uncategorical

We Woz Fisked

I have received my first fisking, courtesy of a Latin-speaking individual from California who goes by the name of damnum absque injuria (“DAI”) (I dropped Latin at 14 and I haven’t a clue what that means). I appreciate the attention. Apparently DAI was under the impression that there are actually people out there reading this blog. On the off chance that such an impression is correct, please carefully read his entire fisking (linked above) as I don’t intend to go through it line by line and I prefer not to be accused of distortion.

DAI employs the ancient rhetorical device of reinterpreting colloquial language literally and thus finds fault in my lazily expressed comment that “In Britain, it was never particularly easy to get a gun.” He points me to the English Bill of Rights of 1688, which informs us that arms are legal in the kingdom as long as they are lawful and as long as you are a Protestant. Okay, we’ll let him have that point, assuming that it is one.

He then goes on to say that comparisons between countries are not particularly useful for determining whether gun control will do more harm or good and suggests “comparisons within a single jurisdiction, before and after a significant change in the gun laws, after taking into account whatever gradual increases or decreases in crime were already underway.” I have no problem with such research but I am doubtful of the extent to which any such analysis would have predictive value when applied to other jurisdictions.

Next, DAI utilizes the tried-and-tested overextended analogy (all analogies are false by definition and they will always or virtually always collapse or become ridiculous when stretched beyond their limits) to refute my claim that removing gun controls in the UK is a bad idea because it would lead to more armed criminals and therefore more frequently armed policemen. He ignores the incontrovertible fact that British criminals and British policeman tend not to be armed under the present system and tells us instead that the arms race worked wonders against the Soviet Union, implying that an armed populace would have a similar effect on British criminals as Reagan’s arms build up did on the Soviets. If only it were true that criminal society would collapse from within if we only provided the populace with enough weaponry.

A quote from DAI: “Of course rapists won't feel the "need" to carry a gun if they know their victims will have no chance of resisting them, but who in their right mind - other than the rapist himself, of course - can seriously argue that this is a good thing?” Somehow DAI is claiming that we are better off with armed rapists than with unarmed rapists, or at least that it is better if both rapist and victim are armed than if neither of them are. Presumably the second.

This argument does have some merit. I would be somewhat supportive of a sexist arrangement (in America) where women were encouraged to carry guns and men were discouraged from doing so. Women are far less likely to be the aggressors in violent crimes.

However, the point DAI misses is that, in a situation where guns are equally and freely available to everyone, the rapist will make a point of carrying his and will make a point of selecting a target when she is likely to be unarmed. We cannot expect that women are all going to be carrying concealed weapons all the time just because they are legally entitled to. What percentage of women carry concealed handguns now in states where it is allowed? As long as the rapist – the one who chooses the time and place -- has access to guns, the situation is in his favor. In states where women are allowed to be armed, the vast majority of them are unarmed most of the time, and an unarmed woman surely has more chance if her attacker is unarmed also.

DAI again: “Giving criminals a free reign - even to the point of imprisoning homeowners who pose a "threat to burglars" and allowing their assailants to sue them - strikes me as a very high price to pay for the quaint, largely aesthetic luxury of unarmed bobbies.”

But in Britain the possession of a gun would increase the “free reign” of the criminal (although, of course, Interpol tells us that the violent criminal’s reign is at least twice as free in the US). However, the more telling statement is DAI’s claim that an unarmed police is a “largely aesthetic luxury.” It is not. When your police are armed, you are essentially living under martial law. You can call it something else if you want to, and Americans who have grown up under martial law and have never known any other kind of law will certainly object to the label, but here it is: the ability of the agents of the state to shoot you dead on the spot without process is what martial law is all about.

There are too many guns in America to turn back the clock. America’s criminals are already armed, so law-abiding adult Americans (especially women) should have the right to be armed within reason. But let’s not get silly about this: the right to live free from martial law is a far more important right than the right to bear arms. So-called “Libertarians” in Britain who want to trade the first right for the second ought to think a little more carefully about how they really want their rights to be prioritized. Copying America’s gun control laws in Britain would lead inexorably to an American-style heavily armed police force and the elimination of one of Britain’s most important freedoms and distinguishing characteristics.

[You can permalink an entry by clicking on Calendar Link at the top of the page and then clicking on the date of the entry. Click for my blogroll and links page.]

Advertisement