One more entry on gun control, then I'm going to lay the issue to rest as unresolvable within my current set of experiences and resultant psychology (american, crazy, illogical, antisocial).
I'm not sure that I'm willing to kill people to defend my freedom, whatever that might mean. All in all, it seems that pro-gun arguments stem from ideology while anti-gun arguments stem from practicalities (the government is going to turn fascist at any given moment vs people are going to get killed with guns if they're everywhere). Admittedly, both predict the future.
The central issue seems to be freedom: if you hold that above all else, then yeah, everyone should be free to own a gun and defend a free society. Ie, the second the government instigates a libel law, start shooting cops as part of your 'defense of a free society.' on the other hand, pro-gun control people seem to hold human life in higher regard than freedom. I remember a quote from 'full metal jacket' regarding the north vietamese:
i guess they'd rather be alive than free...poor dumb bastards.
Maybe being alive and free are synonymous, ie, a fascist dictatorship like saddam's regularly executed people for trying to exercise free speech.
Are we really a bunch of jeffersonian freedom-fundamentalists? I think some of us are, but not all. I'm not sure if f.f. Is a good thing or a bad thing; I guess in theory it keeps a government from becoming too evil, since it's afraid of the people, or at least knows that if people refuse and resist on a massive scale, then there's really no point to coercion. If people would rather die than be free, any fascist regime is doomed from the beginning.
I just can't get over the fact that, say, the government of the netherlands heavily restricts guns, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Everyhwere but the usa, gun-control is a non-issue; people say 'why of course we need to restrict guns...duh.' if someone like hitler, stalin or mao got elected to office and somehow managed to take over the whole government, then that'd be a problem, and the dutch would suddenly find a need for the guns they'd been avoiding for so long. But how might this happen?
George bush would probably like to make this happen (become an absolute ruler), and is expanding as many presidential powers as he can. However, he can't disband the supreme court, congress, or most importantly, the military. A few generals, if they so desired, would make white house power nonexistent in a flash of an instant. There are a lot of generals, and chances are that not all of them are insane. Bush might be mad and power-hungry, but he doesn't hold absolute power, nor is he likely to get it. I'm not even sure if bush is pro or anti gun.
A smart thing to do would be to look at nazi germany, and the ways that those power structures came into being. It's a commonly cited fact by pro-gun people that hitler disarmed the citizenry under the guise of 'protection.' what's also interesting is that hitler was supported by a large margin by the german people. Was this just because he was charismatic? Maybe.
What makes a society so willing to sign over its freedom? Again, we have that word. Life certainly wasn't bad for german citizens in the early days of hitler's regime -- nazi germany was wealthy, cultured and powerful. Appealing to nationalism and desires for safety, which is what hitler did (and what bush is doing, incidentally), tends to work well in getting the people behind a leader, and expanding state power without a struggle (whether the citizenry has guns or not).
And why shouldn't the citizenry go along with this? Sometimes, the state even delivers what it promised (as it did in nazi germany). It's easy to look back and say 'that was a mistake', but at the time voting for hitler seemed like and proved to be a pretty good idea. Guns in everyone's hand are irrelvant if everyone is behind you (of course, hitler took no chances with this).
The most convincing argument I've heard from pro-gun people is that one had better stock up on weapons because the government could turn into nazi germany at any given moment, and by the time one realizes that it has, it'll be too late to get guns.
But most people would much rather be alive than 'free', and have no interest in fighting or killing anyone, regardless of ideologies.
Some would call this a 'sheep' syndrome, one that's perpetuated by the 'bread and circuses' provided and eagerly consumed by the american public (mcdonalds, blockbuster movies, etc). But I'm not convinced that's inherently a bad thing; if everyone rebelled, then problems would quickly ensue. And why not value human life over 'freedom'? Is that such a crime? How are you defining freedom, anyway?
Bottom lines: 1) guns = violence and death, regardless of whether this is in the course of 'accidents in the home' or killing FBI agents from a fortified building in waco. 2) no guns = danger of hitler reborn. But, it's possible, even likely, that hitler would have been able to manipulate the german people into believing that he was on their side if germany hadn't been as ravaged by war as it was; nazi germany may have been a fairly unique situation, and one that's not likely to happen again.
All governments are inherently fascist, in that they use some form of coercive control over their citizens. What's the freest society? Is it the usa? Most people in it would say yes; most outside it would say no. If we had anarchy, then everyone would need guns. But, as I've stated before, I'm convinced that anarchy is an impossibility. One can't enforce it, people are naturally either leaders or obeisant, and under anarchy some group will inevitably start seizing power and be more successful at it than everyone else. If that successful group is disbanded in the name of 'preserving anarchy' (ie, enforcing anarchy), then who's going to do the disbanding? A coalition? Then the leaders of that coalition are going to nil the concept of anarchy. Anarchy might be a logical impossibility.
Perhaps if america weren't so violent then people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves. Is it the responsibility of government to provide a peaceful example to the citizenry, or is it the responsibility of the citizenry to provide a peaceful example to the government? Is your own freedom, or your own life, worth preserving at the cost of other lives?
Ok, I'm done. Finis. The end. I'm not qualified to argue what's best for society anyway, since I have almost no real-world experience, not to mention the fact that I hate society and the people in it 90% of the time. Do you want to know what I'm in favor of? A dictatorship with me as dictator.
I'm going to be going around with this issue until I officially declare my position to be 'i don't know.'
Again, one of the strongest arguments against guns is that canada doesn't have a gun problem, an abundance of guns, or a violent culture. Nor does france, the netherlands, etc -- they aren't interested in defending themselves against a potentially fascist government taking power. I guess they see it as unlikely.
This might be all steeped in history: the united states did rebel against a fascist governement, while europe has been torn up by war for centuries. National psychology, if you will.
Even if a fascist government did take over, who cares? You're still going to get food and shelter (probably, unless it's stalin or mao taking over). I'm truly going to drive myself crazy if I go on much longer; it's like an addiction, though.
Ok, I think this is where I stand on the issue:
ANTI-GUN------------X--|---------------PRO-GUN
Just a tiny bit left of center; I read something recently that I liked: someone called himself a 'radical moderate', and further asserted that this was the only way to be a moderate in this political climate. Ok, everyone leave me alone. I still like guns, though -- I always have. Once, when I was very small, my mother, aunt and I were making bread bunnies for easter. Instead of a bread-bunny, I made a bread-gun. Later, I had an illustrated encyclopedia of firearms, which I eagerly read and drew from.
Clearly there were (are?) some issues going on: namely, power. I believe violent people are violent because of a perceived lack of power; I know I feel this way, and that's why I occasionally foam at the mouth and fantasize about eating people. Similarly, I can't help but think that those who are pro-gun are motivated not from altruistic desire, but merely from the desire for power.
Of course, this might be a truism: of course they want power; they want to keep the government (and those who are armed in defiance of any laws) from taking it away. POWER TO THE PEOPLE (it's interesting that the types who say things like this are unwilling to arm themselves). However, I'm convinced that this need for power isn't a politcla issue, but rather a personal one. The would-be gun owner may have had his head flushed in the toilet in high school, or might have been beaten by his or her parents. Individual psychology is too often ignored when accounting for individual poltics.
political power grows out of the barrel of a gun - mao
Maybe mao's famous assertion has changed, and political power largely now grows out of the ability to disseminate information.
Of course a government would be less likely to go evil if the people were all armed; that's a no-brainer. Of course example shows us that countries can get along just fine without guns, aren't likely to go fascist without unique circumstances such as those in pre-war germany, and in those cases an armed populace would go along for the ride just like any other sheep; a sheep with a gun is still a sheep. That's a no-brainer. What is life without liberty? What is liberty without life?
My psychic powers tell me that 1) a nazi, stalinist, cuban communist, or whatever regime isn't likely to come along and take away our 'freedom'. Even if it does, everyone will go along with it because public indoctrination will have been (as has been historically demonstrated) a prerequisite to takeover. For a fascist regime to come into power, it is necessary for people to support it. Guns or no guns, if there is popular resistance, a government has little power. Perhaps counterintuitively, firearm ownership has almost nothing to do with the power relationship between a government and its citizenry.
Even if I'm totally wrong (mine are intuitive statements), and a citizenry did't collarborate with the new regime, killing isn't worth defending one's own life (killing in self-defense isn't justified), let alone in the name of something as stupid as 'a free society.'
My psychic powers also tell me that 2) guns hurt people and kill people; the number of gun deaths is a clear function of the number of guns in a society. Perhaps the best is to take a middle path: some gun control -- don't totally ban them, but don't totally free them up either. It seems like in the usa they need to be restricted a bit more.
I still like guns, and wouldn't mind having one, so that I can feel more powerful; I have that common and dangerous mix of feeling power-hungery, angry and slighted, that pre-disposes people to firearm ownership. However if I were an altruistic person (which I'm generally not), I would say that the united states government needs to further restrict gun ownership. But, as far as I'm concerned, I want to be able to walk into k-mart and buy a 10-gauge.
Debating whether socialism or the free market will produce a better society is a paper tiger. Both socialism and the free market aim to produce a 'free society', and rely on some extremist view of human nature to bring their methodology about. You'll find libertarians and even anarchists clinging to both ends of economics -- market and publicly owned.
The ultimate end of all of these ideological systems is popular rule ('we the people of the united states of america', 'people's republic of china', etc) -- ie, the eventually irrelevance of leadership.
I don't think this is realistic. Alow me to examine both ideological socialism and ideological capitalism.
The only chance socialism has of working is on small scales. If it's implemented on a national or global scale, then there are going to be a few people like gw bush and donald trump who will, if this is a free form of socialism (if that's indeed possible), start grabbing more of their share of the pie. What's going to stop them?
I suppose the government in this socialist society would. But at that point, we'd have a statist dictatorship crushing dissent, like the soviets -- no longer libertarian socialist, libertarian communist, social democratic, etc. All of these are permutations of socialism that people theorize about, trying in some way to assert that freedom and socialism aren't antithetical.
I'm inclined to think that they are, but for different reasons than the usual detractors of socialism.
Experience is revealing -- humans have organized themselves throughout their history in a hierarchy. Tribes have chiefs, and nations have presidents. Some more readily and happily lead, while others more readily and happily follow. If a free socialism is imposed, it won't take long before some of the 'born leaders' use (or exploit, if you will) this freedom and increase their power in relation to the rest of humanity, which is sitting around timidly, watching tv or playing checkers. This is why I don't take anarchists too seriously: how do you enforce anarchy? There's always going to be some 'type A' freak who takes over everything, and is able to do so due to lack of laws or restrictions.
The problem with anarchy is essentially the same under free socialism (as opposed to command economy, oligarchical or dictatorial socialism, which many thinkers would argue isn't socialism at all). Under free socialism, there are inevitably going to be people within the collective who want power. I just don't understand how these people are to be systematically stripped of their power while the system is still called 'free socialism.'
Capitalism has a similar problem: if it is imposed on some group -- let's say a nation-state -- then it isn't going to work for everyone. While there will be some with enough desire for power to seize it, there are going to be others who are complacent, docile, uninterested in wealth, and/or lazy. These people are going to lose out under capitalism, as what power and wealth they have is taken by those whose natural inclinations are to function well in a competitive environment. Also, it's worth mentioning that the power-seekers need the complacent to function -- donald trump needs the unambitious from whom he can siphon wealth and labor.
Essentially, capitalism creates a large group of losers, while socialism creates a small group of winners.
There are organizations like communes, artist colonies, and even certain parts of the united states where socialism is able to flourish (because these enclaves attract those of a socialistic bent), while there exist corporations where capitalism flourishes because those enclaves attract those of a capitalist bent.
A problem occurs when the capitalists in one institution start to look greedily at the resources possessed by a socialist institution. Then, if the patchwork of political enclaves is to be preserved, a governing body needs to step in and protect the weak from the strong. But, it's a slippery slope from here to coercive state control. But maybe the resource consumption of the socialist enclaves will be nil (people really don't need much to live and be happy). However, they will be sitting on real property, which is of interest to capitalists. But maybe the socialists will lease their real property from the capitalists. I don't know.
Humanity is full of people who fall along a continuum in their desire for power. Those with little desire are going to be lorded over by those with a greater desire. This is how it's always been; humanity has always organized itself as a small group of people with a disproportionate amount of power and wealth than the rest of the people, who are told what to do by the powerful.
Ideological solutions by misguided 'marxists' have proven to be dismal failures. Marx wasn't an advocate of revolution or command economy -- he only stated that capitalism was fated to move in certain directions. On the other hand we have people like ayn rand and ESR who are 'market fundamentalists', who advocate application of theories of pure capitalism.
I'm not totally cynical about government, leadership, and hierarchy. Even though I tend to be hostile to authority figures, I can recognize that they aren't always acting against the interests of the people. There is such a thing as a dedicated public servant, or even a benevolent dictator. I'm not sure that absolute power corrupts absolutely, or at least not in ever case.
I don't go around crushing insects just because I can. In fact, when I see one flying around I'm likely to let it outside. Perhaps there are some who are motivated to power because their aim is to care for those who need to be cared for. But perhaps this is naive.
If we strike down benevolent government as a possibility, then we're truly screwed as a species, and there's really no solution to the problems of war, hunger, and coercive control in human civilization. Ideologies that try to generate some form of anarcho-communism, like market fundamentalism and social democracy, have never been tested because they're impossible to test -- there will always be sheep, and the sheep will always have shepherds.
I think the best we can hope for is that our shepherds don't lead us into quicksand. History gives us a mixed answer here: sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.
This morning, my left armpit smells like chlorine and bleach, while the right one smells like garlic.
I present for your digest more commentary blogging, in reference to this article. I picked 'the guardian' as my source in order to curb accusations of being neoconservative and/or a gun nut, since I delve into those issues a bit, getting marginally off-topic or at least philosophical.
Here's my summary of events: a california man is facing life in prison due to a 'three strikes, you're out' law aimed at convicted felons who own guns. Charley charles (this was his choice for a name-change) was convicted in 1983 of setting fire to a hotel room along with his sedated six year-old son; the boy was severely disfigured. Charles later felt that his life was in danger due to mob reprisal, and that he needed his gun for self-defense. He also claims that guns have been fired at him in retaliation for his crime.
First of all, I find charles to be credible in his claim and reasonable in his action. It's likely that people were trying to hurt or kill him, and that he needed a gun for self-defense, if he is to be allowed the privilege of self-preservation after his gruesome 1983 act. The justice system apparently thought he was -- he was sentenced to 13 years for burning his son almost to death, and served only six due to good behavior. However there is a bloodlust that is awakened in society when children are threatened, hurt or killed, and that isn't present in the cold logic of judicial practice. It was this bloodthirsty mob that charles needed to worry about.
In prison, those incarcerated for causing injury to children are often killed or hurt by other inmates as a form of prison vigilantism. Similar behavior takes place out of prison when someone is suspected of harming a child -- societies find a way of protecting their children, and meting out 'justice' beyond the rule of law.
A jury didn't see it that way. Here is one juror's comment:
some of us understood why he would want to arm himself, but we felt there were other alternatives. Charles could have added locks to his door or bought himself a baseball bat or knife for protection rather than buying a gun.
A baseball bat or a knife? There's an unattributable (i think) quote that addresses this juror's weird logic:
never bring a knife to a gunfight.
I'm sure jury reprisal for charles's attempted murder of his son played a part in the conviction as well. Juries are made up of humans, who will bend the rule of law to deeper, more primal convictions than are admitted into a lawbook: in this case, 'thou shalt not ever harm a child, even more so than anybody else.'
Second of all, california's 'three strikes, you're out' rule regarding previously convicted felons who own guns is unfair, and analogous to similar anti-drug legislation that is eagerly decried by the same people who tend to be in favor of tight gun-control. Mind you, if a felon were to own a gun and use it, in self-defense or otherwise, s/he would face harsh penalties, sought by prosecution to the extent of the law. But somehow, this isn't enough -- a felon who owns a gun, perhaps just sitting there in his dresser drawer, is considered by california to be a heinous criminal who deserves life imprisonment.
Never mind that a rock-solid argument for self-defense was plain and clear in the case of charles's possession; the california rule still stands.
I'm actually on the fence about the issue of gun control, but I don't think life in prison is justified as a deterrent for convicted felons who endeavor to own firearms in defiance of the law. What keeps me on the fence is the fact that there aren't many guns in the UK, finland, france, canada, etc, and those societies seems to function pretty well, especially in being a lot less prone to (duh) gun violence.
But america is steeped in a violent frontier culture -- whoever doesn't have a gun here faces violent, armed criminals, violent, armed police and a violent, armed president. Perhaps if the government set an example of nonviolence, both domestically and abroad, then citizens would be likely to follow, and guns would be seen as unnecessary. There aren't a lot of 'gun nuts' in france, lining up at 'pierre's guns 'n' ammo' demanding semiautomatic rifles, nor are there a lot of frenchmen pushing for looser gun restrictions.
Convincing arguments can be made in favor of or against gun control.
On the one hand, it is essential to the health of any free state that the people have the capacity to protect themselves and/or overthrow the government at any time.
On the other hand, if regulations were dropped, this would result in more gun-related casualties, ideologies notwithstanding.
The 'would' in the anti-gun argument is telling -- many of the relevant arguments on either side involve predicting the future. For instance, it's claimed that if united states gun regulations were completely lifted, there would be increased gun violence, which would not be worth ideological pursuits that might not bear any fruit -- an unwise gamble, in other words. Even if a 'freer' society MIGHT eventually result, the violence that WOULD (temporarily?) result would not be worth it. If regulations were dropped, there would be a period of growing pains that would see increased gun-casualties and violence until the culture adjusted.
Anti-gun activists would like to exercise their right NOT to own a gun, and feel that the presence of gun owners in their society infringes on this right.
Similar divining is performed by pro-gun pundits who say that if everyone had a gun, gun violence would decrease, because the more-open gun culture would help to prevent accidents in the home, and no one would dare commit any crimes because the whole country would be armed. This sounds a little bit to me like an unpleasant place to live, where everyone had guns, but perhaps it would be ok with the 'more-open gun culture'.
However, people do lose their tempers and freak out, and if someone in a temper flash happened to have an ak-47 handy, maybe that wouldn't be such a good thing. But, the argument is made that 1) education and gun culture would help to prevent this (for instance, people don't get in their cars and run down kids getting off the schoolbus when they get angry), and 2) spree killings, hot burglary, and other murderous gun-crime would be cut extremely short if everyone were armed. Apparently, this is statistically backed.
Imagine if cars were illegal or tightly regulated. Car-control legislation would be aimed to protect people from all of the accidents and associated casualties, not to mention the environmental hazards. 'car-nuts,' on the other hand, would cite the economic advantages of an automobile-driving society. As it is, we comfortably ignore the myriad of casualties associated with auto-driving simply because it's so firmly entrenched in our culture.
It's not difficult to imagine guns achieving the same status.
Here's another unattributable (i think) quote:
god created man. Sam colt made them equal.
Samuel colt (1814-1862) is, of course, the inventor of the revolver. I'm unconvinced that we don't need our guns, here in america, but the possibility that we do need them is an awful shame.
Getting back to the discussion, sentencing charley charles to life in prison for owning a gun is draconian and wrong, regardless of his past actions.
It's worth pointing out that the 'three strikes' rule would apply not only to a convicted child-burner, but to a janitor who robbed a 7-11 to feed his family, and then bought a gun because he lives in a tenement among violent, murdering drug dealers and addicts. If this gun were discovered three times, our fictional character would be sent to prison for life. Or, if you prefer, imagine an upper middle-class kid who is convicted of manslaughter for running down a woman while driving drunk. He collects and shoots firearms as a hobby, and is jailed for life.
Admittedly, this is why we have judges presiding as opposed to turing machines -- to allow for some leeway within the rules. However, laws are the rules of society, and a 'three strikes, you're out' rule is unsound, whether it applies to gun possession in california, or drug possession in texas. Even though prosecutable action is often not as clear-cut a thing as 'breaking the law' or 'abiding by the law,' felons gun-owners being sentenced to life in prison is a bad rule, and a bad law; in fact, it's an unjust law.