Sunday, August 24, 2014

Libertarians Who Oppose a Militarized Police Should Support Gun Control—But They Don't, of Course

The New Republic

The current issue of The Economist contains a striking factoid: “Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero.” By contrast, there are about 400 fatal shootings each year by local police in the United States.

When I tweeted out this stunning stat earlier this week, no shortage of people noted an obvious explanation for why British police were so much less likely to fire their guns: there were far fewer guns around them. The U.K. has some of the world’s strictest limitations on gun ownershiphandguns are all but prohibited, while shotguns and rifles require a police certificate and special justification (self-defense does not qualify.) There are an estimated 14,000 handguns in civilian hands in the U.K. (population 63 million) and slightly more than 2 million shotguns and rifles. Estimates for the number of total firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. float north of 300 million. Simply put, if the police in the U.S. seem a lot more on edge than those across the pond, they have good reason to be.

As obvious as this explanation for the militarization and trigger-happiness of U.S. police may be, it has gotten relatively little attention amid the alarming spectacle that has played out in Ferguson, Missouri following the fatal police shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old and, more recently, the fatal shooting just a few miles away of a mentally-ill man holding a knife. That oversight  may be partly because this aspect of the debate undermines one of the most popular media narratives to emerge from Ferguson: the notion of a growing right-left coalition united against heavy-handed police tactics.

There is indeed agreement between many liberals and libertarians that the militarization of the police, especially in its dealings with racial minorities, has gone too far. But this consensus may crumble pretty quickly when it’s confronted with the obvious police counter-argument: that the authorities’ heavy firepower and armor is necessary in light of all the firepower they’re up against. At that point, many liberals will revert to arguing for sensible gun control regulations like broader background checks to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill (the measure that police organizations successfully argued should be the gun control movement’s legislative priority following the Newtown, Connecticut shootings) or limits on assault weapons and oversized ammunition clips. And liberals will be reminded that the libertarians who agree with them in opposing police militarization are very much also opposed to the gun regulations that might help make the environment faced by police slightly less threatening.

14 comments:

  1. Libertarians also oppose the governmental entities which would keep a militarised police force in check.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've never known libertarians to be big on restricting individual rights in the hopes of making government more comfortable and willing to be more caring about other rights. Sort of like not resisting an armed robber in the hope of not making him angry and hurting you.
    There might be some out there, like there are some Amish that do, or don't use buttons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, what do you thing about the proposal that the militarized police is the result of a highly armed society?

      Delete
    2. Mike, people here often comment that over a long period, the percentage of guns has gone down. This would seem to negate that argument.

      Delete
    3. There are more guns out in public now than ever before, that's part of the problem.

      Delete
    4. ss, you kinda dodged the question.

      Delete
    5. "There are more guns out in public now than ever before, that's part of the problem."

      Anon, I don't now how long you've been visiting this blog, but Mike and others here often contend that the "gun culture" is fading out and eventually disappear as the citizenry becomes more enlightened.
      The evidence he uses of this is a survey taken over many years showing that the percentage of households who say there are guns in the home has declined over the years.
      When challenged with large gun sales, his answer has been that the guns are all being bought by people who already own guns, and therefor the percentage continues to drop.
      My point is that if the percentage of households is decreasing and with the long term decline in violent crime, then the claim that this "militarization" is caused by the proliferation of guns in civilian hands is based on a false belief.

      Delete
    6. "you kinda dodged the question."

      I thought I was quite clear. What the police have for equipment and where it came from is immaterial. What is important is what they do with the equipment. For example, what some call assault weapons are also called in law enforcement, patrol rifles and are replacing the shotgun as the standard long arm carried in squad cars.
      MRAPS actually make sense in civil disturbances because one of the common pastimes of rioters is to burn regular police cars.

      http://confrontation.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/inside-habs-riot-cp-4710814.jpg

      As for the perceived trigger happiness of police, every officer is responsible for their actions and every use of force should and likely is investigated.

      Delete
    7. I have no reason to doubt that fewer households have guns, but the fact is there are more guns than ever before, so that tells us gun loons have multiple weapons in their homes.

      Delete
    8. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Fewer households with guns is the trend, but that doesn't mean the police might not be reacting to the 300 million guns that are out there, especially since loose gun control laws ensure that gun flow from the lawful owners to criminals goes on unabated.

      Delete
    9. Another reason why gun sale transactions and background checks should include personal transactions. Nothing in the 2nd amendment would prevent that, it's not an infringement on anyone's right.

      Delete
    10. Most of the guns responsible for the 30,000 gun shot deaths a year are legally owned.

      Delete
    11. Wrong, but they all started out that way.

      Delete
    12. With guys like you SS supporting rouge groups named after murderers replacing cops maybe the cops need that military equipment.
      It is a fact that more guns are being sold, but fewer households have guns, so you tell me where are those guns going?

      Delete