Mutually Assured Peace.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

On my recent conspiracy post about the ATF and Gun Control certain commentors decided to focus on the morallity of weapons in general. This is a thorny issue and in my opinion deserving of a post in it's own right especially seeing as I suspect that own take on the issue would be considered aberrant by many on this forum.

In my view any weapon, from the simplest club to a nuclear bomb, is merely a tool and thus deviod of any inherent moral value. Yes, it is a tool designed to kill, but the only things the shotgun in my closet has ever killed are clay pidgeons. Does this make the shotgun somehow defective? Conversly if I were truely hell-bent on spreading destruction and mayhem(I'm not by-the way) I wouldn't use a gun, I'd use gasoline and a book of matches (or perhapse a truck-load of fertilizer). In summary, I believe that the morallity of a tool is determined purely by the actions of the person wielding it.

I also believe Heinlein's old maxim that "an armed society is a polite society". Afterall, the reasoning goes, people will consider thier words/actions more carefully if there is the possibility that they'll have to back it up with thier life. This may be a case of projection as it relies on two rather big assumptions* but recent history seems to support it.

There is no shortage of people whould would like to put the genie of WMDs back in the bottle. Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons can and will destroy they say, but consider this...

...Since thier invention nearly 2,100 nuclear weapons have been detonated. Only two of these bombs were actually used in a war and that has been enough to terrify the nations of the world into avoiding all major (but not minor) conflicts since.

As a soldier in World War I Hitler was so infamously horrified by his experiance of chemical weapons that he forbid their use by Nazi troops. As a result of "mutually assured destruction" there has not been a war between two major nations since the end of WWII. This is the longest period of major-power peace since before the fall of Rome 1500 years ago. The second-longest such period of peace among was the 43 years between the end of the Franco-Prussian War (January 31, 1871) and the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on (July 28, 1914), which signaled the outbreak of WWI. Even with the conflicts in the Middle East, Balkans, and Sub-Saharan Africa military and civilian deaths (per capita) due to war are the lowest they've been in decades and still trending downward.

Proposals to ban WMDs not only threaten to upset this peacekeeping mechanism, but ignore the fact that nukes are seen by more vulnerable nations as the cheapest, and most certain, way to guarantee their survival against threats from more powerful neighbors. Given a choice between guaranteeing their safety with an international treaty, or through mutual fear/respect, which option will most choose?

Bringing this back to gun control, I would assert that small arms are to individuals what nukes are to nation-states. The presence of a gun or other weapons/training coupled with the will to use it changes a 98 lb woman walking alone from "easy prey" to "credible physical threat" in the eyes of a 200 lb would-be rapist. Despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, violent crime in the US has continued to trend downwards despite a increase in the rate of gun-ownership across all 50 states. In fact both Chicago and Washington DC have seen a signifigant reduction in violent crime since the US Supream Court overturned thier respective bans on keeping guns and other weapons for self defense.

As for the "two big assumptions" I mentioned at the begining, they are that the observed correlation is (at least partially) an indication of causation, and that people are mostly rational. (A scary thought, I know) but in either case, fears that the US would revert to old-west stereotypes have consistently proven baseless and as a result I find myself asking people "which is more important? The intent, or the observed outcome?"

I vote for option 2.



With apologies to Jim Dunnigan over at Strategy-Page from whom I stole the title and 6th paragraph.

Note: "Violent Crime" in this case refers to Rape, Murder, Kidnapping, and Assault. The overall crime rate has increased slightly in the last 5 years but this is a result of increased rates of property crimes like theft, vandalism, and drug possesion. FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics.

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

but consider this...

...Since thier invention nearly 2,100 nuclear weapons have been detonated. Only two of these bombs were actually used in a war and that has been enough to terrify the nations of the world into avoiding all major (but not minor) conflicts since.

But for most of their existence, they were controlled by major countries, not dipsticks like Kim Jong and AllanogaysinIranajob.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Note the line about assuming that most people are rational and why that's a scary thought.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's a very good thing the USA never gave Dugout Doug any nukes to play with in 1950. When the Chinese surprise attacked him he really wanted to use them to cover up he'd never learned anything from WWII, and this helped immensely to contribute to his firing. Had the USA been so stupid MacArthur would have touched off WWIII to cover up the inexcusable surprise.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

When precisely did they do that?

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Conversly if I were truely hell-bent on spreading destruction and mayhem(I'm not by-the way) I wouldn't use a gun, I'd use gasoline and a book of matches (or perhapse a truck-load of fertilizer).

And that's why you can't just buy the volumes of fertilizer that would be required for such a device without raising alarms. I also imagine if you were to buy enough gas to make a serious device it probably wouldn't go unnoticed either. Very few people want to outright ban all guns, they just want the same commonsense requirements placed on gun ownership that exist for things like cars. Unfortunately, the NRA is hellbent on making sure that even the most obvious and innocuous regulations fail.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

The NRA doesn't even want military commanders to be able to ask soldiers whether they keep a gun in their homes (commanders want to do this so they can better prevent soldiers from killing themselves with those guns).

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The problem is how do you define "common sense"?

I can think of a few universal registration and licensing schemes that could adress the most often cited concerns and be less restrictive than current schemes. Unfortunatly the most active gun-control proponents (VPC, MAIG) have not been interested in give and take, only take.

As a result one can hardly fault the NRA for not wanting to play ball. They're still smarting over the Clinton compromise of 94.

And that's why you can't just buy the volumes of fertilizer that would be required for such a device without raising alarms. I also imagine if you were to buy enough gas to make a serious device it probably wouldn't go unnoticed either.

20 kilos (equiv to two full gas tanks or enough fertilizer for a good sized garden) isn't all that much and if well placed is more than enough for a decently effective IED.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I also imagine if you were to buy enough gas to make a serious device it probably wouldn't go unnoticed either.

Of course it would. Gas stations still take cash.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I've never had a problem with gun ownership. The correlation between gun ownership and reduction in violent crime is a red herring since when violent crime involves weapons, they're generally illegal.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hitler forbade use of gas in warfare but was enthusiastic about using it to murder Jewish communities by the carload lot. The statement that casualties from wars decline is true, but then there has also been no large-scale conventional war since the 1940s and the last prolonged conventional war was in the 1980s. As a rule fewer people die in wars of insurgents v. soldiers, where in something like the Iran-Iraq War......

On the other hand the largest recent war, the Second Congo War has seen marauding irregulars because most states there can't afford to use real soldiers and the USA, even, is turning to Nu-Mercenaries.

I might also add that the absence of another general war in Europe has as much to do with how long it took the Soviets to match the USA's nuclear arsenal and that when they did their society was beginning the road it would follow to complete collapse. A Soviet Union which managed somehow to get stronger within as it was without might well have started a nuclear war when its nuclear arsenal finally matched the USA's. Fortunately for the USA they never got a matching nuclear arsenal *and* a strong economy.

This post relies on a number of assumptions like these that were really never all that valid.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Another flawed assumption is that nuclear weapons directly led to peace between the Great Powers. In reality the Cold War was a mutual rivalry between two hostile armed camps in expectation of a war that ultimately never came into existence. This was so not from unwillingness on either side to start the war, but because the Soviet Union needed a long time to build up a nuclear arsenal sufficient to make it at least at parity with the United States. If the Infamous Thing had ever come it would have been the Soviets that initiated it as the Warsaw Pact never made any plans to play defense.

And it's also worth noting that after WWII there has yet to be a single year without a war, and there have been several large-scale wars, including the last Great Power war in the 1950s, the various Israeli-Arab and Indo-Pakistani Wars, and of course the two Congo Wars that show how large-scale wars are likely to work in the modern world. Nuclear weapons led to no peace in any of these scenarios, even when both superpowers were directly involved.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with underlankers on one part: I don't really think that nuclear weapons are the reason why the world is, generally, a bit more peaceful (at least between major powers.) Yes, they play a role, but I do not think they play the chief role. Instead, I'll hand that over to--you guessed--free markets and free trade. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2414832/posts")

I will agree with you on guns themselves, however; they are an effective deterrent, and they have no inherent moral value. Also, there's the argument that most liberals forget: if you pass a law banning guns, you will only disarm the law abiding citizens, leaving them vulnerable to criminals...who don't care about your laws anyways. I don't understand how they don't get that.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That sure seemed to work in the former USSR. Except in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Central Asia.....

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That's fair, as I said, I am making a few rather large assumption. The trick of course is to acknowledge as much in the argument.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

“an armed society is a polite society”

I have always taken this memorable aphorism to be grounded mostly in a romantic view of feudal Japan. But history does not in fact bear it out.

I submit that Israel is arguably the best-armed society in the modern world, but (much as I myself have a personal affinity for Israeli culture) few observers would call Israel a notably polite society. Indeed the common observation is much the opposite.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

You are more likely to be murdered by an acquaintance than a stranger, or by family members. We would all be safer if we made an effort not to know so many people.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm very careful about who I associate with for precisely this reason. ;)

Heinlein got the "What" more-or-less right, but...

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

He got the "why" and "how" backwards. The rest of the quote is "Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." The implication there is basically that rude people will get shot. It ain't what I've seen actually happens.

When I'm armed, or interacting with other armed people, the actual dynamic is different from Heinlein's theory. Essentially, I become a pseudo-pacifist. I, the armed man, become more polite, even (or perhaps particularly) to those who are UNarmed.

In order for me to justifiably use my sidearm, I must be the victim of an actual attack, unprovoked, which presents credible threat to me of death or grievous bodily harm. If I incite or provoke the attack, then I am to some extent at fault for the ensuing conflict. Ergo, I can't indulge in road rage, render one-fingered salutes, and the like.

As a concrete example, I've never seen rudeness escalate into conflict at a gun show.

Ah, Heinlein

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Since you brought up his work, consider what he wrote in The Hole In Space. In a defensive, exploratory position, a person is better off without a powerful weapon because people behave differently when armed. Go unarmed or only lightly armed, and one is more likely to behave in ways that do not stir up conflict.

I don't remember the name of the novel with the "Armed society is polite" aphorism, but he did note that the particular society was hyper-polite to the point where many issues were simply not discussed. Also, those who chose to avoid bearing arms were marked with "brigands" (IIRC) on their clothing, and were supposed to be deferential to those who carried. It was considered rude to behave in a challenging manner without guns, since it was illegal to shoot a big mouth when that mouth could not defend itself.

I do agree that we should be allowed to bear arms; but I think more who bear arms should recognize the effects arms have on social interactions both negative and positive. Too many I meet regard their right to pack as sacrosanct to the point that they feel "naked" in situations where guns are inappropriate. They need to ask themselves why they feel that way.

Beautifully put.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

I have one nitpick: major powers have perfected the art of proxy fights as a result.

Re: Beautifully put.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Is that a bad thing?

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

Given that half of my family is completely nuts, I don't see how the right to possess a weapon would be reassuring.

oh god tl;dr

[lions-wings.livejournal.com]

The presence of a gun or other weapons/training coupled with the will to use it changes a 98 lb woman walking alone from "easy prey" to "credible physical threat" in the eyes of a 200 lb would-be rapist.

Well, no, not really/no not at all. If training alone has changed her attitude and behavior to the point where she looks like a difficult target, concealed-carry won't matter. It's concealed. If he's determined enough to attack her anyway, she could have an uzi mounted on her bicycle helmet and he'd still do it. Probably by starting off hurting her.

It only would help in a predicted rape where the man is approaching a woman from a direction where she's aware of him on footing where she's capable of defending herself. I heard the story of a black belt who was still assaulted because her rapist spoke briefly with her, then used his weight and a weapon when she turned her back. There was never a fight because he had the minimal intelligence to wait for an opportunity. A gun would have been even less use to her.

This situation also seems to be a person who is threatened by a man who isn't close enough to stop her before she pulls her gun. Is she going to have the will to shoot fatally if she's looking at the two kids attacking her and can't believe how young they are? What if she shoots him accidentally and witnesses say he was already retreating? What if she thinks she's ready to kill but she just plain freezes up as soon as the situation starts? There are women who were sure they would scream for help and didn't; they were too shocked.

Finally, women who kill are already in a bad position, legally speaking. Women who kill their abusers in self-defense are damn likely to go to jail, especially when they've already attempted to leave and a lawyer can say she clearly had an option besides shooting (and women are often killed trying to leave. So even if she is planning to get out the door she is perceived as more able to get out at the same time she is in the most danger.)

We live in a culture where women (and even children) are blamed for their rapes. If women began to kill attempted rapists in large numbers, social narrative would go berserk. We'd hear about the "seductive psycho" and the myth of false reporting would be replaced by the myth of the woman who leads you on and then shoots you in the face.

Sorry for sudden essay, but the simple rapist+armed woman = averted! formula is just... no. That's not how it works.

Re: oh god tl;dr

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Your attempted counter argument seems to be predicated on a lot of flawed assumptions.

Potentialities do not constitute actuality and an annecdote does not cary the same wheight as data.

The advantage of legal concealed carry is that an attacker does not know which victims are dangerous. As a result (if they're smart) they will approach all victims as if they were dangerous. This works in the victim's favor as an intelligent attacker will not attack someone who is aware of thier pressanse.

I also think you are being overly pessimistic on the "narrative" issue. People love watching a bully get his just deserts, who's to say this would be any different?

Even if it isn't, who cares?

If women began to kill attempted rapists in large numbers, there would be signifigantly fewer rapists. Is that a bad thing?