Sunday, June 12, 2016

The real tragedy of the Orlando shootings

If you are reading this then you surely know about the Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst such attack in the history of the U.S.  Frankly, I'm surprised it has taken this long for something like this to happen.  The U.S. -- in fact, the entire Western world -- is chock-full of soft targets, and the fact that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often is evidence that run-of-the-mill terrorism is not actually a serious problem.  (By run-of-the-mill terrorism I mean terrorism that does not employ WMDs, which is indeed a potentially serious problem.)

I don't want to minimize the tragedy or the pain of the friends and families of the victims, but the (sad) fact of the matter is that 50 dead is not a very big number in the grand scheme of things.  Twice as many people died in traffic accidents on the same day.  Their deaths are no less tragic, the pain felt by their friends and families no less real, but they don't get the media attention because another 100 people will die in traffic accidents today, and another 100 tomorrow, and another 100 the day after that.  It is really important not to lose sight of the fact that terrorism grabs the headlines in no small measure because it is rare.

We will, of course, go through the usual ritual of handwringing about the second amendment.  Liberals will shout, "Well-regulated militia!" and conservatives will retort, "Right of the people!" and at the end of the day, again, nothing will change because a majority of U.S. citizens seems to believe that 50 innocents dead is not too high a price to pay for the freedom, or at least the perception of freedom.

The real tragedy IMHO is that neither side of the debate actually makes a principled argument, or acknowledges the simple fact that technology has changed the situation on the ground in ways that demand changes in the law.  Physics and economics constrained the carnage in 1791 in ways that it no longer does today.  An automatic assault rifle can do a hell of a lot more damage than a muzzle loader, and even the NRA concedes (tacitly!) that it's probably a bad idea to let people buy RPGs or SAMs or tactical nukes at the Walmart without a background check.

And therein lies the fundamental problem for gun-rights advocates.  The argument that the individual right to bear arms is a line of defense against tyranny is untenable.  An assault rifle might slow the jack-booted thugs down a little, but it won't stop them.  The government has tanks and predator drones.  You don't, and you never will.  If we ever get into a situation where your AK-47 is the only thing standing between us and tyranny, we are screwed.

Guns are not effective defenders of freedom, but they are powerful symbols of freedom.  Freedom means that individuals get to make choices for themselves that other people don't approve of, and in particular, that the government doesn't approve of.  They get to say unpopular things, take unnecessary risks, worship unfashionable deities.  People have a right to bear arms not because AK-47s will stop the government from abusing its power, but because taking people's guns is in and of itself an abuse of that power if the people do not consent to having their guns taken.  And they don't.  The fact that their rationale is bogus doesn't matter.  Making bogus arguments is also one of the privileges of freedom.

Freedom is the ability of people to make choices for themselves.  Sometimes bad things happen as a result of those choices.  That is the price of freedom.  Is it worth the cost?  That is the argument we should be having.  But we aren't because all of the players are firmly dug-in to absolute but unprincipled and hence ultimately untenable positions.  We've been here before.  It doesn't end well.

7 comments:

Don Geddis said...

You took that to a conclusion I didn't expect. Interesting!

Ron said...

Thanks. I'm glad I'm not too predictable. :-)

Publius said...

Time to Lock and Load

I don't want to minimize the tragedy

... and then you go on to do just that

the (sad) fact of the matter is that 50 dead is not a very big number in the grand scheme of things. Twice as many people died in traffic accidents on the same day.

And 2900 babies are murdered every day, something else you don't care about.

It is really important not to lose sight of the fact that terrorism grabs the headlines in no small measure because it is rare.

It makes headlines because
1) lack of control - the victims had little to no control over their deaths. One of the reasons airplane crashes make headlines (and why some people are afraid to fly).
2) unjust killing - the terrorist(s) had no right, and to justification, to kill.

The above are not utilitarian reasons. "Rare" is not a factor.

The real tragedy IMHO is that neither side of the debate actually makes a principled argument, or acknowledges the simple fact that technology has changed the situation on the ground in ways that demand changes in the law. Physics and economics constrained the carnage in 1791 in ways that it no longer does today.

Military weapons are exactly the kind of weapons that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect from the government.

An automatic assault rifle can do a hell of a lot more damage than a muzzle loader

I assume you meant semi-automatic above.

Now this is where you prior utilitarian rational for ignoring terrorism comes back to bite you. Assault weapons are used in few crimes and comprise a small fraction of the total gun inventory in the United States. By a utilitarian rational, they should be ignored. They only get headlines because the look scary to some people.

And therein lies the fundamental problem for gun-rights advocates. The argument that the individual right to bear arms is a line of defense against tyranny is untenable. An assault rifle might slow the jack-booted thugs down a little, but it won't stop them.

Revolutionaries have always been weaker than the government they fight against. Yet, sometimes they win. The strategy and tactics specifically avoid frontal assault.

The government has tanks and predator drones. You don't, and you never will. If we ever get into a situation where your AK-47 is the only thing standing between us and tyranny, we are screwed.

Less screwed, perhaps, than if the people didn't have AK-47s.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Patrick Henry

Freedom is the ability of people to make choices for themselves. Sometimes bad things happen as a result of those choices. That is the price of freedom. Is it worth the cost? That is the argument we should be having.

The People haven't bought into your utilitarian ethics. Indeed, the entire national security posture of the United States is not justified using utilitarian ethics.

Ron said...

@Publius:

Fetus != Baby

You should read this.

> Assault weapons are used in few crimes and comprise a small fraction of the total gun inventory in the United States. By a utilitarian rational, they should be ignored. They only get headlines because the look scary to some people.

RPGs, stinger missiles, tanks, and tactical nukes are also used in few crimes. Does that mean that we should ignore those too? Do you believe that the second amendment protects and individual right to have nuclear weapons? If not, why?

Publius said...

Your Lying Eyes

Fetus != Baby

Of course it's a baby - see for yourself.

You should read this.

Moronic. You should read this.

Remember when democrats were pro-life?

RPGs, stinger missiles, tanks, and tactical nukes are also used in few crimes. Does that mean that we should ignore those too? Do you believe that the second amendment protects and individual right to have nuclear weapons?

The ethical framework adopted for the analysis will determine the answer. Of course, no consensus exists for the proper ethical framework.

Let's try a rights-based framework.
Postulate: You have the right to self-defense.

Given this, the maximum ethical weapon size would be that which allows the weak to kill the strong. The gun as equalizer. A small person could defend themselves against a large person.

Yet that small person may have to:
1) defend against a mob
2) defend against a vehicle
3) defind against other organizations and mechanisms of death

This enables indivdual agency to determine the use of force for self-defense. Ah, now here we have what gun-grabbers really want to control is not guns, but individual agency. "Controlling guns" just gives them the illusion of controlling people.

If not, why?

The NRA has a lot of money and uses it to defeat politicians that seek to erode 2nd Amendment rights. Politicians then conclude that gun control is a political loser.

Ron said...

> see for yourself.

Just because something looks like a person doesn't make it a person. Take this, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4

That thing that looks like a person is actually a computer-generated animation. A fetus, like that computer animation, may look like a person. But a fetus, like that computer animation, is not a person.

> Moronic

Here's a more sober account:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785

> You should read this.

I did. And your point would be...?

> Remember when democrats were pro-life?

If I read the history books I can remember when they were the home of racist bigotry too, what with Lincoln being a Republican and all. But all that changed when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and Nixon welcomed the Klan back into the Republican fold with his Southern Strategy.

Again, your point would be...?

> no consensus exists

I'm asking for *your* opinion.

> You have the right to self-defense.

Against anything? Against the government?

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question about nukes. Does the 2nd amendment protect my right to have a nuke so that I can defend myself against government aggression through mutually assured destruction?

Publius said...

In the framework I presented, your right to bear arms would include nuclear weapons if they were necessary for your self-defense.

If I read the history books I can remember when they were the home of racist bigotry too, what with Lincoln being a Republican and all. But all that changed when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act

Would that be the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The one filibustered by Sen. Robert Byrd* (D-WV)? Which was cut off on June 10, 1964 after an eloquent speech by Senate Minor Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) attracted enough Republican support to pass the cloture motion? Where John Williams (R-Del) cast the decisive 67th vote for cloture? The final bill in which 82% of Republicans voted "yea" for?

* Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) was Hillary Clinton's mentor and friend. As a young man, he recruited 150 young men to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia; he was unanimously elected to Exalted Cyclops to lead this Klan chapter.

Nixon welcomed the Klan back into the Republican fold with his Southern Strategy.

Ah, the mythical Southern Strategy. Nixon himself denied its existence. You also make the mistake of thinking the Republican Party is monolithic.