Poor
Man Survival
Self
Reliance tools for independent minded people…
ISSN
2161-5543
A Digest of Urban Survival Resources
Your world shrinks or
expands according to your courage.
- Anais Nin
- Anais Nin
Gun Regulation Explained
By Murray Rothbard
If, as
libertarians believe, every individual has the right to own his person and
property, it then follows that he has the right to employ violence to defend
himself against the violence of criminal aggressors. But for some odd reason,
liberals have systematically tried to deprive innocent persons of the means for
defending themselves against aggression.
Despite the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the government has systematically eroded much of this right. Thus, in New York State, as in most other states, the Sullivan Law prohibits the carrying of "concealed weapons" without a license issued by the authorities. Not only has the carrying of guns been grievously restricted by this unconstitutional edict, but the government has extended this prohibition to almost any object that could possibly serve as a weapon — even those that could only be used for self-defense.
As a result, potential victims of crime have been barred from carrying knives, tear-gas pens, or even hat pins, and people who have used such weapons in defending themselves against assault have themselves been prosecuted by the authorities. In the cities, this invasive prohibition against concealed [p. 115] weapons has in effect stripped victims of any possible self-defense against crime. (It is true that there is no official prohibition against carrying an unconcealed weapon, but a man in New York City who, several years ago, tested the law by walking the streets carrying a rifle was promptly arrested for "disturbing the peace.")
Furthermore, victims are so hamstrung by provisions against "undue" force in self-defense that the criminal is automatically handed an enormous built-in advantage by the existing legal system.
Despite the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the government has systematically eroded much of this right. Thus, in New York State, as in most other states, the Sullivan Law prohibits the carrying of "concealed weapons" without a license issued by the authorities. Not only has the carrying of guns been grievously restricted by this unconstitutional edict, but the government has extended this prohibition to almost any object that could possibly serve as a weapon — even those that could only be used for self-defense.
As a result, potential victims of crime have been barred from carrying knives, tear-gas pens, or even hat pins, and people who have used such weapons in defending themselves against assault have themselves been prosecuted by the authorities. In the cities, this invasive prohibition against concealed [p. 115] weapons has in effect stripped victims of any possible self-defense against crime. (It is true that there is no official prohibition against carrying an unconcealed weapon, but a man in New York City who, several years ago, tested the law by walking the streets carrying a rifle was promptly arrested for "disturbing the peace.")
Furthermore, victims are so hamstrung by provisions against "undue" force in self-defense that the criminal is automatically handed an enormous built-in advantage by the existing legal system.
It
should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive; any
object, whether it be a gun, a knife, or a stick, can be used for aggression,
for defense, or for numerous other purposes unconnected with crime. It makes no
more sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase and ownership of guns than it
does to outlaw the possession of knives, clubs, hatpins, or stones. And how are
all of these objects to be outlawed, and if outlawed, how is the prohibition to
be enforced? Instead of pursuing innocent people carrying or possessing various
objects, then, the law should be concerned with combatting and apprehending
real criminals.
There
is, moreover, another consideration which reinforces our conclusion. If guns
are restricted or outlawed, there is no reason to expect that determined
criminals are going to pay much attention to the law. The criminals, then, will
always be able to purchase and carry guns; it will only be their innocent
victims who will suffer from the solicitous liberalism that imposes laws
against guns and other weapons. Just as drugs, gambling, and pornography should
be made legal, so too should guns and any other objects that might serve as
weapons of self-defense.
In a
notable article attacking control of handguns (the type of gun liberals most
want to restrict), St. Louis University law professor Don B. Kates, Jr., chides
his fellow liberals for not applying the same logic to guns that they use for
marijuana laws. Thus, he points out that there are over fifty million handgun
owners in America today, and that, based on polls and past experience, from
two-thirds to over eighty percent of Americans would fail to comply with a ban
on handguns. The inevitable result, as in the case of sex and marijuana laws,
would be harsh penalties and yet highly selective enforcement — breeding
disrespect for the law and law enforcement agencies. And the law would be
enforced selectively against those people whom the authorities didn't like:
"Enforcement becomes progressively more haphazard until at last the laws
are used only against those who are unpopular with the police. We hardly need
to be reminded of the odious search and seizure tactics police and government
agents have often resorted to in order to trap [p. 116] violators of these
laws." Kates adds that "if these arguments seem familiar, it is
probably because they parallel the standard liberal argument against pot
laws."
Kates
then adds a highly perceptive insight into this curious liberal blind spot.
For:
Gun
prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious
to the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police
have given up on crime control. Such liberals weren't upset about marijuana
laws, either, in the fifties when the busts were confined to the ghettos.
Secure in well-policed suburbs or high-security apartments guarded by
Pinkertons (whom no one proposes to disarm), the oblivious liberal derides gun
ownership as "an anachronism from the Old West."
Kates
further points out the demonstrated empirical value of self-defense armed with
guns; in Chicago, for example, armed civilians justifiably killed three times
as many violent criminals in the past five years as did the police. And, in a
study of several hundred violent confrontations with criminals, Kates found the
armed civilians to be more successful than the police: the civilians defending
themselves captured, wounded, killed, or scared off criminals in 75% of the
confrontations, whereas the police only had a 61% success rate.
It is
true that victims who resist robbery are more likely to be injured than those
who remain passive. But Kates points out neglected qualifiers: (1) that
resistance without a gun has been twice as hazardous to the victim than
resistance with one, and (2) that the choice of resistance is up to the victim
and his circumstances and values.
Avoiding injury will be paramount to a white, liberal academic with a comfortable bank account. It will necessarily be less important to the casual laborer or welfare recipient who is being robbed of the wherewithal to support his family [p. 117] for a month — or to a black shopkeeper who can't get robbery insurance and will be literally run out of business by successive robberies.
And the 1975 national survey of handgun owners by the Decision Making Information organization found that the leading subgroups who own a gun only for self-defense include blacks, the lowest income groups, and senior citizens. "These are the people," Kates eloquently warns, "it is proposed we jail because they insist on keeping the only protection available for their families in areas in which the police have given up."
What of historical experience? Have handgun bans really greatly lowered the degree of violence in society, as liberals claim? The evidence is precisely to the contrary. A massive study done at the University of Wisconsin concluded unequivocally in the fall of 1975 that "gun control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rate of violent crime."
The Wisconsin study, for example, tested the theory that ordinarily peaceful people will be irresistibly tempted to shoot their guns if available when tempers are being frayed. The study found no correlation whatever between rates of handgun ownership and rates of homicide when compared, state by state.
Moreover, this finding is reinforced by a 1976 Harvard study of a Massachusetts law providing a mandatory minimum year in prison for anyone found possessing a handgun without a government permit. It turns out that, during the year 1975, this 1974 law did indeed considerably reduce the carrying of firearms and the number of assaults with firearms. But, lo and behold! the Harvard researchers found to their surprise that there was no corresponding reduction in any type of violence. That is…
Avoiding injury will be paramount to a white, liberal academic with a comfortable bank account. It will necessarily be less important to the casual laborer or welfare recipient who is being robbed of the wherewithal to support his family [p. 117] for a month — or to a black shopkeeper who can't get robbery insurance and will be literally run out of business by successive robberies.
And the 1975 national survey of handgun owners by the Decision Making Information organization found that the leading subgroups who own a gun only for self-defense include blacks, the lowest income groups, and senior citizens. "These are the people," Kates eloquently warns, "it is proposed we jail because they insist on keeping the only protection available for their families in areas in which the police have given up."
What of historical experience? Have handgun bans really greatly lowered the degree of violence in society, as liberals claim? The evidence is precisely to the contrary. A massive study done at the University of Wisconsin concluded unequivocally in the fall of 1975 that "gun control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rate of violent crime."
The Wisconsin study, for example, tested the theory that ordinarily peaceful people will be irresistibly tempted to shoot their guns if available when tempers are being frayed. The study found no correlation whatever between rates of handgun ownership and rates of homicide when compared, state by state.
Moreover, this finding is reinforced by a 1976 Harvard study of a Massachusetts law providing a mandatory minimum year in prison for anyone found possessing a handgun without a government permit. It turns out that, during the year 1975, this 1974 law did indeed considerably reduce the carrying of firearms and the number of assaults with firearms. But, lo and behold! the Harvard researchers found to their surprise that there was no corresponding reduction in any type of violence. That is…
As
previous criminological studies have suggested, deprived of a handgun, a
momentarily enraged citizen will resort to the far more deadly long gun.
Deprived of all firearms, he will prove almost as deadly with knives, hammers,
etc.
As
previous criminological studies have suggested, deprived of a handgun, a
momentarily enraged citizen will resort to the far more deadly long gun.
Deprived of all firearms, he will prove almost as deadly with knives, hammers,
etc.
And
clearly, "if reducing handgun ownership does not reduce homicide or other
violence, a handgun ban is just one more diversion of police resources from
real crime to victimless crime." [p. 118]
Finally,
Kates makes another intriguing point: that a society where peaceful citizens
are armed is far more likely to be one where Good Samaritans who voluntarily go
to the aid of victims of crime will flourish. But take away people's guns, and
the public — disastrously for the victims — will tend to leave the matter to
the police. Before New York State outlawed handguns, Good Samaritan instances
were far more widespread than now.
And, in a recent survey of Good Samaritan cases, no less than 81% of the Samaritans were owners of guns. If we wish to encourage a society where citizens come to the aid of neighbors in distress, we must not strip them of the actual power to do something about crime. Surely, it is the height of absurdity to disarm the peaceful public and then, as is quite common, to denounce them for "apathy" for failing to rush to the rescue of victims of criminal assault.
And, in a recent survey of Good Samaritan cases, no less than 81% of the Samaritans were owners of guns. If we wish to encourage a society where citizens come to the aid of neighbors in distress, we must not strip them of the actual power to do something about crime. Surely, it is the height of absurdity to disarm the peaceful public and then, as is quite common, to denounce them for "apathy" for failing to rush to the rescue of victims of criminal assault.
More Useful Resources…
How to Develop the Situational Awareness of Jason Bourne
There’s a scene at the beginning of The Bourne Identity
where the film’s protagonist is sitting in a diner, trying to figure out who he
is and why he has a bunch of passports and a gun stashed in a safety deposit
box. Bourne also notices that he, well, notices things that other people don’t.
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=47&v=IjrWOZby8s8
What course will your life take?
Own your future by learning new skills online
The
Escape Bag Blueprint: 37 Items You Must Have to Survive a Crisis
The Art of Everyday Carry: A Beginner’s Guide to EDC
At the most literal level, your everyday carry is the collection of items you carry with you in your pockets or in your bag on a daily basis.
They’re the things you tap your pockets for before you head out the door, the things you feel naked without, and the things that would throw off your whole day if you had to do without them. They are valuable not just in a monetary or sentimental way; your everyday carry is comprised of items that you find truly essential.
This means things like pocket lint, scrunched up receipts, gum wrappers, and other disposables might live in your pocket (hopefully not for very long), but they don’t count as part of your everyday carry. Mainstays in your carry should have certain qualities that fall in line with the principles of utility and preparedness. Each component of your EDC should serve a purpose or have at least one specific, useful function.
Every day, your EDC essentials prepare you for the worst and empower you to do your best.
Read more here: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/06/23/beginners-guide-to-edc/
Your Personal Gopher-Niche Business Idea Opportunity
Although it’s unlikely
any reader will have an interest in the project I’ve been working on, I thought
it wouldn’t hurt to share it…you never know when one might strike an
entrepreneurial chord somewhere…
Books, Art, Video – the saucy, the odd, the retro,
even the practical…support our vices
