Might Makes Wrong

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Says who?

The premise of the rush to buy so many more guns has been the claim of needing personal protection.

Says who? I think it's pretty unmistakeable with the spike of firearm sales starting with the election of President Obama that the fundamental premise for the rush to buy more guns is out of fear of another ban, such as the one that the President campaigned on and that is currently part of the Democratic Party platform.

It's fear of further restriction that is driving purchases.

In terms of actual and intended use, I'm sure most people are like me - they are aware of the potential utility for self-defense that firearms provide, but in actuality they use them for fun.

Underlying that notion is the idea that we all have to be free to shoot someone to protect ourselves, because law enforcement only acts after a crime, and that we should all have the option to escalate to lethal violence rather than use alternatives, if we want to or think we might need to, without accountability for using other, less violent or non-lethal alternatives. Shoot first laws remove the legal premise that has been at the core of Castle Doctrine and Self-defense laws for centuries - the duty to retreat if possible, the requirement to try to avoid lethal violence.

The right demands the right to use violence, including lethal violence, and opposes any measures on any level that obstruct it by requiring non-lethal alternatives as preferable.

I don't think anyone would dispute that non-lethal alternatives are preferable. What is disputed is that non-lethal alternatives should be legally required.

If I am in a place where I have every right to be, and I am a victim of a violent crime, I should not be legally required to run away. Good people should have the right to stand up to violent criminals with deadly force if they see fit, and we should applaud them for it, not denigrate them. No one is expecting everyone to fight back against violent criminals, but those who do should be praised and encouraged. And the law should protect them.

There is nothing wrong with using deadly force to defend yourself from violent criminals.


The reality is that the efforts of law enforcement have resulted in a steady decline in crime over the past several decades. Clearly, investing in law enforcement works, when not gutted by the ill-conceived cost cutting of the right. The statistical evidence is irrefutable that law enforcement prevents crime.

The fact is, the causes of the decades-long decline in violent crime are greatly debated:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/why-is-u-s-violent-crime-down-part-2-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

There are many reasons cited as causing the decline in crime:

* We have incarcerated a huge swath of the most disenfranchised portion of our society who was, due to their disenfranchisement, more likely to get involved with crime.

* Stiffer sentences keep people in prison longer.

* Our society is aging - older people are less likely to be involved in crime.

* Drug trade territories have stabilized since the violent chaos of the 1990s.

* Decline of the crack epidemic.

* Decline of lead levels in children.

* Legalized abortion.

* Improved police databases to track criminals.

But here is one thing I have considered that I have not seen anywhere else:

It may be getting harder to get away with crimes, so people don't try.

Everyone is familiar with TV shows, fictitious or not, like CSI and others where the police use evidence to nail the bad guy. There is a growing perception (that has harmed prosecutors in courtrooms) by the people that police work can easily and definitively finger the bad guy. 50 years ago you could walk into a bank and have a hold up and get away and go live in another town. Today, that's unlikely. There's probably a dye pack and a GPS tracker in the money bag.

Also, just about everyone these days has a cell phone, usually with a camera in it. Any time something bad happens, we are able to record and report it virtually instantaneously. And what isn't covered by our portable cameras is often as not covered by a surveillance camera somewhere nearby.

In short, crime requires anonymity, and anonymity is going away.

But, as I have said before, all of this is largely immaterial.

The right to keep and bear arms is not related to crime, or even self-defense, even though self-defense is valid reason to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is about keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of the people so that they can function as soldiers in an emergency. This will be true regardless of what the crime rate is.