Saturday, February 26, 2011

Joe Huffman on Rights

 Joe Huffman responded to my post over on his blog.

But after many decades of testing this hypothesis, all over the world, in many different circumstances and cultures the best that can be said about gun control is that the benefits are inconclusive. If you want to look at more middle of the road data we have the example of what happened to the murder rate in Washington D.C. when the gun ban was declared unconstitutional. Within one year it dropped to the lowest level since 1985 – a 24 year low. And what about forcible rape? That turned out different. Within one year it dropped to the lowest level since 1967—a 42 year low. Or (via Roberta’s comment) some international data that suggests similar trends. That should be a strong hint that strict gun laws are not the solution to increasing public safety.

But if you want to look at the strongest evidence that gun control is a risk to public safety look at the genocides committed in the 20th Century. From the 1 to 1.5 million Armenians murdered in Ottoman Turkey from 1915->1917 to the 800,000 Tutsi murdered in Rwanda in 1994 gun control enabled the murder of tens of millions of people by their own governments. The evidence continues to mount in places like Darfur. Genocide only occurs when the government knows who owns the guns and/or bans guns.

My comment:

I agree with the others, Joe, that it was a wonderful post.
Your first couple of paragraphs did indeed contain some points that interested me and to which I'd like to say something.  The rest, which I did read by the way, seemed like a repeating of your standard arguments.

About Washington DC, you said after the gun ban was lifted they had all that improvement. That's a little unfair because when I blame gun availability for gun violence I'm told there are other factors, something with which I agree completely. Naturally, the removal of gun control would not be the only factor in any improvement they had. Right?  But here's the real problem with what you said. After the gun ban was lifted things changed very little for the people of the District, isn't that so?  Didn't the police and politicians conspire to make in next to impossible for them to excercise their newly restored rights? Same thing happened in Chicago a year later.  So, for that reason you really can't credit the lifting of the gun ban even in part on the reduced stats for violence.

Your next point is one that always baffles me.  How an intelligent man like yourself can believe in that alarmist talk which says genocide can come to America and we better be prepared, is beyond me. It's evidence of paranoia, sorry I don't know how else to respond to it.

Can you really compare the present day US, with all it's divisiveness, to Ottoman Turkey, or even the more recent Tutsi people of Rwanda?  All I can say is "It can't happen here," to quote Frank Zappa. It's apples and oranges.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

8 comments:

  1. Hello Mike!

    I'm gonna explain something that you don't understand. If you read it once or twice or thrice and really put in some effort you will understand what I am saying. If you just pass the words through your eyes and past your mind you will not get it. And you really should get it.

    "
    Your next point is one that always baffles me. How an intelligent man like yourself can believe in that alarmist talk which says genocide can come to America and we better be prepared, is beyond me. It's evidence of paranoia, sorry I don't know how else to respond to it."

    America's foreign policy for over sixty years has been to support dictators, despotic regimes, torture, deathsquads, terrorism, and arms dealing.

    You reap what you sow.

    Get it? The government you entrust to "control guns" is the same government that has supported Stalin, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the Afghanis, the Saudis, that asshole Karimov of Uzbekistan (boiled a couple of men alive), the death squads in South America, and I could go on and on and on and on and on.

    You really think it's an irrational fear to have deep concerns about a government that can support a major portion or even an outright majority of the leading mass murdering assholes and terrorist organizations on the planet for the greater part of a century?

    Do you just not know about the dark and dirty not so secret history of our foreign policy? Or do you really believe that the men who are willing to support evil around the world in the name of "democracy" are actually going to always play nice at home?

    I'm sorry for my tone if it's less than polite. I get a little irksome when people say I'm paranoid because I fear the people who helped Saddam and Karimov and Mubarak etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Our government has repeatedly trained foreigners on how to best use death squads and terrorism to rule their countries...and I'm paranoid for thinking they would try the exact same thing here if they could get away with it?

    Only the ignorant and the terminally naive can believe it's paranoid to fear this government that has sent millions upon millions of innocent men, women, and children to their early often very slow and deliberately torturous deaths.

    That make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Can you really compare the present day US, with all it's divisiveness, to Ottoman Turkey, or even the more recent Tutsi people of Rwanda? All I can say is "It can't happen here," to quote Frank Zappa. It's apples and oranges."

    You can compare apples and oranges. Both are about the same size, are commonly used for their juice, sold in similarly sized packages and at comparable prices.

    Saying it can't happen here is like saying you can't make juice from apples because juice was made from oranges. Doesn't compute.

    What are the requirements for genocide? There really is only one - human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going to go out on a limb. The argument is specious, because no amount of gun control ever enacted or under consideration today would ever come even remotely close to disarming our population in any way similar to the historical examples Joe cites.

    One thing is for sure, though. If two guys get in a gunfight, the one with the tommy gun wins. So, I suppose it is reasonable to worry about a ban on automatic weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, maybe the handgun ban in DC. That was ridiculous. But it has been repealed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To the first Anonymous: I actually liked your comment and basically agree with it. And, by the way, I had no problem with your tone, condescending though it was.

    The part I agree with is your description of the US government. I've felt that way since Viet Nam myself. Being a liberal, I had a short-lived period of hope when Obama came on the scene, but that's pretty much over. They're all global criminals, no question.

    Here's what I have a problem with about your position. Given the number of guns in private hands in America and considering the rate per capita of gun ownership, I don't believe it's a reasonable fear that guns will be confiscated or private gun ownership will be eradicated. To me that's not reasonable (I sometimes call it paranoia).

    The other thing is that private citizens in the US, with all their guns, many of which are above and beyond what the law allows, would be practically impotent against a military operation run by the federal government. The disparity in firepower would make you as powerless as any of those other victims of genocide you keep referring to.

    But, my first point supersedes the second one. It's just not gonna happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Here's what I have a problem with about your position. Given the number of guns in private hands in America and considering the rate per capita of gun ownership, I don't believe it's a reasonable fear that guns will be confiscated or private gun ownership will be eradicated. To me that's not reasonable (I sometimes call it paranoia)."

    It's happened at least twice so far - after Katrina and after a hurricane in Kansas if I recall correctly. Our world and nation are likely headed into some very troubled times, there is a great deal of reason to believe that confiscation could be attempted on a national scale should the "emergency" get to that point. There most certainly are people and groups who stand to gain a great deal from doing so, and they most certainly would do so if they could, so being concerned about them isn't paranoia.

    "The other thing is that private citizens in the US, with all their guns, many of which are above and beyond what the law allows, would be practically impotent against a military operation run by the federal government. The disparity in firepower would make you as powerless as any of those other victims of genocide you keep referring to."

    American citizens have more guns than all of the police and military forces on earth combined. Our military has more killing power, but being able to destroy the world a hundred times over doesn't mean much in an actual conflict.

    Not only do we have more guns, we also have more ammo stored, and we have better training than most of the police and military forces in existence. It is in the government's best interest not even to consider waging war directly on the people. Since we are now so dependent on the government the reverse is also true.

    "But, my first point supersedes the second one. It's just not gonna happen."

    It seems at this point that it won't happen, particularly because your cause of gun control is going to fail, but there is no reason to believe that we can not be vigilant.

    There is no reason to believe that saying "it can't happen here" or "it won't happen here" is a wise idea.

    This is especially true as our fascist federal government continues to grow and seize more power. I have no doubt that if we weren't armed there would be millions dead by now. It really does change the realpolitik dynamic when you can't slaughter your opponents no matter how great and unchecked your power is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe Huffman cannot help but be dishonest; must be genetic.

    If he read his own cites, he know it doesn't say what it claims. What it does say is the results are generally inconclusive *because* gun laws in the US vary widely and they haven't been studied.

    WRT genocides and gun control--we can beat this argument into the ground all day long. Genocides do not occur because one side has guns and the other doesn't. Genocides happen when one side denies the other access to public institutions.

    As I've sagely pointed out, Don Kates--a known gunloon--has been shamed into admitting the Holocaust would still have happened even if every Jew had plenty of guns. In point of fact, Hitler came to power largely on the basis of using armed thugs.

    Similarly, Saddam's Iraq was awash in guns--even automatic weapons. But that didn't stop Saddam and his cronies from engaging in tyranny for about 4 decades.

    WRT DC, there have been fewer than 100 firearms registered. Is Dishonest Joe Huffman really saying 100 guns have caused a drop in crime?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, You are completely off the wall with your paranoia. You say it probably won't happen but you're prepared anyway.

    Tell me, in your worst apocalyptic-movie-type fantasy, what are you and all your friends going to do against satellite surveillance and stealth bombers? How about the heavy artillery and state-of-the-art combat helicopters?

    Yours are adolescent school-yard dreams. In adults they're called grandiose victimism.

    ReplyDelete