Weapons of Choice?

Steve,
You captured the essence of my question when you said, in post #18:

I'm left without a consistent principle.

I could answer, "Yes, it is scaled down. But isn't it reasonable to draw a line of scale somewhere?..."

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, there have already been calls for outlawing large ammunition clips for semi-automatic handguns. And it seems to come down to: where do you draw the line? And, without a "consistent principle" I don't know how to answer that.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 21

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 11:14am

Steve and Glenn,

Suppose the police are alerted to someone who is making a bomb. The person hasn't set it off yet, so he hasn't actually "initiated force," has he? Isn't he allowed to "possess" a bomb, so long as he doesn't detonate it? Would the police be justified in arresting him? How would you answer this question? Your answer to it may give you a clue as to the principle that you're looking for.

My answer would be that we can presume that he is making a bomb "for the purpose" of detonating it. And the detonation is clearly not for reasons of self-defense, as the possession of a handgun would be. So, the police would have a right to arrest him, because his actions indicate an intention to use the bomb in a manner that would violate people's rights.

What about automatic weapons? Could they be used for self-defense? During the LA riots, Korean store owners stood atop the buildings that the rioters were attempting to torch and defended their property with assault rifles. Here is one blogger's defense of their actions:

Many of the guns which current "assault weapons" bans are targeting -- including the federal ban enacted in 1994 -- are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. (34) Those firearms proved to be extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other stores around them were burned to the ground.

The Korean merchants would agree that when one is facing mob violence and the police are nowhere to be found, one needs a gun that shoots more than just six bullets. A ban on large capacity semi-automatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family.

While most Americans are able to spend little time thinking of what the police can do to protect them during times of domestic tranquillity, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Citizens, like the police, have a right, and some would say a duty, to be able to prepare themselves against certain threats.

But a bomb, a nuclear weapon or a stinger missile does not fall within that category.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/17, 11:15am)

Post 22

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 11:54am

I've shot several weapons, and given a choice, I'd much rather use an MP5 for self defense than say a Beretta. Assault rifles are easier for amateurs to shoot than a pistol. If I'm buying a gun for self-defense and don't have the time to try to be an expert marksman with a pistol then I think I have the right to choose the weapon I'm more able to handle for accurate shooting. But if my choices are between a high capacity magazine for my pistol and a low capacity one, why would I want an intruder breaking into my home that doesn't have to follow that rule have more ammunition than me, especially since I'm bad with a pistol and most likely would miss several times before getting in a hit?

Post 23

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 1:05pm

I would want the opportunity to try and hit a moving intruder inside my house with shoulder-launched stinger missles.

Of course, I'm kidding. There is no use for such a thing inside of one's home, where an assault shot-gun is better deployed. In that case, if you miss the criminal, you only "take out" your family China set -- not your entire family room (en toto)! It'd be best to kill the rights violator with minimal collateral damage. That said, what if the rights violator was using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV attack drones) against you. Steve mentioned it might be hard for a government to convince its military to side with it against its own citizens.

A rogue government, worried about having trouble convincing its own army to attack its own citizens could -- with the push of a button -- send unquestioning-and-100%-loyal attack drones to a neighborhood near you. In such scenarios -- which are now more likely than human-enforced marshall law (because of the loyalty issue) -- the proper defense is the shoulder-launched, heat-seeking stinger missle.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/17, 1:07pm)

Post 24

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 1:09pm

Bill,
I suppose the Korean store owners could have used 50 calibre machine guns to protect themselves against rioters with automatic weapons. But then the rioters could have had them too. In fact, since the "bad guys" aren't necessarily restricted to what they're legally allowed, they could have an RPG, or some grenades. How about a tank? I live on a hill at the end of a street. I could set up a Howitzer next to the house, in case someone who has the right to own a tank tries to attack me.

I don't see the principle you're invoking to set the line between what we should and shouldn't be allowed to own. It seems like the arms race argument can always move the line.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 25

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 1:16pm

50 caliber guns are legal to own in most states :)

Post 26

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 1:23pm

Glenn a while back I tried to make a distinction here between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons and asked what would you need for self-defense even in the case if someone had say a grenade launcher. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Post 27

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 1:27pm

Glenn,

I could set up a Howitzer next to the house, in case someone who has the right to own a tank tries to attack me.

With all due respect, Howitzers are immoral. And when I say moral, I mean practical. If there is a fly on my head, I would want you to swat it with a fly-swatter rather than a sledge-hammer. And here's the thing:

It's not just a subjective, preference issue -- there is objective rationale for choosing one over the other on this so-called "sliding-scale."

Fly-swatters are meant to kill flys, leaving humans intact in the process. A Howitzer is like a WMD, meant to cause death on a grand scale. It is like a fly-swatter that is as hard and as heavy as a sledge-hammer.

Ed

Post 28

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 2:01pm

At this point, I'd like to introduce something called "the Principle of Least Destruction."

Some folks claim that you can't rationally defend any given level of arms inside of an arms race -- citing the fact that opponents can keep doubling and redoubling their firepower. This way of looking at it lets the (opponent's) firepower dictate the level of firepower (that you amass). It is based on psychology (on feeling threatened), rather than on the actual threat. Another way to look at the issue is to let the target dictate the firepower.

Let's say there was a game that, if played with minimal investment, led to a net loss and -- if played with maximal investment -- also led to a net loss. This game might even resemble the free market. Forget the game, let's play the market. Let's say that you enter the mouse-trap making market. Now, you could invest a little, but you probably won't go far. Alternatively, you could invest everything you have got into building mouse-traps too sophisticated for the problem and lose everything (due to the high cost of your inappropriately-extravagant mouse-traps).

But if you invest just the right amount, you'll win market share. You will have made a better mouse-trap without wildly increased costs.

In determining the optimal level of investment, you have to ask yourself: "What am I trying to do with a mouse-trap?" "What do people use them for?" "Would a strategically-placed Howitzer kill a mouse more efficiently?" What you arrive at is at a principle of least cost. You, if you are good, you find out how to do the same job at the least cost. Now, there is a best way to do it. This is because mice have a nature.

If mice were changlings -- if they altered their nature in response to experience with a mouse-trap (such as retracted their tails into their bodies in response to a single experience with one getting caught in a mouse-trap) -- then you wouldn't have a principle on which to build better mouse-traps. Instead, you would be stuck inside a perpetual (arms-race) dynamic with the mice. But mice can't change their nature, so there is one best way to deal with them. One best kind of mouse-trap.

Now, I'm not saying that humans are like mice, but the principle is the same. Once you know what you are trying to protect against, then you know what level of investment you will need. Things change slowly (with technology), so while you do not know the best level of weaponry to protect a public in the 22nd Century (e.g., Howitzers?) -- you do know the best level of protection in your own lifetime.

The target moves over time, but it moves slowly enough for the public to respond. In 1776, muzzle-loaded muskets were all that the public needed to prevent tyranny. Today, muzzle-loaded muskets would not be good enough. But M-16's with 40mm grenade launchers, coupled with some stinger missles, would be enough. It's not a subjective (personal preference) issue. You may personally feel safer with a Howitzer planted in your front yard, but "personal (subjective) feelings" are not what should dictate the optimal level of weaponry for citizens.

The objective target, complete with its own nature, is what dictates the optimal level of citizen-armament. Just like in a market, where there is an "objective market value" -- even though that market value slowly changes with time. The fact that it changes doesn't make it subjective (personally preferred).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/17, 2:27pm)

Post 29

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 2:25pm

Ed, quite agree with you about drones - and note that is a TWO way street, as we individuals could well make use of them as well...

Post 30

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 2:39pm

Right, Robert.

Stick a live feed onto a commercial, gas-powered, 6'-wingspan, remote-control airplane and you've got a sky-soldier, right there.

Ed

Post 31

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 2:48pm

I'm not sure if this is in similar vein to what Ed said in post 28 but consider what weapon a criminal would want to choose to burglarize a home, and then consider what a homeowner would rather choose to protect himself. In this situation would either think an RPG is an effective weapon here? If I thought an intruder was equipped with an RPG I'd think he must want to blow himself up in the process (plus if you know what an RPG is you know they are a bitch to reload) I'd much rather have an assault rifle.

Post 32

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 1:42am

I agree, John.

Why bring a Howitzer to a knife fight (when just a handgun would do)?

Ed

Post 33

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:03am

You guys are worrying too much about burglars and fascism. If you read the actual crime statistics, you will think differently.

This is a good table of contents.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dctp&tid=9
But feel free to back up to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov and explore from there.

Basically, despite bleeding headlines -- and you can find them easily enough -- burglars are not your problem. You are 85% likely to be victimized - robbed, raped, beaten, cheated - by someone in your life right now: most victims know their attackers. Most attacks occur within families. Pick a weapon that will let you kill your spouse, sibling, or parent, realizing, of course, that many people are killed with their own guns by members of their families and friendship circles.

Good luck.

Post 34

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:21am

You're worried too much about what we're worried about, you don't know to what level of worry we have over a particular risk. I'm also not likely to die in a fire but I have smoke alarms. I'm not likely to face a lawsuit where I face a wiping out of my business assets but I still take out insurance against the risk. The idea is that there are reasonable steps one can take to protect themselves from danger or catastrophe and what those steps are need to reflect a rational assessment of the various risks we face and what is a reasonable measure against them. It's called risk management.

You also assume all families are the same, and all are plagued with violence. That's pretty presumptuous considering you don't know any of us.

Post 35

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:26am

I sanctioned John's last post.

Michael, do you really think there is a strong correlation between the families of Objectivists and the families of those who are the victims of family-based crime? What were you thinking?

Post 36

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:52am

Steve, I know that it is an easy factoid from any police department that 80% of your problems come from 20% of your addresses -- regardless of neighborhood. More recently stricter laws require the police to actually intervene in domestic violence. In the past, there was a dichotomy: among the poor it was accepted as normal and ignored and among the rich it was considered abnormal and covered up. You get a kid in a bad neighborhood walking down the street shooting out the lights with a pellet gun and you get a kid in a rich neighborhood doing the same thing. Who goes to jail? Why?

I assure you that even among Objectivists - as among Episcopaleans or professsional golfers or speakers of Esperanto - the incidences of all crimes are always approxminately the same.

That's a fact.

John, as a business owner - and you own a bar at that, right? - your needs are clearly not the same as Ed's: he supervises nurses, am I right? So, you are likely to be assaulted by a (drunk) patron and he is not likely to be assaulted by a co-worker, given the statistics, above of course, that predict that Ed might get slapped before you get punched (you never know...).

Fires are a real threat -- more often, of course it's arson. Myself, when it comes to fires, I look to the business owner, not a faulty appliance. Fire alarms are for where you are not: the storeroom, the basement. A fire alarm going off in the main dining area is like the last event after everyone runs from the fire. You know that. Moreover, a guard on patrol, I learned to touch the walls as I walk because a catastrophic fire will burn inside long before an alarm goes off. I'm just saying: an angry girlfriend will be a problem long before you wake up with a burglar in your home. Don't give her your gun.

Post 37

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 11:37am

Michael,

I was with Children's Protective Services in Los Angles County for 10 years and your statistics are crap. It's true that there was a fairly even distribution of sexual abuse across socio-economic boundaries but that was not the case with neglect nor with non-sexual physical abuse. These were predominately found in lower socio-economic neighborhoods. And this was evidenced from all of our sources: mandated reporters in health occupations, mandated reporters in school systems, neighbor or other third party reports, birth weights and tox-screens from new borns, investigations resulting from adult caretaker arrests, etc., etc.

I also spent a few years working as a psych interviewer for a workers comp mill that pulled in mostly latinos, with a high portion of illegals because of their marketing strategy and location. I can tell you that the world they live in has a radically different relationship to violence and theft than what the rest of us have seen or even imagine.

Post 38

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 3:32pm

... your needs are clearly not the same as Ed's: he supervises nurses, am I right?

Mike, for hopefully the last time ... I am not a doctor (though I do play one on the internet).

Ed

Post 39

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 3:46pm