Saturday, April 19, 2008
Gun ownership and the pursuit of happiness
The Wall Street Journal is running an op-ed piece with some interesting data that do not surprise me in the least, but probably would blow away Barack Obama's San Francisco contributors, to wit: Gun owners are "happier" than the unarmed. Fair use excerpt:
In words that he has come to regret, Barack Obama opined as to why he was having a hard time winning over many blue-collar voters: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."...
The comment may or may not be an indication of Mr. Obama's real views about those ordinary Americans who've not enjoyed the full fruits of economic growth over the past decades. Yet his casual portrayal no doubt had heads nodding vigorously in assent among his supporters, and probably among many others.
That anybody would find this portrayal realistic illustrates how little some Americans know about their neighbors. And nothing reveals the truth better than the data on guns.
According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.
Interestingly, surveys indicate that conservatives are happier, too. A gun-toting conservative must be downright euphoric.
Gun-owners and conservatives are likely to have at least two overlapping traits, which probably explains better why they vote together more than, say, Republican genuflection to the NRA. First, both groups are in some sense pessimistic, meaning that they do not expect life to be smooth, unruffled, peaceful, or safe. Conservatives are famous in this regard, and people who own guns for defensive purposes have in some sense acted on their pessmism. Paradoxically (as George Will notes in the second link,) this makes them happier, because they are so much harder to disappoint.
Second, both groups are notoriously self-reliant, at least in their own self-image, insofar as they believe that they are the only people who will solve their troubles, whether or not somebody else is to blame in the first place.
The true left, of course, instinctively detests self-reliance (whether or not they will admit it in public or even to themselves). After all, if too many people solve their own problems, the demand for statist "solutions" would collapse.
Finally -- and this is another point of irritation for the left -- neither unhappiness (bitterness?) nor dependence proceeds ineluctably from economic distress. The world is full of self-reliant people who hit upon hard times and would not turn away government aid. The question is whether they feel the sting of shame or at least some sense of personal failure in having to go on the dole, or not? Conservatives believe that a culture weakens as its ambition for self-reliance weakens, and that is why I am a happy -- but worried -- conservative.
[Scheduled]
26 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Apr 19, 05:45:00 PM:
The true left, of course, instinctively detests self-reliance
Not true. As a leftist, I don't want to *bother* about self-reliance. My life is much easier and more rewarding for me if I can delegate certain aspects of my life such as self-defense to the police.
Given my willingness to do that, then it makes perfect sense to want to see a gun ban. It makes the streets safer for unarmed people like me to walk around. Admittedly, it makes things more dangerous for you, so I'd expect you to be pulling the other way.
Which is the way it should be, with both of us pulling for our own self-interested positions.
(I will admit, I occasionally get a little annoyed by leftists who feel morally superior for supporting positions that they feel help others. I support positions that I feel help others because it makes *me* feel better (and safer).)
By , at
Sat Apr 19, 06:07:00 PM:
Leftist ... you only feel that would make you safer, since the data simply does not support it.
Most crimes are not committed by licensed gun owners, and the concealed weapon (legal) is documented as a highly effective measure against crime.
Self-reliance, for me as a non-Lefty, goes far beyond my right to keep and bear. It includes all the things the Dems hold so dear, including the welfare state.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 19, 06:26:00 PM:
Leftist: Criminals *already* wait until the cops aren't around in order to commit their crimes. Are you happy just being a victim in order to justify your political opinions?
The police are meant to deter, not to protect. They catch criminals; action movies aside, actively intervening in crimes is not the norm. The victim is already robbed, bleeding, or dead by the time that the police even become aware that there is a problem, much less respond to it.
Relying on the police for protection is a terribly misguided notion. And the size and scope required to make such a comprehensive police force would be both Orwellian and prohibitively expensive. i.e. unrealistic.
By , at
Sat Apr 19, 06:27:00 PM:
Dear leftist,
Gun bans do not apply to street purchases. How does a gun ban make you feel safer when the people most likely to use a weapon to commit a crime bypass your feel good law to buy a gun off the street.
Honest, law abiding citizens purchase guns for home/self defense and sport. Criminals purchase guns from other criminals and most likely will use that weapon to commit a crime, not defend themselves or their families.
By Robert, at
Sat Apr 19, 08:43:00 PM:
"My life is much easier and more rewarding for me if I can delegate certain aspects of my life such as self-defense to the police."
Tell me, do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home? Do you wear seatbelts? Why do you do so? After all, there are firefighting and ambulance services out there, so you don't really need to pay any attention to safety yourself.
The problem with "delegating" your self defense out to others is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so unless you hire bodyguards. Police response times average 6-11 minutes in urban areas. It can be even longer if you live in the sticks, where you might be 20 or 30 minutes away from the nearest police department.
Consider these two incidents, where two woman were attacked in their home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A&eurl=http://xavierselfdefense.blogspot.com/ and http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/mar/21/calif-woman-slain-while-calling-911/
Warning: The YouTube video contains the actual 911 call audio.
In the first case (The YouTube video), the woman is alive not because police showed up in time to save her (it's only been four minutes!) but because she shot the guy who was choking her to death while she was calling for help.
In the second incident, the woman was killed while she waited for the police to come save her.
You cannot depend on someone else to save your life when something bad happens. You have to be ready and willing to do it yourself if you want to have a good chance to come out of the situation alive.
By , at
Sat Apr 19, 09:02:00 PM:
With respect to Obama's comments, I think the question is more about how gun owners vote. I mean really, cows will fly before the 2nd Amendment is overturned, and yet I have the perception (perhaps it is wrong, though) many of these people will vote for who the NRA tells them to.
As someone who lives more self-reliantly than probably anyone on this board, I have to question the idea that Lefties instinctively detest self-reliance. My parents generation do seem to prefer state solutions, though.. but I thought the argument that less government is better was more or less won by conservatives in the 80s.
By , at
Sat Apr 19, 10:04:00 PM:
A few points here.
Most crimes are not committed by licensed gun owners
If a gun ban was complete, the source of black market guns would probably be fairly choked off as well. After all, if the gun manufacturers all go broke, who's making them? Of course, somebody will, but we're talking about reducing prevalence, not eliminating them.
the concealed weapon (legal) is documented as a highly effective measure against crime
Now there's an interesting argument. Do I benefit from the instinctive fear that criminals might have that I'm armed that would be missing if we were all disarmed?
My gut feeling is yes, but not a whole lot. Criminals are famous for *not* being able to judge consequences rationally. That's why they're criminals.
Relying on the police for protection is a terribly misguided notion.
To be honest, I and all my immediate circle, and immediate family have done exactly that there entire lives. I suspect that most middle class families have never been touched by violent crime, so to be honest, preventative measures are mostly a waste if they take much time and effort. I take the easy measures: for example, I live downtown in a large urban area, so I lock the doors when I leave the house (well, most of the time).
Tell me, do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home? Do you wear seatbelts?
A very good point, and I had to think a little. Basically, it comes down to effort. I own a fire extinguisher, but I haven't learned any fire-fighting techniques. I wear a seatbelt, but I haven't spent the time to learn CPR.
A gun is not a trivial expenditure of time and money. You're dealing with something that can kill if you're insufficiently trained and careful with the equipment. But unlike a car (the only other potentially lethal piece of equipment I occasionally use), it is worthless unless I'm actually put in danger - a chance that is (statistically) quite small indeed.
The problem with "delegating" your self defense out to others is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so unless you hire bodyguards.
True.
You cannot depend on someone else to save your life when something bad happens.
Yes. But I am not going to bother protecting myself against things that are sufficiently low probability AND are time-consuming/expensive.
For many in the middle class, there's not really any exposure to violence and not much danger of it, so it's simply good sense to make themselves safer even if it requires making the gun-owners less safe.
For gun-owners, it makes sense to make people unwilling to handle guns less safe by making certain that there's a thriving gun industry that allows them to buy guns.
I should probably have separated these posts. Sorry.
By , at
Sat Apr 19, 10:17:00 PM:
Ah, guns, I love 'em!
An air rifle when 10 years old to murder the birds in the neighbourhood. A .303 to kill rapacious goats and deer when 15. Representing your school in army shooting competitions, small bore club shooting and great Sundays out clay bird shooting.
A .22 to knock off the rabbits, hares, goats and possums. A semi auto shottie to use from the back of a truck when out spot lighting at night and then in a Hughes 500 helicopter with no doors with a Mossberg shotgun shooting goats as they duck and dive amongst trees...
Guns so absolutely beautiful and deadly, marvels of technology and miracles of accuracy, so useful and absolutely necessary in many circumstances.
And then there's the spinoffs.. just 5 metres from where I sit is a longbow with deadly hunting arrows and five metres behind me an array of nearly 30 knives of all types and purposes, a German knife of Solingen steel for stabbing, a Bowie knife, various hunting, filleting, gutting, slicing, dicing knives, a Swiss Army knife of many functions in my pocket attached to my car keys.
A few metres away is my wifes fancy wooden trinket box by her TV chair where she keeps the things women keep, plus an air pistol and pellets and, of course, a Swiss Army knife.
Yet I'm not a gun nut.. the .303 is dated 1915, the semi-auto .22 is 40 years old, the single shot .22 is pre WW2 and the air pistol is about 7 years old. They are simply functional weapons from a time when I needed them and only the pistol has utility now.. and they all bring pleasant memories of youth and living , to go with the skin cancers of a life in the sun and wind and rain.
Guns and knives.. they are connectors of cultures, generations, ways of life, of history and the way they changed it, the threads that weave in and out of life since before the Enlightenment, and in every one there's a story.
What's not to be happy about guns.
JC
By , at
Sat Apr 19, 11:24:00 PM:
A total ban on guns would dry up the black market.
Just like Prohibition ended drinking, the War on Drugs dried up the black market for narcotics and made them impossible to obtain. Just like banning abortions would stop them from happening. Just like in England, where police estimate far greater numbers of handguns in the country than before they were banned and legal owners had to turn them in (and now 100% of that greater number are in the hands of criminals).
Yeah, banning something is a proven way to end the black market for it...
By Broadsword, at
Sun Apr 20, 06:17:00 AM:
The Leftist said "Given my willingness to do that, then it makes perfect sense to want to see a gun ban..."
No, that does not follow. Why, because you "feel" a particular way, should
what you "feel" be adopted, nay, legislated, nay, imposed on everyone?
Why, what makes you, and your feelings the deciders in chief? Note these words from then Cardinal Ratzinger from 1991 from The Problem of Threats to Human Life.
"The very truth about the good becomes unattainable. The idea of
the good in itself is put outside of man's grasp. The only
reference point for each person is what he can conceive on his
own as good. Consequently, freedom is no longer seen positively
as a striving for the good which reason discovers with help from
the community and tradition, but is rather defined as an
emancipation from all conditions preventing the individual from
following his own reason. It can be called a "freedom of
indifference".
Here, too, when the common reference to values and ultimately to
God is lost, society will then appear merely as an ensemble of
individuals placed side by side, and the contract which ties them
together will necessarily be perceived as an accord among those
who have the power to impose their will on others.
Thus, by a dialectic within modernity, one passes from the
affirmation of the rights of freedom, detached from any objective
reference to a common truth, to the destruction of the very
foundations of this freedom. The "enlightened despot" of the
social contract theorists became the tyrannical state, in fact
totalitarian, which disposes of the life of its weakest members,
from an unborn baby to an elderly person, in the name of a public
usefulness which is really only the interest of a few."
I reiterate, "The only
reference point for each person is what he can conceive on his
own as good." Among many others, I place this mistaken idea at the root of the mistaken ideology of Progressivism.
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 08:59:00 AM:
Why, because you "feel" a particular way, should
what you "feel" be adopted, nay, legislated, nay, imposed on everyone?
It's called democracy. And it only happens if enough people feel the way I do.
I don't claim a sacred right to impose my views. I don't claim my views are morally superior. I *do* claim the right to try and vote in a government that supports my views, and I do claim that government has the right to make laws.
And given that we're a prosperous society that can afford it, I do see the majority more and more in favor of the policies that I support (being a latte-drinking urbanite). Doesn't come quickly, but I see our society has been on an upward slope (with a few downturns) for the last 150 years, coming closer to the views I espouse.
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 09:24:00 AM:
Broadsword, Cardinal Ratzinger's argument is interesting. The trouble is that it implies that there should be an ultimate arbiter of laws higher than the people, and that hasn't worked out all that well in practice.
(I believe that the ultimate arbiter can be found in the next world, not this one.)
I think the church's recourse is to ensure as much as possible that its beliefs are held by the population, who thus elect governments who rule using the definition of freedom he puts down: a striving for the good which reason discovers with help from the community and tradition. I fully support their efforts to ensure that the laws are not passed that they disapprove of. They have the right to mobilize their supporters for their issues as much as the other side has the right to mobilize theirs.
But in the end, history has shown that the people seem to be a best decider, and yes, they vote for what they feel is right. Our job, as those who feel strongly about issues, is to try and get the people to feel the same way we do.
As for the gun-control issue, I can easily see support for both sides from a religious context.
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 09:35:00 AM:
Just like Prohibition ended drinking
On the other hand, a ban on civil ownership of surface-to-air missiles has worked pretty well.
Look, I'm not (too) unrealistic about this. Of course guns would not disappear. And yes, any criminal *desperate* to get a gun could probably get one. But the goal in any attempt to restrict anything is to make it difficult/costly enough that it's not worth it for most people. (The same strategy we use against terrorism as well...)
I don't think guns are in the same demand level as drugs and alcohol. Admittedly, they're probably not in the same category as Stingers either. But since much of the demand for drugs comes from the middle-class, and I don't think there'd be nearly as much middle-class demand for guns, I do think we'd see serious shrinkage in the number of guns about (at least over say 30 years).
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Apr 20, 11:26:00 AM:
So I have to be unarmed in the face of any armed violent criminals for 30 years before I see a benefit?
And by benefit, I mean of course that the number of people out there who can hold me in abject thrall because they own a piece of hardware that I don't has *fallen.*
Even your theoretical, positive outcome sucks.
Ban domestic sale and possession of firearms, and they'll come in from across the borders. You think it won't be prevalent, you're delusional. Billions of dollars, military interventions, entire police and spy apparatuses, and *decades* have not stopped the flow of heroin and cocaine, stuff that is both expensive and that most people don't want anyway.
But take away fire-arms, the population's defense against both tyranny and crime, and lo all gun-related issues will dry up and go away and we'll all live in a peaceful utopia, under the guidance,of our enlightened, liberal masters.
Silly.
I notice that you skipped any response to the given example of Britain, who has done exactly what you suggest and has suffered for it. But I suppose they still have 20 years to go before your timeline estimate occurs.
But I think that, really, this is all a fantasy discussion anyway. Any such initiative would require amending the Constitution to delete that pesky 2nd Amendment and a 3/4 vote by the states via state legislature ratifications. No way in hell is that going to occur in any event.
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 12:03:00 PM:
And that is why crinimals are not tetered by gun control laws and gun bans those laws only make it easer for them to commit their crimes so brainless liberals demand even more strict gun control laws and when some judge declares a gun ban unconstitutional and theres no rivers of blood flowing throught the streets of our cities as predicted by a bunch of nambdy pambdy liberal left-wing news paper colomists its proof their journalists are lairs and idiots
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 04:44:00 PM:
And by benefit, I mean of course that the number of people out there who can hold me in abject thrall because they own a piece of hardware that I don't has *fallen.*
Even your theoretical, positive outcome sucks.
No, my theoretical outcome sucks *for you*. For me, it gets better the moment gun ownership goes down at all (since I wouldn't be carrying a gun around anyway). Quite possibly *you* might never be safer than now when when you're carrying a gun. I (and my ilk) see the benefits starting immediately (although probably not significantly for a while).
That's why you are voting *against* gun control and why I am voting *for* gun control. And why we're both trying to swing voters to our point of view.
Criminy. Expecting liberals to vote against their self-interest is not rational. (Of course, neither is expecting conservatives to vote against their interests. There are irrational people in spades on both sides.)
And Mr. Paradise (Ms. Paradise?), if you're going to call other people idiots, it helps your credibility if you spend the effort to get the spelling correct in your post. I understand it's not relevant to the point you're trying to make, but it does severely reduces the 'wince' factor when reading it.
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 05:19:00 PM:
notice that you skipped any response to the given example of Britain
Britain is an interesting case, but I'm not certain the problems it is having are relevant to the gun-control self-defense issue. The problem with studying social issues is that there are so many variables that it's pretty difficult to attribute changes to any one variable that has changed.
In Britian's case, I don't believe that hand-guns were widespread at all before. Essentially people weren't armed for self-defense before, and they aren't armed now, and the crime rate has risen.
I suspect other factors are at work including a glorification of the "Chav" culture in the media, etc.
Let me turn it around. Do you really believe that Britain's crime rate would be substantially different if they hadn't enacted their most recent gun laws?
Unlike the U.S., I can find nothing in the way of statistics for the use of fire arms in self defense, leading me to believe that it's quite uncommon.
I have to say, I think we're looking at correlation, not causation.
For the record, I don't think Japan's incredibly low crime rate is a result of their fairly draconian gun control laws either.
Let me put in another way. If you're certain the causation exists, let's look at another country that might emulate Britain - Canada.
If they institute an equivalent long gun ban (like Britain, they already have strong hand-gun control laws), would you be willing to wager a non-trivial sum (say $1,000) that their national violent crime rate would, say, at least double in 5 years? If not, why not?
Or are you like me, and somewhat uncertain about the correlation?
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 05:22:00 PM:
'voting gun control' is as foolish as voting 'against' free speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Rather, you should *vote* for enforcement of the law. Here in Chapel Hill, some alter boy recently gained his next gang tat for capping a truly all-American girl. Kill shot the temple. He and his fellow acolyte has recently greased an Indian PhD candidate. Kill shot to the forehead. Cops, nah. Just system, well ... no. Both were relatively young, but had quite a few priors, including some that should've put them back behind bars.
So, if you want to limit gun crime, then fight for the application of the law. Fight against liberal activist lawyers and judges who legislate from the bench, and for truth in sentencing. Then, you'll see a great drop in crime, since the same pieces of sh*t commit the same crimes over and over. It's not the guy who filled out the application and submitted the prints to the Feds, with ballistic data on the rod with the FBI.
By Robert, at
Sun Apr 20, 07:47:00 PM:
"If a gun ban was complete, the source of black market guns would probably be fairly choked off as well. After all, if the gun manufacturers all go broke, who's making them? Of course, somebody will, but we're talking about reducing prevalence, not eliminating them."
Very unlikely. Even if you managed to cut off the flow of guns from over the borders, anyone with a room temperature IQ and a basic understanding of machining could manufacture a relatively crude gun. It should also be noted that full-auto firearms are far easier to make than semi-auto.
AS others have noted, Great Britain has actually had a swell of gun related crimes since their bans have been implemented, and while there may be other factors involved in actually causing the violence, it does effectively show that gun bans are worthless.
"A very good point, and I had to think a little. Basically, it comes down to effort. I own a fire extinguisher, but I haven't learned any fire-fighting techniques. I wear a seatbelt, but I haven't spent the time to learn CPR.
A gun is not a trivial expenditure of time and money. You're dealing with something that can kill if you're insufficiently trained and careful with the equipment. But unlike a car (the only other potentially lethal piece of equipment I occasionally use), it is worthless unless I'm actually put in danger - a chance that is (statistically) quite small indeed."
The fact you haven't even taken the time to learn CPR is a very revealing statement. It's a fairly simple and potentially life saving skill, but you still don't invest the effort to learn it.
Secondly, learning to use a firearm isn't that difficult. There are precisely four safety rules that you need to learn, and they're all a matter of common sense. It is far easier to learn to use safely than a vehicle, and far safer to use. There are approximately 700 deaths associated with firearm accidents, less than the number of people who are struck by lightening each year. Compare that to 45,000 road fatalities.
Finally, while having to use a firearm in self defense is somewhat rare, it isn't nearly as rare as you think; it is estimated that firearms are used between 800,000 and 2,000,000 times a year in self defense. The wide range is due to the fact that many go unreported. In the vast majority of incidents, the firearm is never discharged.
"For many in the middle class, there's not really any exposure to violence and not much danger of it, so it's simply good sense to make themselves safer even if it requires making the gun-owners less safe."
That's very poor logic, not based in fact, and it's very selfish at that. You're essentially trading actual security for the feeling of security, and at expense of the security of others. Sorry, but you're feelings do not trump my rights.
By , at
Sun Apr 20, 10:43:00 PM:
Sorry, but you're feelings do not trump my rights.
Let's not get on too high a horse. After all, we've got highways because we felt that getting places faster trumped people's right to live on the land where the highway now stands. Basically every law that has ever existed has caused someone to lose and someone else to gain. Laws are enacted when enough people feel the same way, regardless of previously held rights.
It's a democracy. My feelings don't trump your rights. But a whole lot of people's feelings do. Right now, there aren't a whole lot of people feeling the way I do, but that's my job - to convince them. (The fact that it's in the constitution only means I need to persuade a whole lot more people.)
If I can get enough, then, yes I *do* trump your rights. You get enough votes in other fields (say abortion), and, yes, *your* feelings trump a woman's right to her body. That's the power of the people.
By Robert, at
Sun Apr 20, 11:01:00 PM:
Heh. Reminds me of the saying "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
Which brings up the rejoinder that "the second amendment is the sheep contesting the vote."
No, even if you do get a lot of people on your side, you don't get to violate my rights. You may be able to forcefully violate my rights by simply outnumbering me, but that doesn't mean it's ethical or moral.
In any case, you're side is a bit outnumbered.As of March 28th, 73% agree that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, while only 20% thinks it doesn't.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx
By , at
Mon Apr 21, 09:21:00 AM:
No, even if you do get a lot of people on your side, you don't get to violate my rights.
Do you mean *your* rights are sacred, but the rights of anyone else that have been trampled for *your* benefit are fair game?
In any case, you're side is a bit outnumbered.As of March 28th, 73% agree that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, while only 20% thinks it doesn't.
Absolutely. You don't think we're "coming for your guns" any time soon, do you? But piece by piece, year by year, America is getting closer to my vision. The America of 2008 is far more left (in everything but rhetoric) than that of 1988, which is, in turn, far more left than 1968, which is, in turn, far more left than 1948, etc.
And to be honest, the goal posts shift. Most of the right-wingers of today would probably be considered left-wing nuts in the 1920's. No right to beat your wife and children? No right to tell the negro to get lost? No poor houses? Perhaps that's why, unlike many of my brethren, I don't take offense at the right-wing. They're already on our side for the most important battles. If we look at the big picture, we're simply arguing of the trivialities, and in time, we'll get those too.
After all, history shows that as we can afford to do so, people naturally gravitate to the security that greater government intervention provides.
(And yes, if the government granted security makes us too weak, then we'll swing back the other way a little. Democracy has this wonderful self-correcting tendency.)
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Apr 21, 01:26:00 PM:
"After all, history shows that as we can afford to do so, people naturally gravitate to the security that greater government intervention provides."
And what will protect you from the government? Something I've noticed over time... the wing of the body politic that most decries the evil Bushitler police state is the most eager to puff up and empower said state. But only if THEY are in charge.
You are arrogant, ("you'll come around to my way of seeing things eventually, because I'm the wave of the future") self-centered, ("well *I'VE* never been targeted by criminals, so you obviously don't need a means of self defense") foolishly utopian, ("the government can be trusted to handle everything!") and lazy ("I can't be bothered to learn to defend myself, it should be someone else's responsibility").
Congratulations on a precise and appropriate selection for your screen name.
By Robert, at
Mon Apr 21, 03:56:00 PM:
Do you mean *your* rights are sacred, but the rights of anyone else that have been trampled for *your* benefit are fair game?
Nice ad hominem. I never claimed that. Can you detail exactly what rights of others' I'm violating by simply owning a gun?
Absolutely. You don't think we're "coming for your guns" any time soon, do you? But piece by piece, year by year, America is getting closer to my vision. The America of 2008 is far more left (in everything but rhetoric) than that of 1988, which is, in turn, far more left than 1968, which is, in turn, far more left than 1948, etc.
And to be honest, the goal posts shift. Most of the right-wingers of today would probably be considered left-wing nuts in the 1920's. No right to beat your wife and children? No right to tell the negro to get lost? No poor houses? Perhaps that's why, unlike many of my brethren, I don't take offense at the right-wing. They're already on our side for the most important battles. If we look at the big picture, we're simply arguing of the trivialities, and in time, we'll get those too.
After all, history shows that as we can afford to do so, people naturally gravitate to the security that greater government intervention provides.
(And yes, if the government granted security makes us too weak, then we'll swing back the other way a little. Democracy has this wonderful self-correcting tendency.
This entire diatribe is a red herring, particularly since I don't describe myself as a conservative; rather, I'm a libertarian. I think you'll find I take a rather dim view of violating anyone's rights for any reason.
It also belies the fact that the number of people who view the second amendment has an individual right has gone UP in the past couple of decades, not DOWN, and that pro-gun laws are being passed much more frequently than anti-gun laws.
By , at
Tue Apr 22, 05:39:00 AM:
Can you detail exactly what rights of others' I'm violating by simply owning a gun?
Drive on a highway? You've benefited from the deprivation of someone's primary property rights (their home) for your convenience. Use electricity from coal powered plants? Their right to breathe clean air. Eaten farm food? Their right to the water that's now used for irrigation.
Do you understand that your existence is essentially an imposition on the rights of countless others? (As there existence will be an imposition of yours.)
Human interaction is simply the negotiation of trade-offs of the rights of some for the rights of others. And democracy is simply the mechanism through which that occurs.
Why does your desire for a livable house trump my fundamental property right to dispose of my property as I see fit - by dump sewage on my next-door property?
Why don't I have the right to blast music at 140 decibels 24 hours a day?
Because democratically, you've decided to limit my rights for your own benefit.
Gun control is in the same boat. I'm trying to limit your right for my benefit.
Do you mean *your* rights are sacred, but the rights of anyone else that have been trampled for *your* benefit are fair game?
This wasn't meant as an ad-hominem attack. It was meant to attack the idea that gun ownership rights are somehow different from pretty much every other right that we expect others to have to trade off when democracy demands it.
By , at
Tue Apr 22, 05:58:00 AM:
the wing of the body politic that most decries the evil Bushitler police state is the most eager to puff up and empower said state.
Sadly Bush Derangement Syndrome does infect a lot of my fellow leftists. But derangement seems to be a danger on both sides. ("Now Clinton is gone, we'll see some real financial stewardship.")
You are arrogant, ("you'll come around to my way of seeing things eventually, because I'm the wave of the future") self-centered, ("well *I'VE* never been targeted by criminals, so you obviously don't need a means of self defense") foolishly utopian, ("the government can be trusted to handle everything!") and lazy ("I can't be bothered to learn to defend myself, it should be someone else's responsibility").
Sorry, I had to quote this as perhaps the most clever (and pithy) paragraph on this thread so far. (The quotes make really make it.)
I'm not going to refute them because they're pretty much spot on and, really, are simply a different world view. However, b
Arrogant: check
Self-centered: Well, that's how politics works. To be honest, it seems kind of 'leftist' for one to be expected to give something up simply for the good of some minority. (While the majority value your right, your right is safe.)
Foolishly Utopian: I'd have to disagree with the foolish part, but, yes I have a great deal of faith in my fellow man. That's why I don't own a gun.
Lazy: check - I also don't grow my own food and hew my own wood. History is simply one long progression towards specialization so that we don't have to do the things we're not good at.
