pretty much already addressed this is my opening topic and in the "what branch of Libertarianism do I belong to?" post above, but I guess I didn't get my point across very well. I don't believe in the narrow, stingy extreme view of Libertarianism as practiced by the "anarcho-capitalists".

I too believe that "good" government is not only possible, but should be the constant aim of a well educated and socially involved citizenry. Of course part of making "good" government IMHO involves setting reasonable limits to government size and power, while ensuring that government remains accountable to the PEOPLE and not just moneyed special interests. ALL Libertarians, not just "Left-Libertarians"/Minarchists are completely against "a corrupted self-serving government partial to propping up crony interests". We're on the same page, here, dude. ;-)

How is liberty even to be defined in a complex, highly technical, interdependent network of 280 million people surrounded by laws designed to protect property and the person?

Well, you've made a pretty good start at a practical definition of Liberty right there. Again, I don't subscribe the extreme, narrow view of Liberty = only property rights. Liberty also means a relative absence of coercion (as in, no slavery or child labor). Liberty also means government accountability to everyone, no just the super-rich and corporations. Liberty also means freedom from crime, fraud and abuse.

and didn't the founding fathers often have quite a lot of slaves? perhaps they were men of their time, after all... things have moved on since the 18th century...

Different Sean,

Please re-read my opening statement (thread topic) at the top:

Personally, I like the fact that I live in a country that prohibits overt discrimination based on gender, race, religion, etc. I actually like the fact that slavery and child labor is illegal. Having some of my tax money used for “social safety nets” for poor citizens (and legal residents) and the disabled/mentally ill –as long as it does not completely dis-incentivize industry– doesn’t bother me. Nor does prosecuting and jailing executives who cheat or poison consumers. Does this make me a Communist? If so, I guess a good percentage of Americans are commies too.

Does this sound like the opinions of a right-wing, crony-capitalist, unilateral war-starting, torture-condoning, autocratic neocon? If so, please let me know so I can send my resume to Shrub's desk right away. I need a better paying job. :mrgreen:

hmm, sorry HARM, I was responding to:

"Libertarians believe government spending and government programs should be eliminated unless they are directly involved in protecting liberty (such as national defense) and that private institutions should replace them wherever possible.

Well, that’s probably about as close a match as I’m going to find between my own personal philosophy and a branch of Libertarianism. While it’s not a perfect match, it’s pretty good."

not going back to original post which refers to social goods and necessity of govt in lieu of a superior proven option...

Remember that the US Congress is horribly corrupted in terms of soliciting contributions on an individual level from just about anyone, as Congressmen have to raise their own finances and hence become 'revenue addicts' (and want a cushy job after standing down, so become lobbyists in turn - they know they can skim $500K a year from that occupation). And witness the Jack Abramoff affair. But the corruption level is high compared to most other affluent OECD countries, so one country's dollar-chasing Congressmen's experience doesn't make by inference all govts corrupt to the same extent.

please let me know so I can send my resume to Shrub’s desk right away

Do you have a history of
1) lying a lot
2) being an oil executive
3) doing anything in Texas?

One occasionally contemplates a Faustian deal with the Shrub, but I ruled out becoming a govt adviser after talking to a couple of them and wondering when they were ever going to start telling the truth...

re the detention centres, check (google) the full connections between cheney and KBR and halliburton, and the numerous untendered contracts awarded to kbr/hallliburton since he became VP. it's the revolving door of politics and big business, and a clear conflict of interest. the media have done a number of stories on this. for instance, he left washington to become CEO of halliburton for 5 years, his only private sector service, then promptly went back as VP and received a $20 M payout from halliburton for his invaluable 5 years of service, and a large yearly pension on top of his VP salary. wish my severance pay was as generous...

It's too late for gun control. The bad people will have all the guns if the good people give their guns to the government. Criminals wont turn in their guns.
I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Keep your guns people. Things are about to get bad. You saw what poor people did after Katrina. What if most of us become poor and then there's a disaster.

Different Sean Says:

"There are plenty of African people who have emigrated, legally or illegally, to Europe, and they don’t have problems to anywhere near the same extent with guns. Strenuous efforts are made by the police to remove guns from the community at every opportunity."

With few exceptions there are not many large communities of African decent except some in Britian (where there has been recent rioting) and France (where they recently burned a couple thousand cars).

"Easy access to guns and a celebration of gun culture of course is going to increase the number of incidents. Why not legislate to have them removed instead? Then there’s no problem, is there? "

What liberals don't understand is that "legislation" to remove guns will have no effect on "criminals". It is already illegal to kill someone or rob a bank and when I ask point blank "do you think that passing a law banning guns will get even a single gang banging criminal to drive to city hall and turn in his gun" the answer is always "no"

If Different Sean ever goes to rural Wisconsin or Eastern Oregon he will find an active "gun culture" where almost every man (and almost half of the women) is a gun owning hunter. There is almost no crime and many people never lock their doors.

HARM Says:

"Having some of my tax money used for “social safety nets” for poor citizens (and legal residents) and the disabled/mentally ill –as long as it does not completely dis-incentivize industry– doesn’t bother me."

I think it was Jack Kemp that said "Let's give the poor a safety net not a hammock". We should change all our crime filled housing projects in to job training centers where we get the poor off drugs and back in to the world. Right now many people stay on welfare and in the housing projects for their entire life...

pywiack Says:

"To me, pure libertarianism seems like a young, healthy person’s political philosophy. There are tons of libertarians on college campuses."

Unfortunately there have never been many libertarians/objectivists on college campus (or anywhere else). I met more republicans in college here in the Bay Area than libertarians.

Who is Kate Incontrera? The link to the author is broken. The "Gut Punch" article:

http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/DRI/EDRIG105/

is not anything to be taken too seriously. I think that this is simply and indicator that the sharks are starting to move into the downside of the RE market. I don't need a crystal ball to predict that lots of self-promoting "experts" will make plenty of money claiming you can earn 700% returns in the RE downturn, all without risking any money. Seriously, this junk does serious discussion about the subject a disservice.

Regarding the ’statistics’ quoted from http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.asp, I need to see those credibly verified - pro-gun types are known to heavily skew international positions to suit their domestic arguments.

@Different Sean,

Would you consider the BBC to be a "credible" source?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

How about the U.N.?
United Nations - International Crime Victim Surveys (ICVS):
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/publications.php
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/CriminalVictimisationUrbanEurope.pdf

PS,

I'll check Zip Realty, but I can't get squat out of Zillow for our area (Portland, OR Metro). The day it rolled out it was fantastic, now I'm getting zip from zillow. Weird huh?

@Different Sean,

the point is that in modern society, most people have handed over the legal use of force to the police as an institution - this is Sociology 101. you shoot someone in the street at high noon at your own peril - in fact, the early gun-toters of the Wild West were put in place by concerned townspeople who had law and order problems and not enough sanctioned officers to carry them out at that time, expanding westward at a furious pace as they were. That was a very temporary emergency arrangement.

I would not call the Second Amendment (part of the original Bill of Rights) a "temporary arrangement". I am far from advocating vigilante justice, nor do I wander the streets armed to the teeth, itching for an excuse to shoot someone (a common misconception/stereotype among the non gun-owning public).

Even so, the fact remains that the police cannot be EVERWHERE at ONCE. There is always a delay, no matter how efficient the 911 system is in your neighborhood --and that's assuming you're even able to get to a working phone in time. Minutes or even seconds can sometimes mean the difference between life and death in a dangerous situation. Why do you think First Aid is taught to non EMTs? Think of law-abiding citizen gun-ownership as "first aid for crime": you hope you never have to use it, but if you do, it's there.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment was insisted upon by the state of Massachusetts in forming the Union mostly to protect against recurrent attempted invasions by the British to get their old colony back, being keenly aware of that possibility. I think the time and necessity for that has passed now, don’t you?

Again, I have to reiterate: the state militia/invasion argument was NOT the only reason the Founding Fathers had for ratifying the Second Amendment. They had a deep distrust of centralized authority and desire to prevent our own government from becoming too powerful. If you go back and read the political tracts/letters from the time, you'll see that many believed citizen gun-ownership was a necessary counter-balance to government power.

Checks & balances and civil liberties --what could be more American than that?

The statistics show much higher deaths in the US due to gun ownership levels. If you’re happy with that arrangement, fine. However, a US-style gun culture is an export the civilised world doesn’t want…

According to the U.N. The overall violent crime rate in England-Wales was actually higher than in the US from 1992-2000 (data for the latest survey ends at 2000):
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/app4.pdf

Sean, I would argue that the vast majority of Second Amendment supporters are not rabid trigger-happy gun wackos. We are NOT your enemy, nor the enemy of civil liberties. On the contrary, we're civil libertarians, against government secret spying, torture, corruption, monopolies, wasteful spending, fascism, military expansionism (excepting measures for self-defense & humanitarian aid) and pro-freedom of dissent, free speech and free press.

On the whole, we are some of your best friends.

oh, jeez. Now I have to rebut more skewed stuff and spurious cause-effect associations.

Re the BBC article, "The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, ..."

The countryside alliance are the pro-gun people in the UK, for chrissakes - the BBC didn't conduct that study, they did. That's just a BBC report on a report. The Countryside people are pissed off because foxhunting is being banned, and they're being funded by the bluebloods. My social science training tells me never to trust a report backed by vested interests.

There are a few more coincidences taking place here - for one, the person stating that they felt safer in the US than the UK - the US has spent a fortune on building prisons and paying law enforcement officers in recent years - the incarceration rate is about 4 times higher in the US than the UK, and it is even higher than in Russia. It is the highest rate in the OECD. So not necessarily linked to gun ownership at all, but to a huge concerted campaign in policing. And, as I said before, there could be cultural or economic differences such as recession, police tolerance of petty crime, etc between countries. Levels of social capital are important - for instance, housing booms that marginalise increasing numbers of people and create a wealth apartheid could cause an increase in assaults and crimes against property.

If Britain spent the money to multiply its police force and jail sizes by 4, as the US did, and started locking people up, then perhaps we would see the crime rate come down to a much lower level - but without the hand-gun ownership issue. So there is a deterrence effect just on a would-be perpetrator's knowledge of the US law enforcement procedures and presence and likelihood of getting caught - and perhaps of having family members or friends already in jail - not to mention all the 'Cops'-syle shows on the air - you cannot measure the deterrence effect on young offenders of these influences.

There are any number of potential causes to get the effect of an increasing crime rate over time, e.g. recession, rising housing prices, drugs, lax policing, budget cuts to police, changes in the law, etc, etc.

The point is, and the fact is, that scarcely anyone in Britain or Australia ever owned a handgun or carried one or had one in the car, so there was never a deterrence effect there in the first place. The security methods are locks, bars on windows, being at home, and burglar alarms.

With the opening up of Russia, there has been a lot of importation of cheap Russian/East European handguns into Britain. Jamaican immigrants seem to love them. Hence, the Thames Police have started a campaign specifically targetting that problem.

'The Metropolitan Police's flagship and hugely successful Operation Trident is described as an initiative against black-on-black gun related crime in the capital.'

'much of the blame has fallen on trends in music and fashion, particularly within the black community, which have helped to glamourise weapons' - and the influence spread from the US, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - you (the US) glamourise weapons in movies etc and the rest of the world starts following suit. It's called saturation cultural imperialism.

'Most of the kids carry guns in order to protect themselves when they are dealing. They are going around with enough crack or heroin to ensure that they go away for 10 years if they get caught. Because of that, they feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by carrying a gun.'

So a vibrant drug-taking culture fosters the carrying of handguns.

Notorious underworld figure Joey Pyle agrees. 'In the old days, during the time of the Krays and the Richardsons, people didn't go around with guns on them all the time. You only got tooled up if you were out on a bit of work. That's all changed now. For a lot of people out there, having a gun is little more than a fashion accessory.'

Note that much of the handgun use is between gang members or drug couriers, etc, not 'home invasions' or situations where an ordinary citizen would even be able to access a handgun to protect themselves.

And, once again, the death rate and maiming rate in the US from firearms is much higher, and what are the ethics and legality of killing someone who enters your home, for instance? Are the rates of accidental discharges at a family member, suicides, theft of weapons by thieves, regular massacres by unhinged people with access to deadly weapons, the cost of buying weapons and ammunition, the grief of family members who have lost someone, and the cost to the health system of patching people up - many of whom are disabled for life - worth it?

Given that the US has already chosen to spend a large fortune toughening laws, incarcerating criminals and strengthening its police forces to unprecedented levels in order to reduce the overall crime rate through sanctioned, institutionalised means.

Sean, I would argue that the vast majority of Second Amendment supporters are not rabid trigger-happy gun wackos. We are NOT your enemy, nor the enemy of civil liberties. On the contrary, we’re civil libertarians, against government secret spying, torture, corruption, monopolies, wasteful spending, fascism, military expansionism (excepting measures for self-defense & humanitarian aid) and pro-freedom of dissent, free speech and free press.

Oh, come on. How does owning a handgun do anything to prevent the govt doing all those things? They are completely disconnected. How many times have you drawn a handgun on a govt worker? This is nonsense. What is the likelihood of you being tortured or spied upon by your own govt in all reality, unless you start a Branch Davidian sect and start collecting guns in earnest? Surely intelligent verbal lobbying and organisation into action groups to put a reasoned, justified case to the American people at large might have better effect to get your point across and effect change? Every country in the OECD has problems of wasteful spending and corruption, but, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it seems that Truman's initiatives of a militarised America seem to have brought on urges of military expansionism and Fascism. The hand-gun will not distinguish between left, right, fascist, totalitarian, communist or libertarian, only human reason and impassioned argument and action can. Countries in the EU, with a combined population of 450 million, don't have the socio-political problems of the US right now, they're an artifact of US culture.

@Different Sean,

It's pretty obvious at this point that neither of us is going to convince the other of the inherent "rightness" of the other's position on banning private gun ownership, so I'll just focus on a few points:

The countryside alliance are the pro-gun people in the UK, for chrissakes - the BBC didn’t conduct that study, they did. That’s just a BBC report on a report.

Aside from the Countryside Alliance study, the BBC article also quoted Scotland Yard and the London Metropolitan Police. Are they all "pro-gun" nuts too? And what about the U.N. studies that showed England having a higher overall crime rate than most of Central Europe and the U.S. --and one that's currently rising?

There are any number of potential causes to get the effect of an increasing crime rate over time, e.g. recession, rising housing prices, drugs, lax policing, budget cuts to police, changes in the law, etc, etc.

Yes - i.e., gun ownership itself is not a cause of gun violence, other systemic social/economic problems are. Gun-related violence is one manifestation of these underlying problems that needs to be dealt with. Poverty + gangs/criminals + guns = trouble. We are in agreement here, but let's not blame the symptoms for the problem.

The point is, and the fact is, that scarcely anyone in Britain or Australia ever owned a handgun or carried one or had one in the car, so there was never a deterrence effect there in the first place. The security methods are locks, bars on windows, being at home, and burglar alarms.

Well, I don't know for a fact that "scarcely" anyone in the UK or Oz ever owned a handgun --I'd like to see some stats on this-- but if you're solely relying on locks, bars on windows and burglar alarms for personal protection, you're in for a rude awakening. These are perfectly reasonable deterrents (though personally I think bars are ugly and say "bad neighborhood"). But what do you do for protection when you're not at home?

Again, nobody is forcing you to buy a gun. If you don't like 'em, don't buy one. Just don't take away MY right to make my own decision.

Given that the US has already chosen to spend a large fortune toughening laws, incarcerating criminals and strengthening its police forces to unprecedented levels in order to reduce the overall crime rate through sanctioned, institutionalised means.

We don't disagree that the vast expansion of the US prison population and criminalizing many "victimless" behaviors (adult recreational drug use, prostitution, gun ownership, etc.) is a bad thing. Again, this is a very classical Libertarian idea.

Guns are not neccessar for crime. Murder and other crimes were a serious problem for thousands of years before the gun was invented. There are plenty of other weapons that would be used if guns were removed from society.

well, your 'right' to make a decision depends upon what country you are in, under the law. a gun is an artifice, a manufactured piece of technology - there is no 'natural right' to own one at all.

you use false statistics, false arguments and spurious correlations, and when that doesn't work, want to overlook death and maiming rates, costs to the health system, etc etc. And now all the people in prison are there for prostitution rather than violent assaults and burglaries, apparently. Most people are in prison for drug-related offences, but that is the same in the UK and Australia. And much of it has been lead by US pressuring in a 'war on drugs'.

And how many people have been locked up in the US for gun ownership? apart from criminals who don't have a state-sanctioned license, or are unfit to possess one?

As I said, scarcely anyone in the UK or Australia ever owned a handgun, and certainly people don't carry them. Only security personnel and police carry them. You need to get out more. There's more to the world than the US and it's insular, blinkered, narrow-minded arguments.

People are in for no more of a rude shock than anywhere else. Are you saying they've been in a rude shock for 2 centuries of settlement now? You've seen the figures. There's more to social capital than using a gun as a deterrent. Having a kinder welfare system works, for one. People in Australia have universal access to free health care, and can stay on unemployment benefits for prolonged periods, for instance, thus reducing their motive to steal or rob for money.

Have a look at these statistics:
http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-guns2.html

Types of Firearm deaths - US - 1993 :

Type Number
Suicide 18,940
Firearm homicide 18,571
Handgun homicide 13,980
Justifiable homicide 251
Accidental 1,521
Undetermined 563
Total 39,595

13,980 handgun deaths in the US vs 33 in the UK in that year.