159 thoughts on “Admitting Mistakes”

  1. Gralgrathor: Just as long as it doesn’t end too soon.

    I’m sure the second round awaits at least. I’d wish for you to break your duck but still have a fondness for England (1966 was a long time ago)

  4. JonF said:

    It’s a standard right-wing lie. The Nazis loosened the gun ownership restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany.

    Alan Fox quoted “It’s a standard right-wing lie.”, and responded:

    I’m shocked – shocked, I say!

    The inference, of course, is that one can expect right-wingers to lie. But who is really lying here?

    What did my link (about disarmament leading to state sponsored genocide) actually say? It said:

    Down through history, governments have disarmed their citizens only to tyrannize those citizens once they were disarmed.

    The gun control legislation in question that JonF refers to is the 1938 German Weapons Act. On the very link that JonF provided, we find that the new law did in fact loosen gun restrictions … on everyone except Jews, who under the new law (and not under the old one):

    … were prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. They were also forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.

    And they – the ones that were forbidden to own any dangerous weapons or be involved in their sale or manufacture (where they could get their hands on them) – were the ones genocide was carried out on – they couldn’t defend themselves.

    Is Wikipedia now spreading “right-wing lies”, JonF?

  5. William J. Murray: And they – the ones that were forbidden to own any dangerous weapons or be involved in their sale or manufacture (where they could get their hands on them) – were the ones genocide was carried out on – they couldn’t defend themselves.

    So, it’s your claim that if the Jews had guns they would not have been persecuted by the Nazi’s, is it? Seems like it is to me.

    Bit, er, simplistic? Or is that what you really think?

  6. William J. Murray: The inference, of course, is that one can expect right-wingers to lie.

    Yep, because reality does indeed have a liberal bias.

    In general the only way right-wingers can carry on in public discourse is to avoid telling the truth.

  7. Gralgrathor,

    I might have missed it in all this mess. Did you ever answer my question – why do you consider violence “evil”?

  10. William J. Murray: Did you ever answer my question – why do you consider violence “evil”?

    I think I answered it with the question “Seriously?’. And I still cannot think of a better response.

    Tell me, WJ. In what situation in which no violence is present yet would you hope to achieve improvement by inserting violence? Or do you just think that peaceful situations are boring, and should be livened up a little, and that shooting the place up is just the thing?

  11. OMagain: Don’t you ever get bored?

    I think he must be bored. I cannot think of other reasons for asking such silly questions.

  12. Gralgrathor asks:

    Tell me, WJ. In what situation in which no violence is present yet would you hope to achieve improvement by inserting violence? Or do you just think that peaceful situations are boring, and should be livened up a little, and that shooting the place up is just the thing?

    Gralgrathor,

    No, I don’t think peaceful situations are boring. I just find violence to be the best solution to some situations in some cases.

    For instance, on a couple of occasions there was a person in my home that refused to leave when I asked them to. I physically forced them out, and via that demonstration they never came back. The situation was greatly improved in my opinion. In another case, my drunk teenaged son was about to go out and probably get himself into some trouble, so I grabbed him, forced him to the floor and kept him there until the police came and took him to sober up overnight. Later he thanked me for stopping him.

    As far as I can figure out, you consider violence evil because you consider it ineffective at “improving a situation”. That really doesn’t seem like much of a standard for “evil”. If debate doesn’t improve a situation, is debate also evil? If kindness doesn’t improve the situation, is kindness then evil? Also, isn’t whether or not an act “improves a situation” an entirely subjective consideration on the part of the person that may employ a violent tactic?

    The reason I find it odd for a person, especially a evolutionary physicalist, to consider violence “evil” is that violence is employed throughout the natural world. If you consider humans physical products of the natural world, why would anything they do be considered “evil”? Is a lion attacking and killing a deer evil? Is an alpha male beating up competitors an act of “evil”?

    My best general definition of evil isn’t whether or not any act “improves a situation”, but rather lies in the intent of the person committing an act – any act, not just one of violence. IOW, violence doesn’t determine an act evil, but rather the intent for which it is employed (and/or perhaps the justifications thereof) is what makes it evil.

  13. Is Wikipedia now spreading “right-wing lies”, JonF?

    No, but you are. Regardless of any inclination of right-wingers to spread or not spread lies, the site you linked to is spreading a horrible lie. The Nazis did not tighten gun restrictions. Especially they did not tighten gun restrictions on Jews; the Allies and Weimar Republic did.So linking tighter gun restrictions to Nazis and the Holocaust is a standard and unconscionable lie that you are spreading by linking approvingly to that hateful site.

  14. JonF said:

    The Nazis did not tighten gun restrictions. Especially they did not tighten gun restrictions on Jews; the Allies and Weimar Republic did.So linking tighter gun restrictions to Nazis and the Holocaust is a standard and unconscionable lie that you are spreading by linking approvingly to that hateful site.

    Your own source – Wiki – clearly states that the law prohibiting Jews from owning or participating in the selling or manufacturing of guns was passed in 1938, and that it was not part of any prior law.

    From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

    On the night of 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building was set afire; Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist, was found guilty of starting the blaze. Hitler proclaimed that the arson marked the start of a communist uprising. Violent suppression of communists by the Sturmabteilung (SA) was undertaken all over the country, and four thousand Communist Party of Germany members were arrested. The Reichstag Fire Decree, imposed on 28 February 1933, rescinded most German civil liberties, including rights of assembly and freedom of the press. The decree also allowed the police to detain people indefinitely without charges or a court order. The legislation was accompanied by a propaganda blitz that led to public support for the measure.[16]

    In March 1933, the Enabling Act, an amendment to the Weimar Constitution, passed in the Reichstag by a vote of 444 to 94.[17] This amendment allowed Hitler and his cabinet to pass laws—even laws that violated the constitution—without the consent of the president or the Reichstag.[18] As the bill required a two-thirds majority to pass, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to keep several Social Democratic deputies from attending; the Communists had already been banned.[19][20] On 10 May the government seized the assets of the Social Democrats; they were banned in June.[21] The remaining political parties were dissolved, and on 14 July 1933, Germany became a de facto single-party state when the founding of new parties was made illegal.[22] Further elections in November 1933, 1936, and 1938 were entirely Nazi-controlled and saw only the Nazis and a small number of independents elected.[23] The regional state parliaments and the Reichsrat (federal upper house) were abolished in January 1934.[24]

    In 1938, the Nazis were in complete power in Germany. The passed the 1938 German Weapons Act. Jews were specifically prohibited form owning any dangerous weapons, not just firearms, and from the selling or manufacture of guns. That was not the case prior to 1938.

    This is a historical case of the disarmament of the Jews by the Nazis in power and the subsequent genocide of that group of people by the very government that passed new legislation specifically intended to disarm that group.

    Do you have any source other than wiki to support your claim that this is a “right-wing lie”? Because wiki directly refutes your claim, and directly supports the information on the link I provided.

  15. William J. Murray: Because wiki directly refutes your claim, and directly supports the information on the link I provided.

    Nope, you’re still wrong, and Jon is still correct.

    The entire civilian population of Germany (as well as its military) had been disarmed by law, passed by the Weimar Republic as a result of the Allied victory in WWI.

    No one is contending that the Nazis were not in control in 1938 when they passed the Weapons Act which you seem to think proves your point about Jews being disarmed as a strategic precursor to genocide. The problem is in your reading of the 1938 (Nazi) law as being the source of Jewish loss of means of (possible) armed resistance to the dictatorship. Since the Jews were already disarmed by the Allies/Weimar, your christian source pretending that the 1938 law is somehow to blame is – as JonF said – a bog-standard lie.

    Gun-fondler propaganda …

  16. I haven’t looked at the site and don’t care to argue the effectiveness of guns, but there is an additional point here. An elected government did in fact turn on a minority group and murder them.

    Due process and democracy are not guarantees of justice.

  17. Due process and democracy are not guarantees of justice.

    That’s an important point, and one that can’t be denied, petrushka. The question is, what can be inferred from it? Are we better off in Hobbes’ war of all against all?

  18. hotshoe: Nope, you’re still wrong, and Jon is still correct.

    The entire civilian population of Germany (as well as its military) had been disarmed by law, passed by the Weimar Republic as a result of the Allied victory in WWI.

    No one is contending that the Nazis were not in control in1938 when they passed the Weapons Act which you seem to think proves your point about Jews being disarmed as a strategic precursor to genocide.The problem is in your reading of the 1938 (Nazi) law as being the source of Jewish loss of means of (possible) armed resistance to the dictatorship.Since the Jews were already disarmed by the Allies/Weimar, your christian source pretending that the 1938 law is somehow to blame is –as JonF said –a bog-standardlie.

    Gun-fondler propaganda …

    No, Hotshoe. The wiki source directly contradicts you. Yes, in 1919 and 1920 the entire german population was effectively disarmed by law; but:

    In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, [including Jews – WJM] but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

    The total citizen disarmament laws of 1919-1920 were revoked in 1928 and from then until 1938, for 10 years, Jews could own guns and engage in selling them and manufacturing them like any other German.

    After 10 years of the Jews being able to own firearms (1928-1938), the Nazis specifically disarmed the Jews and then committed genocide against them. It’s all right there in the source we are using.

  19. walto:
    Due process and democracy are not guarantees of justice.
    That’s an important point, and one that can’t be denied, petrushka.The question is, what can be inferred from it? Are we better off in Hobbes’ war of all against all?

    I’m an evolutionist. I don’t think cultures and civilizations can be changed quickly by laws. And the least like laws to succeed are prohibition laws. I just don’t get excited by specific political issues.

    I have my thoughts and preferences, but I see no point in arguing them or shouting them.

  20. William J. Murray: The total citizen disarmament laws of 1919-1920 were revoked in 1928 and from then until 1938, for 10 years, Jews could own guns and engage in selling them and manufacturing them like any other German.

    After 10 years of the Jews being able to own firearms (1928-1938), the Nazis specifically disarmed the Jews and then committed genocide against them. It’s all right there in the source we are using.

    Yeah, yeah, under the 1928 law (which slightly loosened the post-WWI anti-militarization/anti-dissident laws) Jews could – theoretically – own firearms, subject to all the same regulations as every German citizen as to being “trustworthy”, having a fixed address, renewing their permit every year, not being identified as an enemy-of-the-state by the local law enforcement, etc. In reality, Germans did not re-arm to any great extent; although sport-shooting and hunting clubs became more popular, gun ownership did not include every shopkeeper, accountant, and petty thief as it does in the insane gun culture of current USA. In a village of 10,000, 9 persons had permits for firearms.

    Both before and after the Nazis came to power, whichever party was then in power used sensationalized (and perhaps outright fabricated) stories about seizing weapons caches from dissidents. The government manufactured fear and created public demand for Law&Order. In reality the numbers they claim are ridiculously inadequate to support any fantasy that those guns would have been a factor in an insurgency/deterrence against tyranny. Berlin Police claimed to have seized a total of 1702 firearms from Berlin’s population of about 160,000 Jews.

    I can guarantee that you would find at least 20 times as many guns in my town, and in a population less than a third the size.

    So, yeah, yeah, five years after their taking power, the Nazis finally got around to loosening gun restrictions on Party favorites while at the same time, for the first time, explicitly barring Jews qua Jews from any weapons-ownership. But the specific anti-Jewish language was just more propaganda, to encourage the rest of the populace and all local police officers to see Jews as untrustworthy. It had essentially no effect on disarming the Jews to soften them up for future genocide, because the Jews had already been disarmed by the previous two decades of prohibition./regulation, just as JonF said.

    Nothing supports your right-wing christian source linking “gun control and genocide” which you originally posted:

    Alan Fox said:
    OK I see plenty of guns on display at airports now when visiting but it is possible for a society to survive where there is no right for private citizens to possess firearms.

    Of course society can “survive” .. but as what, ultimately? Here’s a brief history on gun control and the genocide that quickly ensued:
    http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

    It’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It requires ignoring all the larger and longer-term factors. “Bad Nazis passed bad gun law in 1938, therefore gun control causes genocide.” Please, don’t insult my intelligence.

    As Alex Seitz-Wald said, “… it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

    Unfortunately for LaPierre et al. [NRA nut spokesman], the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.”

  21. Nota bene: gun-control law in Germany since 1972 is essentially that of the 1928 law with some additional requirements (such as a psychological evaluation for persons under 25 who want a firearm license). William, please explain to me why, in the 4 decades since 1972, we have not seen genocide in Germany if – as you claimed – gun control and genocide are linked. How many more decades of civil peace must we live through before we might concede that – possibly, just possibly – gun control is actually good for the general welfare and not an evil precursor to deadly tyranny?

  22. hotshoe said:

    It’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    It would be if I had made the inane claim that gun control/confiscation/banning caused genocide, or if I had claimed that such restrictions inevitably led to or always (or even most often) preceded genocide. I made no such claims. Go back and read what I actually said. Go back and read what the site actually states.

    Neither I nor the page I linked to claims that one causes or inevitably leads to the other. It lists cases where disarmament was quickly followed by tyranny & genocide. That site has on it exactly what I said it had on it, your erroneous attempts to claim otherwise and characterize me and the site conveniently notwithstanding.

  23. hotshoe,

    It’s a matter of common sense and logic that if you have genocidal and/or tyrannical plans, it would be in your best interest to disarm those you have bad intentions towards prior to attacking them, or rounding them up. You’d be an idiot not to try and legally disarm them first.

    That said, not everyone who disarms a population has evil intentions, but then those good people don’t stay in power forever. I’d rather have firearms and not need them, than need them and not have them.

  24. William J. Murray:
    hotshoe said:

    It would be if I had made the inane claim that gun control/confiscation/banning caused genocide, or if I had claimed that such restrictions inevitably led to or always (or even most often) preceded genocide.I made no such claims. Go back and read what I actually said.Go back and read what the site actually states.

    Neither I nor the page I linked to claims that one causes or inevitably leads to the other.It lists cases where disarmament was quickly followed by tyranny & genocide. That site has on it exactly what I said it had on it,

    Yep, I slogged through all the fine print at that christian rightwing site, and I re-read your comment to Alan:

    Alan Fox said:
    OK I see plenty of guns on display at airports now when visiting but it is possible for a society to survive where there is no right for private citizens to possess firearms.

    Of course society can “survive” .. but as what, ultimately? Here’s a brief history on gun control and the genocide that quickly ensued:
    http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

    Sorry, still post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    We could just as easily have been treated to “a brief history on gun control and the large-scale hydroelectric projects that quickly ensued”. But we weren’t, because you had a point you wanted to make. (That is, I assume you had a point; feel free to correct me if you had none.)

    Every reader will see that the putative causal link between gun control and ensuing genocide was your point. Give us some credit for being able to read for comprehension, even if what we comprehend ends up being your fallacy.

    IF not, then you must have been making the truly inane point that some person(s) have been killed some time(s) after some government(s) took away some personal weapon(s), but that there is no discernible connection between those events. And since there’s no connection between them, there is absolutely no reason for us to read more about their random occurrences. If you think they’re non-significant, then why did you bother to mention it in the first place? Then why insist that I go back and re-read that christian verbiage, if you don’t think there’s a lesson there for us to see, something about the apparently-significant relationship between gun control and genocide?

    your erroneous attempts to claim otherwise and characterize me and the site conveniently notwithstanding.

    Err, no.

  25. Hotshoe said:

    Sorry, still post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    No, there’s not. Neither I or the site claimed that genocide occurred because of the disarming.

    Every reader will see that the putative causal link between gun control and ensuing genocide was your point. Give us some credit for being able to read for comprehension, even if what we comprehend ends up being your fallacy.

    I don’t see how any reasonable person would think that I or the site was making the claim that disarming people causes genocidal tyranny. Of course it doesn’t. That’s beyond ludicrous. The implication is that disarming a population invites (not “causes” in any sense of the term) tyranny and makes genocide a lot easier to accomplish.

    That’s just common sense.

  26. William J. Murray: It’s a matter of common sense and logic

    No, it’s not. But that’s an easy mistake for you to make.

    As my family says, common sense ain’t common.

    … that if you have genocidal and/or tyrannical plans, it would be in your best interest to disarm those you have bad intentions towards prior to attacking them, or rounding them up. You’d be an idiot not to try and legally disarm them first.

    Or you’d be doubly an idiot to risk two separate confrontations with each of your potential genocide victims, the first in which you (attempt to) confiscate their firearms and the second in which you (attempt to) attack them/round them up, hoping that they are at least helpless to resist if not willing to be docile.

    Trebly an idiot, if in the interim, a nascent resistance movement is putting up youtubes of non-firearm methods of fighting back to make your government unwilling to pay the price of attacking.

    See, it’s a matter of common sense and logic! 😛

    I’d rather have firearms and not need them, than need them and not have them.

    At year-end, 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in the US (local/state/federal custody).

    When they were taken into custody, how many of them had firearms (on their person, or in their car/home) and thought they “needed” them? I’d venture the vast majority, over 90%. How many used their weapons in an attempt to avoid being “rounded up” by the government? Oh, probably some, but not a majority; most people even when armed are not actually inclined to lethal resistance. How many succeeding in using their firearms to avoid being rounded up? None. Not one.

    What’s the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Pretty much the only difference is on which side of the cell door you’re sitting.

    When the time comes – if the time comes – that you feel you “need” your firearms to resist your government, they’ll be useless to you. Either you – same as most decent people – won’t choose to shoot law enforcement agents even for some compelling ideal of freedom … or you will shoot, and you’ll be a criminal for that.

    But of course, everyone is a hero of his own life story.

  28. What’s the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Pretty much the only difference is on which side of the cell door you’re sitting.

    Moral equivalence such as that is another commodity that invites tyranny.

    Either you – same as most decent people – won’t choose to shoot law enforcement agents even for some compelling ideal of freedom … or you will shoot, and you’ll be a criminal for that.

    Criminal behavior doesn’t bother me one bit as long as I consider it morally obligatory, or at least morally acceptable.

  29. William J. Murray: The implication is that disarming a population invites (not “causes” in any sense of the term) tyranny and makes genocide a lot easier to accomplish.

    Have you considered the implications of arming an entire population then?

    How many innocent lives is your right to bear arms worth?

    What if the tyrannical government you are prepping for never shows up? Will all those children’s lives still be a price that was worth paying?

    Twat.

  30. OMagain: Have you considered the implications of arming an entire population then?

    It might turn out as badly as Switzerland.

  31. To expand on petrushka’s on-target point:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

    Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]

    …………

    The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[20] The annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52.[21]

  33. I have a couple of stupid questions about this matter:

    What is a gun, exactly? Should there be no laws against private ownership of ANY kind of weaponry–right up to nuclear arsenals?
    Why is it that in Marvel movies, guys with bows and arrows always defeat guys with guns?
    What are the “arms” that the U.S. Constitution allows us to bear? (I read something by Garry Wills on this a long time ago, but I can’t remember what he said.)
    Is this argument strictly a matter of estimating probable consequences of various law changes or do people here think there is some kind of “natural right” involved? (That one, I’ve asked before–nobody answered.) If there IS such a right–is it about “guns”? (See above questions)

  34. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    Scroll down and read the conclusion – when one compares countries around the world, increased gun ownership in the population corresponds to decreased per capita murder and suicide rates.

    From here: http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

    In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

    Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

    By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

    You can find that same story at multiple different locations if you don’t like that particular source.

  35. Switzerland and guns – correlation is not causation; different cultures are likely to respond differently to given circumstances; there are substaitial differences of detail.

    If we removed all private guns from American hands and replaced with a government-supplied weapon and training, I’d agree that America too may see levels of gun crime that would be the envy of many another state.

    Clearly, that is not what is being proposed. More: “they got guns and low crime”. If you want the Swiss system, I’m right behind you. But don’t use it to justify the American setup.

  36. I think being able to protect yourself is a natural right, even against tyranny. I think the necessary standard for self-protection has been the same ever since, basically, firearms were invented – handguns, shotguns & rifles. What’s legal to own and what is not is a matter of federal, state and local laws and ordinances.

  37. petrushka: It might turn out as badly as Switzerland.

    Heh, well, if it’s not guns themselves that are the problem what is?

    Whatever the problem actually is should be addressed.

    For now, let’s just call it “idiots with guns”.

  38. I am in favor of conscripting virtually all adults (excluding violent criminals and those with serious mental defects) into an internal militia, training them on the proper use of firearms, and providing them with a firearm. I think it should be a standard part of our education and system of social obligations.

  39. Allan Miller said:

    If we removed all private guns from American hands and replaced with a government-supplied weapon and training, I’d agree that America too may see levels of gun crime that would be the envy of many another state.

    Why would removing private guns make any difference? You can own your own guns in Switzerland, in addition to the ones that the government supplies.

  40. William J. Murray: Why would removing private guns make any difference? You can own your own guns in Switzerland, in addition to the ones that the government supplies.

    heh, indeed. Why would it make any difference?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

    Switzerland is one of the world’s richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

    It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

    Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

    From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

    Perhaps in urban gang culture there is a sense of collective responsibility, but only for the gang eh?

    Seems the troubles a rich country has are not the same as a poor country.
    Yet some want to ignore the fundamental differences in favour of guns for all at any cost.

  41. William J. Murray,

    The private ownership rules in Switzerland are little different from those in the UK. They are very different from those in the US. So yes, if you want a bit of leeway, lets add Swiss licensing of private guns. That would save many lives.

    Switzerland is regularly trotted out to prove one point – that there exists a country(ies) with high gun ownership and low crime. Yippee. It’s not yours. There are likely reasons for that differential within the gun laws themselves, as well as cultural ones. But the pro-gun lobby stops with “look at Switzerland”.

  42. William J. Murray: I am in favor of conscripting virtually all adults (excluding violent criminals and those with serious mental defects) into an internal militia, training them on the proper use of firearms, and providing them with a firearm. I think it should be a standard part of our education and system of social obligations.

    And only after that, allowing them to have guns, right? Or otherwise, no much point in doing that at all right?

  43. Allan Miller: But the pro-gun lobby stops with “look at Switzerland”.

    I’ve been to both the USA and Switzerland. The two are very, very very different places. There were no “no-go” areas in CH for a start…

  45. From my link to that BBC article:

    Prof Killias [director of criminology at Zurich University] was a supporter of the 2011 referendum initiative to keep all militia firearms in a central arsenal – because, he says, of the evidence provided by recent statistics.

    “Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns,” he says.

    “But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don’t have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. “

  46. “But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don’t have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. “

    Yeah, who’d have thought making it more difficult to act on a spur of the moment decision to end your own or someone else’s life would ultimately save lives.

    But actual evidence or logic does not matter to some people.

  47. petrushka: It might turn out as badly as Switzerland.

    FYI I’ve been to both places, CH and the USA. Have you? If so, notice anything, um, different about the two places?

  48. So, if we agree arguendo that the information and facts are not clear on the matter if gun confiscation/extreme control helps or hinders, reduces or increases murder and crime in general, I would certainly choose to err on the side of personal liberty.

    Applying the same general principle, unless there is some evidence that would argue conclusively otherwise, people should be free to own and use mind-altering drugs. They should be able to legally form family units with anyone else they wish of their own free will, engage in any activity for pay as long as it is between consenting adults, have abortions, etc.

    I would always, always err on the personal liberty side, and always require conclusive, virtually incontrovertible proof (evidence or argument) of some social necessity before criminalizing anything.

    Criminalizing any thing or action should be a last resort and never a knee-jerk emotional response.

  49. walto:
    What is a gun, exactly? Should there be no laws against private ownership of ANY kind of weaponry–right up to nuclear arsenals?

    This is a good point. And it seems to me that a constitutional strict constructionist has only two possible ways of answering that (with respect to the 2nd amendment):

    1: Everyone has a constitutional right to own an old-fashioned musket;
    2: Everyone has a right to own a hydrogen bomb.

    Somehow, the strict constructionists (as they call themselves) on the supreme court don’t like either of those alternatives.

  50. William J. Murray: I would always, always err on the personal liberty side, and always require conclusive, virtually incontrovertible proof (evidence or argument) of some social necessity before criminalizing anything.

    Me, too. Activities that are consensual and harm nobody but the participants should not be illegal. A pragmatic approach to drug use, as is taken with alcohol and tobacco, would have a huge positive impact, in my view. Look at cannabis and the Netherlands.

    ETA here for instance.

Leave a Reply