Tweet
WHY CITIZENS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BEAR ARMS
>From the desk of Sean Gabb on Wed, 2006-06-07 22:57
Brussels Journal, Belgium
June 8 2006
The current debate on armed crime is depressingly predictable.
Everyone agrees something must be done. Just about everyone agrees this
something must include laws against the sale or carrying or simple
possession of weapons. More controls on weapons, the argument goes,
the fewer weapons on the street: therefore lower levels of armed crime.
Now, this whole line of thinking is nonsense. Many European nations
have strict controls on the carrying of weapons. They also have high
levels of armed crime. Indeed, we are reaching the point where we
shall need to show proof of identity before buying knives and forks.
If we want to do something about armed crime that has any chance of
working, we need to rethink our entire approach. I would suggest that,
instead of trying to remove weapons from society, the authorities
should allow us to keep weapons for defence and to use them for
defence.
I am not talking about the right to carry baseball bats or pepper
sprays, or even various kinds of knife. These have their uses for
defence - but not against a determined criminal who may be younger and
faster and more experienced in close fighting. I am talking about the
right to arm ourselves with guns - and to use these where necessary
to protect our lives and property.
This is not a new approach. It is, rather, a return to the old policy
of countries such as Britain. Until the end of the 19th century,
anyone in Britain could walk into a gun shop and, without showing
any licence or any form of identification, buy as many guns and as
much ammunition as he wanted, and could carry loaded guns in public,
and could use these for selfdefence. The law not only allowed this, but
even expected it. We were encouraged to take primary responsibility for
our own protection. The function of the police was simply to assist.
We should go back to this old approach. We should go back because it
is a question of fundamental human rights. The right to keep and bear
arms for defence is as fundamental as the rights to freedom of speech
and association. Anyone who is denied this right - to keep and bear
arms - is to some extent enslaved. That person has lost control over
his life. He is dependent on the State for protection.
The default reaction to this argument is to cry out in horror and ask
if I want a society where every criminal has a gun, and where every
domestic argument ends in a gun battle? The short answer is no. The
longer answer is to say that more guns do not inevitably mean more
killings. There is no evidence that they do. What passes for evidence
is little more than an excuse for not trusting ordinary people with
control over their own lives.
Take armed crime, both professional and domestic. Britain had no
gun controls before 1920, and very low rates of armed crime. Today,
Switzerland has few controls, and little armed crime. Those parts of
the US where guns are most common are generally the least dangerous.
There is no necessary correlation between guns and armed crime.
Focusing on professional crime, gun control is plainly a waste of
effort. Criminals will always get hold of guns if they want them. At
most, it needs a knowledge of the right pubs to visit. Plainly, the
maniacs who carried out the recent drive-by shooting in Manchester do
not seem to have read the Firearms Acts 1920-97. They do not seem to
have noticed that most guns are forbidden, and that the few that are
allowed must be licensed. All control really does is to disarm the
honest public, and let the armed criminals roam through them like a
fox through chickens.
Indeed, free ownership of guns may often reduce armed crime. The
current round of official gungrabbing began after the Hungerford
massacre back in August 1987. But the wrong lesson was learned then.
Just consider what might have happened had someone else beside
Michael Ryan been carrying a gun in Hungerford High Street. He might
have been cut down before firing more than a few shots. As it is,
he killed nearly 20 people before armed police could be brought in
to stop the shootings.
Think of the burglaries, rapes and other crimes that might never
happen if the victims were armed, and therefore able to deal with
their aggressors on equal terms. Anyone can learn to fire a gun. And
nothing beats a bullet. As the old saying goes: "God made men equal,
and Smith and Wesson make damn sure it stays that way."
But let us move away from armed burglars and rapists and the occasional
lone psychopath. We need guns to protect us from the State. So far
from protecting us, the State is the main aggressor. A low estimate
puts the number of civilians murdered by states this century at 56
million - and millions of these were children. In all cases, genocide
was preceded by gun control. How far would the Holocaust have got if
the Jews in Nazi Germany had been able to shoot back? How about the
Armenians? The Kulaks? The Chinese bourgeoisie?
The Bosnians? In all previous societies, guns and freedom have gone
together. I doubt if our own is any different.
I conclude with our own society. Our authorities have so far done
nothing to disarm violent criminals. There is nothing they can do in
the future to disarm them. This being so, can you seriously agree with
the argument that you should be disarmed, and therefore powerless to
defend yourself and your loved ones against the armed street trash
who are beginning to turn this country upside down?
Laugh at me. Call me mad. Call me evil. But just remember me when you
or your loved ones are being raped, or mugged, or dragged off never
to be seen again.
Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. It exists
to put the radical case for freedom in social, economic and political
matters. Its web address is www.libertarian.co.uk. This article was
first published on 7 June 2006 in The Birmingham Post.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1103
>From the desk of Sean Gabb on Wed, 2006-06-07 22:57
Brussels Journal, Belgium
June 8 2006
The current debate on armed crime is depressingly predictable.
Everyone agrees something must be done. Just about everyone agrees this
something must include laws against the sale or carrying or simple
possession of weapons. More controls on weapons, the argument goes,
the fewer weapons on the street: therefore lower levels of armed crime.
Now, this whole line of thinking is nonsense. Many European nations
have strict controls on the carrying of weapons. They also have high
levels of armed crime. Indeed, we are reaching the point where we
shall need to show proof of identity before buying knives and forks.
If we want to do something about armed crime that has any chance of
working, we need to rethink our entire approach. I would suggest that,
instead of trying to remove weapons from society, the authorities
should allow us to keep weapons for defence and to use them for
defence.
I am not talking about the right to carry baseball bats or pepper
sprays, or even various kinds of knife. These have their uses for
defence - but not against a determined criminal who may be younger and
faster and more experienced in close fighting. I am talking about the
right to arm ourselves with guns - and to use these where necessary
to protect our lives and property.
This is not a new approach. It is, rather, a return to the old policy
of countries such as Britain. Until the end of the 19th century,
anyone in Britain could walk into a gun shop and, without showing
any licence or any form of identification, buy as many guns and as
much ammunition as he wanted, and could carry loaded guns in public,
and could use these for selfdefence. The law not only allowed this, but
even expected it. We were encouraged to take primary responsibility for
our own protection. The function of the police was simply to assist.
We should go back to this old approach. We should go back because it
is a question of fundamental human rights. The right to keep and bear
arms for defence is as fundamental as the rights to freedom of speech
and association. Anyone who is denied this right - to keep and bear
arms - is to some extent enslaved. That person has lost control over
his life. He is dependent on the State for protection.
The default reaction to this argument is to cry out in horror and ask
if I want a society where every criminal has a gun, and where every
domestic argument ends in a gun battle? The short answer is no. The
longer answer is to say that more guns do not inevitably mean more
killings. There is no evidence that they do. What passes for evidence
is little more than an excuse for not trusting ordinary people with
control over their own lives.
Take armed crime, both professional and domestic. Britain had no
gun controls before 1920, and very low rates of armed crime. Today,
Switzerland has few controls, and little armed crime. Those parts of
the US where guns are most common are generally the least dangerous.
There is no necessary correlation between guns and armed crime.
Focusing on professional crime, gun control is plainly a waste of
effort. Criminals will always get hold of guns if they want them. At
most, it needs a knowledge of the right pubs to visit. Plainly, the
maniacs who carried out the recent drive-by shooting in Manchester do
not seem to have read the Firearms Acts 1920-97. They do not seem to
have noticed that most guns are forbidden, and that the few that are
allowed must be licensed. All control really does is to disarm the
honest public, and let the armed criminals roam through them like a
fox through chickens.
Indeed, free ownership of guns may often reduce armed crime. The
current round of official gungrabbing began after the Hungerford
massacre back in August 1987. But the wrong lesson was learned then.
Just consider what might have happened had someone else beside
Michael Ryan been carrying a gun in Hungerford High Street. He might
have been cut down before firing more than a few shots. As it is,
he killed nearly 20 people before armed police could be brought in
to stop the shootings.
Think of the burglaries, rapes and other crimes that might never
happen if the victims were armed, and therefore able to deal with
their aggressors on equal terms. Anyone can learn to fire a gun. And
nothing beats a bullet. As the old saying goes: "God made men equal,
and Smith and Wesson make damn sure it stays that way."
But let us move away from armed burglars and rapists and the occasional
lone psychopath. We need guns to protect us from the State. So far
from protecting us, the State is the main aggressor. A low estimate
puts the number of civilians murdered by states this century at 56
million - and millions of these were children. In all cases, genocide
was preceded by gun control. How far would the Holocaust have got if
the Jews in Nazi Germany had been able to shoot back? How about the
Armenians? The Kulaks? The Chinese bourgeoisie?
The Bosnians? In all previous societies, guns and freedom have gone
together. I doubt if our own is any different.
I conclude with our own society. Our authorities have so far done
nothing to disarm violent criminals. There is nothing they can do in
the future to disarm them. This being so, can you seriously agree with
the argument that you should be disarmed, and therefore powerless to
defend yourself and your loved ones against the armed street trash
who are beginning to turn this country upside down?
Laugh at me. Call me mad. Call me evil. But just remember me when you
or your loved ones are being raped, or mugged, or dragged off never
to be seen again.
Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. It exists
to put the radical case for freedom in social, economic and political
matters. Its web address is www.libertarian.co.uk. This article was
first published on 7 June 2006 in The Birmingham Post.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1103