Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Our friends across the pond have some advice for us. After examining the violence in Tucson, measuring the rhetoric from both the left and right, taking the temperature of Fox News as well as “leftish websites [that] have proved themselves more than capable of dishing out abuse, sometimes laced with violent imagery, to Mrs Palin, bankers and George Bush,” the good people at The Economist have found the culprit. It’s our gun laws.
“Opportunists who seek to gain political advantage by blaming the shootings on words would do America better service if they focused on bullets,” write the editors, adding that, “In no other decent country could any civilian, let alone a deranged one, legally get his hands on a Glock semi-automatic.” How to explain our lack of decency? Toward the end of the article we learn that America’s guns are simply, “…too deeply embedded in its founding myths and its culture.” Uh huh. Well, among the “founding myths,” upon which our country was created, one can find recognition of the inherent right of an individual to self defense. There is nothing inherently indecent about a Glock semi-automatic or any other semi-automatic weapon (which after all will fire exactly one round every time the trigger is pulled), just as there is nothing inherently decent about a country that prefers to leave its law-abiding citizens defenseless against predators.
Zeroing in (can I say that?) on the problem, the editorial laments:
The tragedy is that gun control is moving in the wrong direction. The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons expired in 2004 and, to his discredit, Mr Obama has done nothing to try to revive it. In 2008 the Supreme Court struck down Washington, DC’s ban on handguns, and in 2010 Chicago’s went the same way; others are bound to follow. In state after state the direction of legislation is to remove restrictions on gun use (those footling bans on bringing weapons into classrooms or churches or bars), rather than to enhance them.
If they could set their sights (there I go again) a little closer to home, The Economist’s editors would see what John Lott has observed about Great Britain’s own experience with gun control. “Great Britain banned handguns in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased an incredible 340% in seven years from 1998 to 2005,” writes Lott in his newest edition of More Guns, Less Crime. And, as David Alan Coia notes in Human Events , Lott’s hypotheses that more guns do indeed equal less crime is backed, “…with cold, hard facts.” Data from 39 states covering a period of 29 years reveal that, “There are large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right-to-carry laws have gone into effect,” according to Lott. For example, after the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of an individual’s right to self defense in Heller, Lott reports that Washington DC’s murder rate fell by a remarkable 25%.
Such a decline might strike The Economist as less than “decent,” but I suspect their priorities might be misplaced. As that purveyor of “founding myths,” George Washington said:
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. ... Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
I've stopped reading The Economist as it has long been a faux supporter of free markets and private property rights. It sports editorials championing Keynesian macroeconomic policy and interventionism. Causality with regard to gun control and crime is not in their vocabulary.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Dave you've hit one of my hot buttons. What really bugs me about my fellow Canadians is the false assumption that we are somehow better than Americans. When asked, those hewing to this notion invariably cannot identify why Canadians are even different from never mind better than Americans. In general, when propositions as to why we are better are eventually offered they take two forms: 1) Nationalized medicine, and 2) Gun control. What is utterly laughable about these proposed justifications for bigotry is that our vaunted healthcare system is slowly devolving into queue chaos and our inner cities have identical and in some cases worse murder rates than American inner cities. But, we, great Canadians that we are, are somehow better than Americans. Dave, it's enough to drive anyone who has read some stats or waited hours in an ER nuts.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 8:46pmJun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
When living abroad, Euros loved to confront me about gun control. They don't get America or freedom. Humility prevented me from saying to them: "Our freedom is your freedom, so it's best you leave us be."
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Cas, someone should get John Lott up there to straighten things out. Or would he run afoul of some speech codes?
Dec '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Our Constitution is no “myth” and its Bill of Rights is as alive today as their King George is dead.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
John Lott running afoul of speech codes would depend on two things, how many people were made to feel uncomfortable, and how many four letter words he used. The former is verboten while the latter is cool and edgy.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
As an aside, I just finished listening to Rosemary Clooney singing Stormy Weather, outta this world sensational. I love Ella Fitzgerald, Dinah Washington, and Nina Simone as my top three female vocalists, but when I here Rosie Clooney it's enough to overthrow my chanteuse pantheon. I have to leave now, I feel cognitive dissonance coming on.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 9:11pmRe: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Pure bliss... but Ella Fitzgerald is my favorite. Pair her with Louis Armstrong, and life is so, so sweet.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Ella and Louis, boy have you got that right! I would only add that when with a "big" band no one beats the Chairman of the Board.
May '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
I stand with Washington. The Pecksniffs at the Economist can just wave their hankies at the UK's many burglars.
Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong are royalty with me. Don't forget a nod to Jo Stafford and Anita O'Day.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Last year I moved my whole CD collection onto a hard drive and slapped the sucker into my computer, so when I'm playing around on Ricochet, I'm also almost always listening to great music. Every now and then, while I'm writing or reading on the net, I stop and think, wow! I'd forgotten that I had that particular piece in my collection. What I particularly like about music on my computer is that I can tee up really long playlists and not have to bother changing CDs. On the list tonight are Rosemary Clooney, K.D. Lang, and Sarah Vaughan. Of these K.D. Lang has the most haunting voice.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 9:26pmJun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
I second the nod to Jo Stafford and Anita O'Day.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
For natural singing ease, I like Dean Martin and Nat King Cole. Although I thing Dean the more joyful of the pair. Still, I love 'em both.
Nov '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Ella does a bang-up job with “Don’t Fence Me In.” I like to play it for people and ask them if they can identify the singer. They never can, and when I tell them it’s Ella Fitzgerald they are quite surprised. Her range was great.
Oh, I forgot. We were talking about gun control nuts. Canada is California laid on its side. Just as the liberals on the coast of California hold the inland part of the state hostage to their thickheaded ideas about guns the liberals along the Canadian/U.S. border hold the more sensible people farther North in a form of bondage with their dopey gun laws.
Riding my motorcycle back from Alaska a few years ago I stayed overnight somewhere in Northern British Columbia in a motel and bar called “Buck Shot Betty’s.” It seems the owner, Betty, was making pancakes in the Restaurant kitchen one Sunday morning when a large bear wandered in and ordered a full stack. Betty gave him a butt load of buck shot instead.
Liberals were aghast. In their worldview, the bear should have killed Betty.
Dec '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
I'll start taking advice from the Brits when they can once again prevent their population from declining.
If a people cannot even breed successfully, what business do they have telling other folks how to run their lives?
I mean, what do they do to, ahem . . "relieve stress" in England? Obviously, it's not the same thing that we do.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 11:29pmOct '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Well. A nation really is better off without any guns. But how do you get rid of them?
Law-abiding civilians suffer the cost of removing guns from circulation. They are the first to hand in their guns, and when they get shot at they point the police to where to find the rest.
If we could magically make all guns disappear, I wouldn't mind. But since we can't, I'm not in favor of anything that tilts the balance of power towards criminals.
Nov '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
"God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal"
That was a great advertising slogan, but it also reflects a greater truth. In the history of the long, bitter struggle for freedom and liberty, the invention of the firearm (especially the handgun) was a quantum leap forward. Ordinary citizens with no formal training in combat could finally defend themselves against the martial elite.
A strong, functioning democracy depends on a well-armed populace. Why do you think tyrants and dictators always try to disarm their subjects? Carry permits and widespread gun ownership reduce the incidence of crime. As Mark Steyn has pointed out, a burglar is unlikely to target a neighborhood where he has a good chance of getting his head blown off while trying to steal a $20 TV.
A well-armed society is a polite society.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Statists want gun control because they want the government to have a monopoly on the use of violence. We know, of course, where that leads.
Exactly. A hundred million armed Americans provide the final line between liberty and domestic tyranny. And by extension we keep the entire world in line. We few, we happy band of brothers.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
Lady Kurobara: "God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal"
That was a great advertising slogan, but it also reflects a greater truth. In the history of the long, bitter struggle for freedom and liberty, the invention of the firearm (especially the handgun) was a quantum leap forward. Ordinary citizens with no formal training in combat could finally defend themselves against the martial elite.
A strong, functioning democracy depends on a well-armed populace. Why do you think tyrants and dictators always try to disarm their subjects? Carry permits and widespread gun ownership reduce the incidence of crime. As Mark Steyn has pointed out, a burglar is unlikely to target a neighborhood where he has a good chance of getting his head blown off while trying to steal a $20 TV.
A well-armed society is a polite society. · Jan 18 at 1:10am
Every word worth repeating.
Jun '10
Re: Does Decency Demand Defenselessness?
310 million people in the US. One does something insane with a gun. So now we no longer have a slow news week. Vast amounts of interviews, questions, and hand-wringing take place, followed by yet another spate of useless and ridiculous laws to show the nation that politicians are "doing something."
We have too many gun laws and not enough rational enforcement.