This is specifically for liberals and especially for liberals who are panicked about Donald Trump being elected President: What do you think about the right to bear arms now? Perhaps you don't understand. I have heard your arguments favoring strict gun control. I have hacked many of them to pieces. No, our Founding Fathers were not talking exclusively about an armed militia. If you read the records of how our nation was founded, you would know that the right to bear arms was prompted as a complex combination of many factors, including the fact that it was associated with aristocracy in Europe and it was used by most European governments as a way of keeping the "rabble" under control. The final argument, which I have not really touched on much, is that our current government is so pure and good that the right to bear arms is no longer a necessary right to keep the government accountable to the people. So, what do you think about the right to bear arms now?
Personally, I don't think Trump is going to be some fascist dictator that tries to take over America. He is the President. The power of the President is far more limited than most people believe. Our government was specifically designed with checks and balances. If Trump does try anything extreme, Congress has the power to prevent it. Yes, Congress is Republican controlled. That does not mean they are stupid though. There is only so much damage they will let him do, and in my personal opinion, we need stuff to get broken, so that someone can fix it right. The Democrats sure are not going to get rid of Obamacare, but maybe if Trump does, they will eventually replace it with something that actually works. That said though, let's entertain this idea that Trump might try something bad and actually succeed.
If Trump makes a power play to wrest control from other parts of the government what do we do? Yes, I have heard some of you liberals suggest that this is a serious possibility. While I don't believe that it is, I am willing to entertain the idea. Some of you have tried to tell me that the right to bear arms is no longer important precisely because this sort of thing could never happen. You have told me that you have complete faith in our government. So, what about now? Do you still think that it could never happen? Do you still think that we should take all the guns away?
I don't know what you think, and honestly it does not really matter right now (at least till the next election). Might I suggest that you rethink your position on this though. Yes, guns are dangerous. So are cars, and cars kill many times more people than guns. Kitchen knives are also dangerous, and they injure many many times more people than guns. The fact is, freedom is not free. The freedom of this nation was payed for with blood. Since it was founded, the sacrifice of human lives has been required many times to maintain our freedom. Yes, some deaths may have been prevented by taking away our guns. How many more deaths would have been allowed to occur though? One of the most common places for people to commit mass shootings now days has been schools, because they know no one else will have a gun. In Europe we are seeing terrorist shooting sprees that just don't happen in the U.S., because terrorists know that any American adult could be carrying a gun and use it to cut their crime short. Most importantly though, can we really trust that our government would be the same if it did not have to worry about the fact that millions of Americans are armed? Perhaps our government would still be the same, but a recent President boldly told Congress that the American people cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Can we really trust that people like this would not have taken greater advantage of us, if we did not have access to guns? Can you trust that our current President will never do something that could require the people to assert their right to be governed as they choose?
I doubt that Trump will go so far off the deep end that the American people will need to use guns to assert their authority, but what if? If the people of this country can elect Donald Trump to be President, is it not possible that they could also put just the wrong people in Congress that our freedom might be put in jeopardy? The right to bear arms is complicated. It is what separates the U.S. from countries with a formal aristocracy. It ensures a certain level of classlessness. It gives us greater ability to protect ourselves. It also gives us a certain level of insurance against corrupt government. Conservatives have understood this for centuries. Perhaps now liberals can have a greater appreciation for the right to bear arms?
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
26 March 2017
15 June 2016
Vehicle Control
In 2014, 32,675 Americans died in car accidents1. We should ban cars! We need some serious vehicle control, because vehicle accidents are killing over 32,000 people a year!
Few people would probably agree with this. Given that most people have a network of close friends between 50 and 150 in number, and only about 1 person in 10,000 died from car accidents in 2014, a vast majority of Americans do not actually know anyone who died in a car accident in 2014, but maybe half know a person that knows someone who did. In other words, for most people, a car accident death is nothing more than a sad statistic. People die in all sorts of accidents regularly, and car accidents are just another way people occasionally die.
In 2014, 32,657 Americans died in car accidents. As a percentage of the U.S. population2, this comes out to 0.0102% of the population. This is about one in 10,000 Americans. In 2014, 2,626,418 people died in the U.S. Out of the total number of people that died, only 1.244% died in car accidents. Yes, it is tragic that people die in car accidents, and making safer cars and training people to drive better would probably help to avoid this unnecessary, but realistically, barely significant number of deaths.
Is banning cars really a good option? Probably not. Perhaps we could ban large vehicles that tend to be more damaging in accidents, though these vehicles are involved in a much smaller percentage of accidents than non-commercial vehicles. We could ban red vehicles, as insurance companies have collected statistics showing that red vehicles are more likely to get in accidents than other colors. We could raise the legal age for getting a license, as insurance companies have also collected data showing that drivers under 25 are more likely to get in accidents. While we are at it, we could ban unmarried males from driving, and we could require good grades to qualify to drive, as these are also common risk factors. If banning cars or banning people from driving sounds absurd, it is because it is. Cars don't kill people. Bad drivers kill people. Blaming the cars makes it tempting to harm many people who enjoy recreational driving or even need to drive to make a living (from commuting to work to delivering pizza to hauling freight). The best way to reduce car accidents is to make safer cars and train drivers better.
In 2014, 12,590 Americans died from gun violence3. We should ban guns! We need some serious gun control, because guns are killing over 12,590 people a year! I seriously hope you can year the sarcasm here. Notice that almost 3 times as many people die in the U.S. from car accidents than from gun violence?
Ironically, a lot of people agree with my extremely sarcastic call to ban guns. Given that most people have a network of close friends between 50 and 150, and only about 1 in 25,000 died from gun violence, almost no Americans actually know someone who died from gun violence in 2014 and very few even know someone who knows someone who did. In other words, for nearly everyone, a gun violence death is not even a significant statistic. People die in all sorts of accidents regularly, and gun violence is just another way that people who almost nobody knows die on extremely rare occasions.
In 2014, 12,590 Americans died from gun violence. As a percentage of the U.S population, this comes out to 0.0039% of the population. This is about one in 25,000 Americans. In 2014, 2,626,418 people died in the U.S. Out of the total number of people that died, only 0.479% died from gun violence. Yes, it is tragic that people die from gun violence, and making safer guns and training people to use them better would probably help avoid this unnecessary, but realistically, insignificant number of deaths.
Is banning guns really a good option? Almost certainly not. Perhaps we could ban large assault weapons that tend to be more lethal, though these guns are involved in a much smaller percentage of the already barely existent gun violence than smaller guns. We could ban automatic weapons, but again, what percentage of gun deaths come from automatic weapons? (In fact, automatic weapons are generally not even designed to kill. They are designed for cover fire that merely threatens to injure. They are hard to aim and quite expensive to use, and even when they do hit, they are rarely lethal, as deliberately hitting anything vital is quite difficult.) One of the most dangerous kinds of guns is actually the .22, because the bullet is light enough that it tends to bounce around inside the body, tearing up essential organs, instead of going right through, only damaging things in a fairly straight path. The fact is, guns don't kill people. In more recent years, people with mental illness kill people using guns. Blaming guns makes it tempting to harm many people who enjoy recreational shooting or even shooting wild animals to make a living. The best way to reduce gun violence is to make guns safer (better safety, maybe more kid proof, though accidental shooting deaths are even rarer) and train shooters better in gun safety. It would also help to vet people buying guns to make sure they are not mentally ill, though doing this in a way that is not abuseable may be challenging. Honestly though, if guns are almost 3 times safer than cars, we probably don't need to do anything to make them safer.
The point here is, why are people working so hard to ban guns, when gun violence accounts for less than half a percent of U.S. deaths? Banning guns would almost certainly reduce deaths due to gun violence, but how much of that would just turn into other kinds of violent deaths? (For example, swords and knives are more fatal than most gun and would likely do far more damage in a school.) Many people who are using guns to kill other people are doing it on purpose. If you take their guns away, many of them will find another way, and honestly, it will probably be more effective. People dying in car accidents are not doing it on purpose. This means that there is greater potential for improvement. It also helps that almost 3 times as many people die in car accidents. Eliminating 1/3rd of car accidents would be more effective at reducing deaths than successfully banning all guns (because some people will just find another way to kill).
Here are some other things we should worry about before banning guns:
Of course, banning all of these things is rather impractical, and the money spent enforcing such bans might be better used educating people on the dangers of smoking, alcohol, poor diet, and so on.
The fact is, guns are small beans in causes of U.S. deaths, and there are many countries with gun bans that have more violent deaths per capita than the U.S. (ironically, in some cases, many of these include gun deaths). Yes, death is tragic, especially when premature, but that does not justify a national movement spending absurd amounts of money to try to eliminate an insignificant cause of death. Instead of wasting money supporting gun control, use your money to support something that actually matters, like cancer and heart disease research. Instead of worrying about the 0.5% of deaths that are caused by gun violence, worry about the 23.2% of deaths from heart disease, the 22.5% of deaths caused by cancer, or even the 18.2% of deaths caused by tobacco use. These are the places where your support can make a real difference.
Few people would probably agree with this. Given that most people have a network of close friends between 50 and 150 in number, and only about 1 person in 10,000 died from car accidents in 2014, a vast majority of Americans do not actually know anyone who died in a car accident in 2014, but maybe half know a person that knows someone who did. In other words, for most people, a car accident death is nothing more than a sad statistic. People die in all sorts of accidents regularly, and car accidents are just another way people occasionally die.
In 2014, 32,657 Americans died in car accidents. As a percentage of the U.S. population2, this comes out to 0.0102% of the population. This is about one in 10,000 Americans. In 2014, 2,626,418 people died in the U.S. Out of the total number of people that died, only 1.244% died in car accidents. Yes, it is tragic that people die in car accidents, and making safer cars and training people to drive better would probably help to avoid this unnecessary, but realistically, barely significant number of deaths.
Is banning cars really a good option? Probably not. Perhaps we could ban large vehicles that tend to be more damaging in accidents, though these vehicles are involved in a much smaller percentage of accidents than non-commercial vehicles. We could ban red vehicles, as insurance companies have collected statistics showing that red vehicles are more likely to get in accidents than other colors. We could raise the legal age for getting a license, as insurance companies have also collected data showing that drivers under 25 are more likely to get in accidents. While we are at it, we could ban unmarried males from driving, and we could require good grades to qualify to drive, as these are also common risk factors. If banning cars or banning people from driving sounds absurd, it is because it is. Cars don't kill people. Bad drivers kill people. Blaming the cars makes it tempting to harm many people who enjoy recreational driving or even need to drive to make a living (from commuting to work to delivering pizza to hauling freight). The best way to reduce car accidents is to make safer cars and train drivers better.
In 2014, 12,590 Americans died from gun violence3. We should ban guns! We need some serious gun control, because guns are killing over 12,590 people a year! I seriously hope you can year the sarcasm here. Notice that almost 3 times as many people die in the U.S. from car accidents than from gun violence?
Ironically, a lot of people agree with my extremely sarcastic call to ban guns. Given that most people have a network of close friends between 50 and 150, and only about 1 in 25,000 died from gun violence, almost no Americans actually know someone who died from gun violence in 2014 and very few even know someone who knows someone who did. In other words, for nearly everyone, a gun violence death is not even a significant statistic. People die in all sorts of accidents regularly, and gun violence is just another way that people who almost nobody knows die on extremely rare occasions.
In 2014, 12,590 Americans died from gun violence. As a percentage of the U.S population, this comes out to 0.0039% of the population. This is about one in 25,000 Americans. In 2014, 2,626,418 people died in the U.S. Out of the total number of people that died, only 0.479% died from gun violence. Yes, it is tragic that people die from gun violence, and making safer guns and training people to use them better would probably help avoid this unnecessary, but realistically, insignificant number of deaths.
Is banning guns really a good option? Almost certainly not. Perhaps we could ban large assault weapons that tend to be more lethal, though these guns are involved in a much smaller percentage of the already barely existent gun violence than smaller guns. We could ban automatic weapons, but again, what percentage of gun deaths come from automatic weapons? (In fact, automatic weapons are generally not even designed to kill. They are designed for cover fire that merely threatens to injure. They are hard to aim and quite expensive to use, and even when they do hit, they are rarely lethal, as deliberately hitting anything vital is quite difficult.) One of the most dangerous kinds of guns is actually the .22, because the bullet is light enough that it tends to bounce around inside the body, tearing up essential organs, instead of going right through, only damaging things in a fairly straight path. The fact is, guns don't kill people. In more recent years, people with mental illness kill people using guns. Blaming guns makes it tempting to harm many people who enjoy recreational shooting or even shooting wild animals to make a living. The best way to reduce gun violence is to make guns safer (better safety, maybe more kid proof, though accidental shooting deaths are even rarer) and train shooters better in gun safety. It would also help to vet people buying guns to make sure they are not mentally ill, though doing this in a way that is not abuseable may be challenging. Honestly though, if guns are almost 3 times safer than cars, we probably don't need to do anything to make them safer.
The point here is, why are people working so hard to ban guns, when gun violence accounts for less than half a percent of U.S. deaths? Banning guns would almost certainly reduce deaths due to gun violence, but how much of that would just turn into other kinds of violent deaths? (For example, swords and knives are more fatal than most gun and would likely do far more damage in a school.) Many people who are using guns to kill other people are doing it on purpose. If you take their guns away, many of them will find another way, and honestly, it will probably be more effective. People dying in car accidents are not doing it on purpose. This means that there is greater potential for improvement. It also helps that almost 3 times as many people die in car accidents. Eliminating 1/3rd of car accidents would be more effective at reducing deaths than successfully banning all guns (because some people will just find another way to kill).
Here are some other things we should worry about before banning guns:
- Smoking: 480,000 deaths annually (0.15% of population, 18.2% of total deaths)
- Alcohol: 88,000 deaths annually (0.03% of population, 3.35% of total deaths)
- Heart Disease: 610,000 deaths annually (0.19% of population, 23.2% of total deaths)
- Cancer: 591,699 deaths annually (0.19% of population, 22.5% of total deaths)
- Accidents: 136,053 deaths annually (0.042% of population, 5.18% of total deaths)
Of course, banning all of these things is rather impractical, and the money spent enforcing such bans might be better used educating people on the dangers of smoking, alcohol, poor diet, and so on.
The fact is, guns are small beans in causes of U.S. deaths, and there are many countries with gun bans that have more violent deaths per capita than the U.S. (ironically, in some cases, many of these include gun deaths). Yes, death is tragic, especially when premature, but that does not justify a national movement spending absurd amounts of money to try to eliminate an insignificant cause of death. Instead of wasting money supporting gun control, use your money to support something that actually matters, like cancer and heart disease research. Instead of worrying about the 0.5% of deaths that are caused by gun violence, worry about the 23.2% of deaths from heart disease, the 22.5% of deaths caused by cancer, or even the 18.2% of deaths caused by tobacco use. These are the places where your support can make a real difference.
07 June 2016
The Right to Bear Arms
The Second Amendment gives all Americans the "right to bear Arms." This phrase is hotly contested among those fighting over gun control. Gun control activists claim that this Second Amendment right applies only to militias, because that is something else mentioned in this amendment. They also claims that this right only applies to small, trivial weapons, not weapons that might be considered military grade (note that they then use the ambiguity they have introduced into the subject to impose their own definition of "military grade"). The other side claims that this right is more broad than just militias and that the lack of any mention of scope implies that there is no limitation to the class of weapon. This might seem like a fruitless argument, but it is not. It turns out that there is plenty of information that can be used to eliminate most of the ambiguity.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says this, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In my estimation, what it means is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State." I does not say that only the militia may bear arms. This was a common way of phrasing a "because" relationship back when this was written and passed, and everyone would have understood it to mean exactly what I translated it to mean. In more modern English, it might have been written, "The right to bear arms is protected, because an event may occur where an armed militia may be needed, and the fastest way to raise such a militia is to draft people who are already well armed." The Second Amendment may actually mean more than this though. It mentioned that the militia is necessary for the security of a free State. It could be talking about security from internal threat, like violent individuals or uprisings and rebellions, as well as external threats, like attacks from other countries. It might, however, have been intended to mean that a free state needs a militia to protect its freedom from any other entity, including, perhaps, the Federal government, if necessary. This interpretation is not as strongly supported, however given the general attitude of the time period in which the amendment was written, it is entirely possible. The fact here, is that the right to bear arms is not for the militia alone, but for the entire pubic, in case a militia needs to be formed. If you don't believe this, then maybe it is time to look at the history of the period.
One major part of the right to bear arms was how the colonists had been treated by the British. In Britain (and most other feudal nations), it was traditional for the right to bear arms to be exclusively limited to the military, nobility and royalty. The U.S. Constitution abolished the aristocracy within the boundaries of the United States. In doing this, it extended most of the privileges traditionally reserved for the aristocracy to the entire population (actually, initially only to men...). Things like the right to own property were traditionally reserved for the nobility. As mentioned, one of these traditionally noble rights was the right to bear arms. Extending this right to the general population was an essential part of completing the abolition of the aristocracy. Limiting the right to bears arms to only the militia would have accomplished the opposite, making militia members a sort of de facto aristocracy. As such, it is almost certain that limiting the bearing of arms to the militia was never the intent.
The second argument, that the right to bear arms was only intended to apply to mundane, non-military weapons may seem a bit stronger. Even knowing the language of the day, it is not entirely clear whether the Second Amendment was intended to apply to any weapon, or just to traditional civilian weapons. It merely states that the right to bears arms shall not be infringed. I does not qualify what arms this applies to. By default, it should probably be assumed that the lack of a qualifier means that no limitation should be applied. Of course, back then, they had cannons, rockets, guns, and hand to hand weapons. If they had had nukes, it might have been worded rather differently. It turns out that an appeal to history will easily provide and answer though.
As mentioned before, part of the intent of this amendment was to extend traditionally noble rights to the general populace. Another part of the intent was to produce an armed populace capable for forming a militia to defend themselves. Just knowing this, the answer should be obvious: The Second Amendment is referring specifically to military weapons. In Britain and the colonies at the time, owning kitchen knives, hunting knives, bows and arrows, and other non-military weapons was completely legal. In fact, many of these things were essential for daily life. Even in the most oppressive regimes, these weapons are generally allowed for the lowest of classes. To put this into writing as an amendment to the Constitution would have been considered absurd. Why protect a right that is so basic and essential that it would do far more harm to the one taking it away than it would do good? You cannot oppress a people who have died of starvation, because they don't have basic tools for hunting, harvesting, and food preparation. The Second Amendment was explicitly granting the right to bear military weapons, the same weapons that the British aristocracy had exclusive rights to bear. At the time, this included rockets, cannons, guns, and swords. Of course, the first two were so expensive that they were generally owned and employed only by the military and the occasional very rich person. If you look at the application of this right historically though, you will find that it was immediately taken to mean that civilians could own and carry swords and rifles, including rifles that were used almost exclusively for fighting, not for hunting (keep in mind that some types of ammo will leave the target seriously damaged, making much of the meat not suitable for eating). Again, history provides ample evidence, in both reasoning and in application, that the right to bear arms was intended to apply very specifically to military grade weapons.
Why don't we see this now days? Simple, most rifles the average person is familiar with is designed for hunting. Even when reading historical accounts of battles, it is assumed that their rifles were similar in function to our hunting rifles. Because cannons and rockets were too expensive for the average civilian, there are very few accounts of civilians having or using them, so it is often assumed that The Second Amendment did not apply to those weapons. And even those who realize that it did may still not associate them with military weapons, because they are vastly inferior to what we have today. The fact, however, is that the typical carbine rifle used during the Civil War was not a mere hunting toy. It was a very serious gun, designed specifically for mounted combat, and it was not very suitable for anything but killing people. During the Civil War carbines were often too expensive for civilians to buy themselves, but many Civil War soldiers were allowed to keep their carbines as a symbol of their service, even after they went back to civilian life. In modern terms, a carbine is comparable to an assault rifle (yes, the carbine was not automatic, and the quality was lower, but the carbine was essentially the assault rifle of the Civil War). Taking it a bit further, the rockets used during the Revolutionary War and the Civil War could be compared to modern cruise missiles, and a cannon might be compared to a long range mortar. The fact is, if The Second Amendment was written today, it would be referring to assault rifles, cruise missiles, and military mortars, when it says "the right to bear Arms." In fact, it could even refer to far more powerful weapons. The rocket was pretty high end technology at the time, and honestly, the nuke is pretty old technology now days.
So, what about weapons of mass destruction and such? I believe that the writers of The Second Amendment might have been a bit more specific, had they had some of the massively destructive weapons available now. I doubt they would have forbidden assault rifles or even mounted machine guns. Modern missiles and mortars would probably also still be on the table. It is important to realize that many of our banned weapons were banned in reaction to some event. These events had not occurred when the amendment was written, and because it was shortly after the Revolutionary War, most of the people involved had a strong conviction that freedom was worth far more than the risk that someone might occasionally misuse a weapon intended to protect that freedom (and if you do the math, the percentage of our population lost to people abusing military weapons is hardly significant). Nuclear weapons, however, are far more dangerous than a mounted machine gun or a truckload of grenades. They have destroyed fairly large cities, killing enormous numbers of people. They would probably have been appalled at these weapons, and they probably would have banned them on the same scale we have. As far as other weapons, most of the really dangerous ones are out of civilian price range anyhow, so the danger is already minimal. Perhaps they would have created classifications of military weapons, allowing the less dangerous class (assault rifles, mounted machines guns, grenades, short range missiles, and mortars) to be available to civilians, but honestly, I think they would have just written the document exactly the same way they did, and then deal with weapons of mass destruction with bans that extend to everyone, not just civilians.
There are definitely weapons that civilians should not have, and those weapons were not around when The Second Amendment was written. The fact, however, is that the equivalent weapons to what The Second Amendment was written explicitly to allow are the military weapons that are starting to be banned for civilian use. Likewise, it is certain that The Second Amendment was never intended to limit the right to bear arms to a state militia. The potential need for a militia was an important factor, but it was a factor in ensuring that everyone should have the right to bear arms. And, when taken together, this makes it even more clear that the intent of The Second Amendment was to ensure that civilians would be allowed to own military grade weapons so that if a militia was ever needed, people would be available with the weapons to form a well armed militia. Given current gun bans though, any militia formed would most likely be armed with hunting rifles and handguns, and pitting such a poorly armed group against a well armed military invasion force would be like pitting conscripts with pitchforks against musketeers. It would be suicide.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says this, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In my estimation, what it means is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State." I does not say that only the militia may bear arms. This was a common way of phrasing a "because" relationship back when this was written and passed, and everyone would have understood it to mean exactly what I translated it to mean. In more modern English, it might have been written, "The right to bear arms is protected, because an event may occur where an armed militia may be needed, and the fastest way to raise such a militia is to draft people who are already well armed." The Second Amendment may actually mean more than this though. It mentioned that the militia is necessary for the security of a free State. It could be talking about security from internal threat, like violent individuals or uprisings and rebellions, as well as external threats, like attacks from other countries. It might, however, have been intended to mean that a free state needs a militia to protect its freedom from any other entity, including, perhaps, the Federal government, if necessary. This interpretation is not as strongly supported, however given the general attitude of the time period in which the amendment was written, it is entirely possible. The fact here, is that the right to bear arms is not for the militia alone, but for the entire pubic, in case a militia needs to be formed. If you don't believe this, then maybe it is time to look at the history of the period.
One major part of the right to bear arms was how the colonists had been treated by the British. In Britain (and most other feudal nations), it was traditional for the right to bear arms to be exclusively limited to the military, nobility and royalty. The U.S. Constitution abolished the aristocracy within the boundaries of the United States. In doing this, it extended most of the privileges traditionally reserved for the aristocracy to the entire population (actually, initially only to men...). Things like the right to own property were traditionally reserved for the nobility. As mentioned, one of these traditionally noble rights was the right to bear arms. Extending this right to the general population was an essential part of completing the abolition of the aristocracy. Limiting the right to bears arms to only the militia would have accomplished the opposite, making militia members a sort of de facto aristocracy. As such, it is almost certain that limiting the bearing of arms to the militia was never the intent.
The second argument, that the right to bear arms was only intended to apply to mundane, non-military weapons may seem a bit stronger. Even knowing the language of the day, it is not entirely clear whether the Second Amendment was intended to apply to any weapon, or just to traditional civilian weapons. It merely states that the right to bears arms shall not be infringed. I does not qualify what arms this applies to. By default, it should probably be assumed that the lack of a qualifier means that no limitation should be applied. Of course, back then, they had cannons, rockets, guns, and hand to hand weapons. If they had had nukes, it might have been worded rather differently. It turns out that an appeal to history will easily provide and answer though.
As mentioned before, part of the intent of this amendment was to extend traditionally noble rights to the general populace. Another part of the intent was to produce an armed populace capable for forming a militia to defend themselves. Just knowing this, the answer should be obvious: The Second Amendment is referring specifically to military weapons. In Britain and the colonies at the time, owning kitchen knives, hunting knives, bows and arrows, and other non-military weapons was completely legal. In fact, many of these things were essential for daily life. Even in the most oppressive regimes, these weapons are generally allowed for the lowest of classes. To put this into writing as an amendment to the Constitution would have been considered absurd. Why protect a right that is so basic and essential that it would do far more harm to the one taking it away than it would do good? You cannot oppress a people who have died of starvation, because they don't have basic tools for hunting, harvesting, and food preparation. The Second Amendment was explicitly granting the right to bear military weapons, the same weapons that the British aristocracy had exclusive rights to bear. At the time, this included rockets, cannons, guns, and swords. Of course, the first two were so expensive that they were generally owned and employed only by the military and the occasional very rich person. If you look at the application of this right historically though, you will find that it was immediately taken to mean that civilians could own and carry swords and rifles, including rifles that were used almost exclusively for fighting, not for hunting (keep in mind that some types of ammo will leave the target seriously damaged, making much of the meat not suitable for eating). Again, history provides ample evidence, in both reasoning and in application, that the right to bear arms was intended to apply very specifically to military grade weapons.
Why don't we see this now days? Simple, most rifles the average person is familiar with is designed for hunting. Even when reading historical accounts of battles, it is assumed that their rifles were similar in function to our hunting rifles. Because cannons and rockets were too expensive for the average civilian, there are very few accounts of civilians having or using them, so it is often assumed that The Second Amendment did not apply to those weapons. And even those who realize that it did may still not associate them with military weapons, because they are vastly inferior to what we have today. The fact, however, is that the typical carbine rifle used during the Civil War was not a mere hunting toy. It was a very serious gun, designed specifically for mounted combat, and it was not very suitable for anything but killing people. During the Civil War carbines were often too expensive for civilians to buy themselves, but many Civil War soldiers were allowed to keep their carbines as a symbol of their service, even after they went back to civilian life. In modern terms, a carbine is comparable to an assault rifle (yes, the carbine was not automatic, and the quality was lower, but the carbine was essentially the assault rifle of the Civil War). Taking it a bit further, the rockets used during the Revolutionary War and the Civil War could be compared to modern cruise missiles, and a cannon might be compared to a long range mortar. The fact is, if The Second Amendment was written today, it would be referring to assault rifles, cruise missiles, and military mortars, when it says "the right to bear Arms." In fact, it could even refer to far more powerful weapons. The rocket was pretty high end technology at the time, and honestly, the nuke is pretty old technology now days.
So, what about weapons of mass destruction and such? I believe that the writers of The Second Amendment might have been a bit more specific, had they had some of the massively destructive weapons available now. I doubt they would have forbidden assault rifles or even mounted machine guns. Modern missiles and mortars would probably also still be on the table. It is important to realize that many of our banned weapons were banned in reaction to some event. These events had not occurred when the amendment was written, and because it was shortly after the Revolutionary War, most of the people involved had a strong conviction that freedom was worth far more than the risk that someone might occasionally misuse a weapon intended to protect that freedom (and if you do the math, the percentage of our population lost to people abusing military weapons is hardly significant). Nuclear weapons, however, are far more dangerous than a mounted machine gun or a truckload of grenades. They have destroyed fairly large cities, killing enormous numbers of people. They would probably have been appalled at these weapons, and they probably would have banned them on the same scale we have. As far as other weapons, most of the really dangerous ones are out of civilian price range anyhow, so the danger is already minimal. Perhaps they would have created classifications of military weapons, allowing the less dangerous class (assault rifles, mounted machines guns, grenades, short range missiles, and mortars) to be available to civilians, but honestly, I think they would have just written the document exactly the same way they did, and then deal with weapons of mass destruction with bans that extend to everyone, not just civilians.
There are definitely weapons that civilians should not have, and those weapons were not around when The Second Amendment was written. The fact, however, is that the equivalent weapons to what The Second Amendment was written explicitly to allow are the military weapons that are starting to be banned for civilian use. Likewise, it is certain that The Second Amendment was never intended to limit the right to bear arms to a state militia. The potential need for a militia was an important factor, but it was a factor in ensuring that everyone should have the right to bear arms. And, when taken together, this makes it even more clear that the intent of The Second Amendment was to ensure that civilians would be allowed to own military grade weapons so that if a militia was ever needed, people would be available with the weapons to form a well armed militia. Given current gun bans though, any militia formed would most likely be armed with hunting rifles and handguns, and pitting such a poorly armed group against a well armed military invasion force would be like pitting conscripts with pitchforks against musketeers. It would be suicide.
06 April 2015
3D Printed Gun Control
The issue of control of undetectable 3D printed guns is coming back to Congress soon. With the substantial advances since the last time the question came up, some believe it is time for another round. As before, the emphasis is not on how easy it is to print the guns but rather on their stealth nature. Current gun law prohibits owning guns that are less detectable (in a metal detector) than 3.7 ounces of steel. Current 3D printed gun models satisfy this law by adding a chunk of steel of that weight to the gun as a non-functional part (typically internally). The bill currently being drafted would require that specific functional parts of the gun be made of metal, which would make it impossible to legally print a gun with current 3D home printing technology (the industrial version includes support for printing in several metals that could be used for the metal components). The major concern is that terrorists or felons could 3D print guns that would not be detectable by any modern security, and the assumption is that making it illegal to do so would stop them.
The big problem with this is that last line: The bill assumes that making undetectable guns illegal will somehow make a difference to those who would use them for terrorism. Now, in the past, gun control advocates have used this same excuse to demand mandatory registration of firearms as well as increasing seller accountability. These things would at least make it harder for felons and terrorists to obtain firearms, but the argument that criminals will get them anyway has largely prevented Congress from strengthening gun control. With 3D printed guns, it is far worse.
Modern 3D printers are cheaper than handguns. Blueprint files are extremely easy to obtain, and it is nigh on impossible for the government to do anything about this, since they are available over BitTorrent and other P2P file sharing services (and legally, because they are licensed to allow free redistribution). In other words, for maybe half the price of a decent handgun, a criminal can obtain the equipment to print any number of 3D printed guns. The print media is cheap enough that once a criminal has the 3D printer, he can print guns at $10 to $20 a piece. The government cannot do anything about this. Just catching one marginally careful criminal would be difficult and costly. Catching even a majority would be almost impossible. Individual criminals that used specialized security software would be almost impossible to catch, even if the government was already keeping a close eye on them.
The biggest hindrance to criminals wanting to 3D print guns is the technical complexity of setting up the 3D printer system. Careful criminals will have the buy components for the printer, instead of buying a pre-assembled one, to avoid government detection (and simply having the printer is still not enough to justify law enforcement action). The task of assembling a 3D printer is not trivial to anyone without significant electronics experience. Likewise, setting up the software and learning to use it is also not a straightforward task. The average criminal that would need a gun would likely give up before making even one 3D printed gun, because it is so much easier to just steal a few hundred dollars and buy one on the black market.
The fact, however, is that this really is a valid concern. The average felon will probably not go to the effort to print an undetectable gun. The real concern is terrorists. Plastic guns could easily be carried through all sorts of government checkpoints by terrorists, and the consequences could be dire. Before jumping to conclusions about the best solution to this problem though, we should consider the facts. The first fact to consider is that terrorists living in the U.S. long term have managed to get bombs through government checkpoints, despite much stronger legislation against bombs. Unfortunately, criminals and terrorists do not allow themselves to be governed by mere laws. In other words, making undetectable guns illegal is not going to make any difference where it really counts. Not only can criminals easily 3D print guns without any real chance of detection, they can print them in massive amounts, and nothing short of banning 3D printing outright, along with at least half of the necessary components for building 3D printers (components that power enough of our technology that banning even one would be absurd), will make any difference.
The point here is that anyone rushing to legislation banning 3D printed guns is totally out of touch with the technology. This technology is here to stay. In fact, as soon as 3D printing was invented, using it to make guns became inevitable. The long term consequences of this may result in a lot of harm, but there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop it. If legislation to ban 3D printed guns, detectable or not, does eventually go through, all it will do is turn 3D gun printing into a completely criminal activity. It won't make detecting those criminals any easier. The one good thing about this will be that honest people will still be able to obtain traditional firearms. Consider, however, who will have more and better access to firearms if honest citizens have to pay $300 or more for anything decent, while criminals can make functional firearms for well under 10% of that.
The only thing laws against making undetectable guns will do is make prison sentences longer for criminals that have them when they get caught. Most crimes that would be committed with such a weapon are already worthy of a life sentence, so the added gun charge will be trivial. Frankly, it would be equally effective without infringing on the rights of the rest of us to simply make committing crimes with 3D printed guns more illegal than committing those crimes without. At this point though, firearms (including undetectable ones) are only going to become easier to obtain, and there is nothing any government can do to stop it.
The big problem with this is that last line: The bill assumes that making undetectable guns illegal will somehow make a difference to those who would use them for terrorism. Now, in the past, gun control advocates have used this same excuse to demand mandatory registration of firearms as well as increasing seller accountability. These things would at least make it harder for felons and terrorists to obtain firearms, but the argument that criminals will get them anyway has largely prevented Congress from strengthening gun control. With 3D printed guns, it is far worse.
Modern 3D printers are cheaper than handguns. Blueprint files are extremely easy to obtain, and it is nigh on impossible for the government to do anything about this, since they are available over BitTorrent and other P2P file sharing services (and legally, because they are licensed to allow free redistribution). In other words, for maybe half the price of a decent handgun, a criminal can obtain the equipment to print any number of 3D printed guns. The print media is cheap enough that once a criminal has the 3D printer, he can print guns at $10 to $20 a piece. The government cannot do anything about this. Just catching one marginally careful criminal would be difficult and costly. Catching even a majority would be almost impossible. Individual criminals that used specialized security software would be almost impossible to catch, even if the government was already keeping a close eye on them.
The biggest hindrance to criminals wanting to 3D print guns is the technical complexity of setting up the 3D printer system. Careful criminals will have the buy components for the printer, instead of buying a pre-assembled one, to avoid government detection (and simply having the printer is still not enough to justify law enforcement action). The task of assembling a 3D printer is not trivial to anyone without significant electronics experience. Likewise, setting up the software and learning to use it is also not a straightforward task. The average criminal that would need a gun would likely give up before making even one 3D printed gun, because it is so much easier to just steal a few hundred dollars and buy one on the black market.
The fact, however, is that this really is a valid concern. The average felon will probably not go to the effort to print an undetectable gun. The real concern is terrorists. Plastic guns could easily be carried through all sorts of government checkpoints by terrorists, and the consequences could be dire. Before jumping to conclusions about the best solution to this problem though, we should consider the facts. The first fact to consider is that terrorists living in the U.S. long term have managed to get bombs through government checkpoints, despite much stronger legislation against bombs. Unfortunately, criminals and terrorists do not allow themselves to be governed by mere laws. In other words, making undetectable guns illegal is not going to make any difference where it really counts. Not only can criminals easily 3D print guns without any real chance of detection, they can print them in massive amounts, and nothing short of banning 3D printing outright, along with at least half of the necessary components for building 3D printers (components that power enough of our technology that banning even one would be absurd), will make any difference.
The point here is that anyone rushing to legislation banning 3D printed guns is totally out of touch with the technology. This technology is here to stay. In fact, as soon as 3D printing was invented, using it to make guns became inevitable. The long term consequences of this may result in a lot of harm, but there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop it. If legislation to ban 3D printed guns, detectable or not, does eventually go through, all it will do is turn 3D gun printing into a completely criminal activity. It won't make detecting those criminals any easier. The one good thing about this will be that honest people will still be able to obtain traditional firearms. Consider, however, who will have more and better access to firearms if honest citizens have to pay $300 or more for anything decent, while criminals can make functional firearms for well under 10% of that.
The only thing laws against making undetectable guns will do is make prison sentences longer for criminals that have them when they get caught. Most crimes that would be committed with such a weapon are already worthy of a life sentence, so the added gun charge will be trivial. Frankly, it would be equally effective without infringing on the rights of the rest of us to simply make committing crimes with 3D printed guns more illegal than committing those crimes without. At this point though, firearms (including undetectable ones) are only going to become easier to obtain, and there is nothing any government can do to stop it.
26 June 2013
Tyranny Grips the World
A while back I discovered that a majority of the "civilized world" thinks that a majority of the world is civilized. I realized this as I was looking through the comments on a certain web page. You are probably aware that some guy released design files for a 3D printable gun recently. It turns out that several groups were working on this, and he happened to be the first to finish. Well, the web page I was looking at belonged to one of the other groups, and the comments contained an argument over whether printable guns would be a good thing or a bad thing. Most of the comments expressed the opinion that it was a good thing (as you would expect, most visitors of the site were fans of the project). A few comments expressed outrage, anger, and other negative emotions at the idea that this group was trying to take away their safety by making a type of gun that could not be effectively regulated by any government. A guy (who claimed to be...) from Spain described how the gun ban in his country made him feel safer. He complained that this project would make it too easy for criminals in his country to get guns and that this would interfere with his feeling of safety. I wrote a response.
I began by calling this guy from Spain out on his selfishness. He was either unaware, or apathetic that a great deal of people still live under oppressive governments. While his concern is only for personal safety, there are many people who have neither safety nor freedom. While easily obtainable guns might slightly endanger this guy's safety (actually, so far no one has gathered conclusive evidence that banning guns reduces violent crime), they will improve the ability of the oppressed masses of the world to gain their own freedom and safety.
So, yesterday I read a Deseret News article that gives actual figures on my claims: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582058/Survey-finds-religious-freedom-did-not-increase-during-Arab-Spring.html I found the them appalling. This quote from the article says it all,
One of the worst parts of this story is that supposedly civilized countries often intentionally resist helping those trying to escape tyranny. Admittedly, their may be some justification for this, given that several democratic countries have had issues with Muslims trying to enforce Sharia law in ways that violate the laws of those countries. On the other side though, the U.S., who has two countries bordering it, allows people from one (Canada) which is civilized to enter and leave almost at will, while on the other border (Mexico) we try to make it almost impossible for those trying to escape tyranny and oppression from even visiting their families who are already in the U.S. Right, they can go to the U.S. Consulate there and apply for a visa and so on. Of course, the fee for applying (which is not refunded of the visa is refused) is more than most people there can afford, the wait in line is typically well over 24 hours, each applicant must have proof that they have even more money in the bank, and the other requirements are so strict that most people are turned away for trivial things that should not make any difference. The only people with even a chance are the very rich, who typically do not want to leave, because they are either corrupt government officials, or drug lords who are profiting more by oppressing their own people than they would working an honest job in the U.S. No wonder most of the world is oppressed. If "civilized" countries are not even willing to help out their closest neighbors, then how can we call any of the world civilized?
Now about the guns. Three quarters of the population of the world needs some means of escaping tyranny. While the U.S. could help the situation by allowing more immigrants from Mexico, we cannot take in the entire population of the oppressed countries of the world. In fact, all of the free countries in the world do not have room for all of the oppressed people of the world (well, that is not entirely true, but the burden would be too much to handle all at once). Maybe we could try to overthrow all of the oppressive governments of the world. While this might be possible, it would probably involve a massive war that would result in widespread destruction, throughout every country in the world. Also, as the above article points out, if the newly formed governments are not based first on freedom of religion, they will end up being as bad or worse than the original governments.
The best solution is to give the oppressed masses the ability to arm themselves and fight their governments. 3D printed plastic guns are actually an ideal way of doing this. First, many oppressive regimes have allowed cheap 3D printers to be donated to schools in their countries, so the means of production already exist (these are also fairly easy to make for only $100 or so, and existing printers can print many of the parts for new ones). Second, 3D printed guns can be manufactured fairly cheaply. Third, 3D printed guns in the hands of millions of angry subjects is enough to overthrow a government, but because the guns cannot handle more than a few shots, they are horrible weapons for terrorism. For them to be effective in war, the army wielding them would need a huge number of people, each armed with a large number of guns. In short, they make great self defensive weapons and would be very effective in a revolution where a very large number of people were participating, but they would be horrible for terrorism and waging war.
I will admit that the guy from Spain may have been right. Given the lack of evidence for either argument, it is possible that gun bans do increase safety by a small margin (the same lack of evidence also could support the claim that gun bans reduce safety by the same small margin). As such, it is also possible that printable guns would slightly reduce the safety of civilized countries. In my opinion, however, even if that is true, it is a perfectly acceptable price to pay if it has the potential to dramatically increase the safety and freedom of the other three quarters of the population of the world. I find it extremely selfish to consider my own safety to be more valuable than the freedom and safety of the rest of the population of the world (and, our country was ultimately founded by those who were willing to sacrifice all of their safety for the freedom and safety of others).
This is not only in the best interest of those three quarters who are oppressed. Free nations tend to have far better economies than oppressed ones. If all of the nations of the Earth were free, imagine the resources we would have access to. Also, the more people who are innovating, the faster innovation occurs. Again, imagine the rate of technological advancement, where the number of innovators in the world was quadrupled (or more, many of the oppressed masses are far less lazy than people who grew up in more developed nations). The improvements in economy that would occur if the majority of the world was free would dwarf anything ever seen in the history of the world. The free countries of the civilized world would benefit dramatically as well. Note that it might take years, decades, or even a century or two for this to play out, but, if nothing else, if they have guns and are fighting among themselves, at least they will be leaving us alone.
In summary, Earth is not a free world. Earth is a world where a vast majority of the population are in the grips of tyranny. There are some small pockets of resistance, but they are a small minority. Civilized countries need to be more willing to help those who are sincerely trying to escape tyranny and oppression. Printable guns may be the ultimate solution to the problem, but it will probably take a long time, regardless of the means to freedom. And last, the civilized world stands to benefit greatly from widespread global freedom from oppression. Instead of trying to create more laws to reduce our freedoms, the U.S. government should be protecting the distribution channels of information (i.e., gun printing files) that could help increase freedom in the rest of the world, for the benefit of the oppressed and of ourselves.
I began by calling this guy from Spain out on his selfishness. He was either unaware, or apathetic that a great deal of people still live under oppressive governments. While his concern is only for personal safety, there are many people who have neither safety nor freedom. While easily obtainable guns might slightly endanger this guy's safety (actually, so far no one has gathered conclusive evidence that banning guns reduces violent crime), they will improve the ability of the oppressed masses of the world to gain their own freedom and safety.
So, yesterday I read a Deseret News article that gives actual figures on my claims: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582058/Survey-finds-religious-freedom-did-not-increase-during-Arab-Spring.html I found the them appalling. This quote from the article says it all,
"Because some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, more than 5.1 billion people (74 percent of the world's population) were living in countries with high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities," Pew reported.Note that religious freedom is the first freedom. The article points out that in known history, no democratic form of government has been successful without first having religious freedom. It turns out that almost three quarters of the population of the world live under oppressive governments that do not even offer the first, and most important, fundamental human right recognized by the minority of the world that is civilized. If we were viewing our world as outsiders, and we were asked to analyze it based on freedom, we would have to conclude that Earth is an uncivilized world where oppression and tyranny rule the populace, because that is true not just of the majority, but of the vast majority. Our world is in the grip of tyranny. What's worse is that the situation is not improving. Even in the U.S., religious freedom is slowly declining. From later in the article,
But religious freedom must be a priority for the U.S. administration as well, Farr said, noting ratings in government restrictions and social hostilities toward religion in the United States have moved from a low level in 2009 to a moderate level in 2010 and 2011.An outsider looking at the Earth would not just have to conclude that it is in the grip of tyranny, but also that the few pockets of resistance are slowly crumbling to its influence.
The administration "seems to have lost the conviction that religious freedom is the first freedom," he said.
One of the worst parts of this story is that supposedly civilized countries often intentionally resist helping those trying to escape tyranny. Admittedly, their may be some justification for this, given that several democratic countries have had issues with Muslims trying to enforce Sharia law in ways that violate the laws of those countries. On the other side though, the U.S., who has two countries bordering it, allows people from one (Canada) which is civilized to enter and leave almost at will, while on the other border (Mexico) we try to make it almost impossible for those trying to escape tyranny and oppression from even visiting their families who are already in the U.S. Right, they can go to the U.S. Consulate there and apply for a visa and so on. Of course, the fee for applying (which is not refunded of the visa is refused) is more than most people there can afford, the wait in line is typically well over 24 hours, each applicant must have proof that they have even more money in the bank, and the other requirements are so strict that most people are turned away for trivial things that should not make any difference. The only people with even a chance are the very rich, who typically do not want to leave, because they are either corrupt government officials, or drug lords who are profiting more by oppressing their own people than they would working an honest job in the U.S. No wonder most of the world is oppressed. If "civilized" countries are not even willing to help out their closest neighbors, then how can we call any of the world civilized?
Now about the guns. Three quarters of the population of the world needs some means of escaping tyranny. While the U.S. could help the situation by allowing more immigrants from Mexico, we cannot take in the entire population of the oppressed countries of the world. In fact, all of the free countries in the world do not have room for all of the oppressed people of the world (well, that is not entirely true, but the burden would be too much to handle all at once). Maybe we could try to overthrow all of the oppressive governments of the world. While this might be possible, it would probably involve a massive war that would result in widespread destruction, throughout every country in the world. Also, as the above article points out, if the newly formed governments are not based first on freedom of religion, they will end up being as bad or worse than the original governments.
The best solution is to give the oppressed masses the ability to arm themselves and fight their governments. 3D printed plastic guns are actually an ideal way of doing this. First, many oppressive regimes have allowed cheap 3D printers to be donated to schools in their countries, so the means of production already exist (these are also fairly easy to make for only $100 or so, and existing printers can print many of the parts for new ones). Second, 3D printed guns can be manufactured fairly cheaply. Third, 3D printed guns in the hands of millions of angry subjects is enough to overthrow a government, but because the guns cannot handle more than a few shots, they are horrible weapons for terrorism. For them to be effective in war, the army wielding them would need a huge number of people, each armed with a large number of guns. In short, they make great self defensive weapons and would be very effective in a revolution where a very large number of people were participating, but they would be horrible for terrorism and waging war.
I will admit that the guy from Spain may have been right. Given the lack of evidence for either argument, it is possible that gun bans do increase safety by a small margin (the same lack of evidence also could support the claim that gun bans reduce safety by the same small margin). As such, it is also possible that printable guns would slightly reduce the safety of civilized countries. In my opinion, however, even if that is true, it is a perfectly acceptable price to pay if it has the potential to dramatically increase the safety and freedom of the other three quarters of the population of the world. I find it extremely selfish to consider my own safety to be more valuable than the freedom and safety of the rest of the population of the world (and, our country was ultimately founded by those who were willing to sacrifice all of their safety for the freedom and safety of others).
This is not only in the best interest of those three quarters who are oppressed. Free nations tend to have far better economies than oppressed ones. If all of the nations of the Earth were free, imagine the resources we would have access to. Also, the more people who are innovating, the faster innovation occurs. Again, imagine the rate of technological advancement, where the number of innovators in the world was quadrupled (or more, many of the oppressed masses are far less lazy than people who grew up in more developed nations). The improvements in economy that would occur if the majority of the world was free would dwarf anything ever seen in the history of the world. The free countries of the civilized world would benefit dramatically as well. Note that it might take years, decades, or even a century or two for this to play out, but, if nothing else, if they have guns and are fighting among themselves, at least they will be leaving us alone.
In summary, Earth is not a free world. Earth is a world where a vast majority of the population are in the grips of tyranny. There are some small pockets of resistance, but they are a small minority. Civilized countries need to be more willing to help those who are sincerely trying to escape tyranny and oppression. Printable guns may be the ultimate solution to the problem, but it will probably take a long time, regardless of the means to freedom. And last, the civilized world stands to benefit greatly from widespread global freedom from oppression. Instead of trying to create more laws to reduce our freedoms, the U.S. government should be protecting the distribution channels of information (i.e., gun printing files) that could help increase freedom in the rest of the world, for the benefit of the oppressed and of ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)