If Everything is Permitted, Everyone is in Peril

There is a great study or two by a man with no ax to grind. Read the books by John Lott. His conclusions were simple. To his suprise more guns = LESS crime. Mike Murray

Mike, I haven't run into John Lott's work yet. I know Canada has many fewer gun killings per capita than the U.S., but they're running into some problems in places like Windsor and Niagara Falls that are near U.S. cities, where it's relatively easy to bring guns into Canada. The thing that concerns me is that people sometimes say that gun violence is a BIG problem all over the world. In many countries, it's a small problem. In our country, it's a major problem. So, what do we do about it? It seems counter-intuitive to say that giving everybody guns would cut down on the use of guns. If the evidence really shows that, then it's necessary to have OBJECTIVE studies and get the information out. There are many steps we can take to reduce the number of killings. "Per capita, the U.S. has the highest rate of killings by gun in the world." That statement just came up on NBC. It seems to be accurate. In NYC, the rate of murders by gun is about 50 times what it is in England and Wales. I know those numbers sometimes get denied, but they don't seem to get denied on the basis of evidence, but rather on idology. The fact that somebody doesn't like a fact doesn't make it unfactual. Okay, what do we DO? The answer isn't that we do nothing.

I am new to your site and toward the hope of establishing a beneficial relationship with you let me begin by saying that I admire the quality of your writing (at least as much of if as I have seen thus far). Having said that, Let me tell you that while I also agree with much of the content of the piece to which this is attached I find several of the faults so common to those who advocate views such as yours.

First, and least, your Counter/Michelle scenario is not valid. But that is not really important for the moment so I will just leave it at that for now. (If you wish me to elaborate on that point please inform me and I will do so.)

Second, and more importantly, you criticize the only remedy that has thus far been offered to reduce the loss of innocent lives to the likes of CHO. Then you offer no remedy of your own. Instead of a remedy you offer rhetorical questions. In fact, your entire final paragraph was nothing more than a series of rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions, sir, are of no value to any serious attempt at problem solving--they at best only serve to inspire an attempt at problem solving.

Before continuing, let me back up one moment and support my comment above. Allowing all law abiding citizens who so choose to carry concealed in hopes that one such person may be able to interrupt a killing spree and thereby reduce the numbers of deaths caused by guns is the only remedy that has thus far been advanced relative to the VT massacre. So be sure, some, have suggested that stricter gun control needs to be considered. However, the verdict on the success of that notion has so long been established that the suggestion is not to be considered a valid remedy to the current problem. What else has been offered for discussion? Nothing. Which is precisely what you have offered.

To my third and most important observation of your viewpoint. You make four statements which cause me concern:
1. You state that we must look at "..other countries and then act on what precise steps can reduce gun violence." This suggests to me that you do not fully understand nor do you appreciate that America is unlike any other country that now or that ever has existed. Americans are unlike any other people that populate any other country. When the question is related to the preservation of personal liberty and individual freedom of choice the answer for American must come from Americans. There is no greater model of liberty from which to find such answers than America.


2.You state that Americans kill each other in much greater numbers than other counties; and you state that it is a fact that we must do something about that [situation]. Why is that a fact? And who decided that it was a fact? A fact, Sir, is an objective thing. A decision that we must act thus-and-so is an opinion. An opinion is a relative thing. Relative to the values and standards held by the person (or persons) who hold the opinion.

While it may well be that in the opinion of some, the American-on-American death toll is too high a price to pay for the degree of liberty and personal freedom enjoyed by Americans--it also may well be the opinion of others, who place a higher value on liberty, that said death toll is not too high of a price to pay. There are still some among us who would say, "Give me liberty or give me death." And that, Sir, is a fact.

3. You state that "..it is essential that MY civil liberties--and yours--should not result in the endangering of other people." Because you may consider, based upon your set of values, that it is essential that your civil liberties should not result in the endangerment of others--it does not follow that all Americans hold the same values that you do. Some may place a higher value on liberty than you do. As a point of fact, I believe you do too. You just have not well thought out what you have written.

To be sure, good men and women are being put in danger daily for the sake of my--and your--liberty. They are those who wear the military and law enforcement uniforms of the United States of American. If we should adopt your attitude that none should be placed in harms way for the sake of liberty--then we would be obliged to immediately disband the armed forces of the nation. For they exist for no other reason than to ensure our liberty.

No..they do not exist to protect our lives. For then we would be asking them to sacrifice their lives for ours. A request no righteous human can ask of another. They must be putting their lives in danger for something that is of greater value than life itself. That thing of greater value, Sir, is Liberty.


4.You state that you believe in a well-regulated society. That is good. So do I. However, taken in context of your other comments I am inclined to fear that you would seek to achieve that desirable society at the expense of personal liberty--and even worse--have it provided by the enactment of as many laws as necessary for the government to achieve the order you desire. Your well-ordered society will be a police-state.

As we seek to overcome the evil of the likes of CHO, lets us remember that we are well advised to overcome evil with good. Police-states are not good. Liberty is good.

Please understand this, Sir, if liberty does not eventual lead to a peaceful society in America then there is much less chance of liberty prevailing over evil anywhere else. And if it does not then we are all doomed to someday, perhaps sooner than later, live in your Police-state.

Teach Americans to trust in liberty--not law. We need more liberty--less law.

FOTH

I'm not sure that it would have made much of a difference in so short a time. I'm sure the VT admin and other colleges would have taken steps to discourage or hamper gun possession by rules that would have to be challenged in court. I think for guns to be a solid deterrent, we need to, as Michelle Malkin just wrote, develop a culture of self-defense. As it stands, the first time a crime was prevented by a gun-toting student, the MSM and anti-gun crowd would have spun it into a "scary and terrifying wild-west shoot-out". I saw the BBC report on the VT incident where they described the Walther .22 pistol as a lethal weapon of awesome destructive power. It's a target gun.

Also, liberty is the product of a responsible and enlightened citizenry. What we have today is anarchy where the irresponsible behavior of the few, abetted by the passivity and torpor of the majority, is resulting in the curtailing of the rights of all. It is the tyranny of the irresponsible. We need to instill a sense of responsibility on the majority and purge society of this cancer that we are all victims of....the boogey-man? Bush? Republicans? Conservatives?

You touch on a tough issue: we're an interconnected society where one or two individuals (or 19, as on 9/11) can do a tremendous amount of damage. Compared to our great-grandparents we're living shoulder-to-shoulder, without all that great space between us that insulated us from people like Cho. The TV networks play along with the Chos of the world and their desire to be famous for 15 minutes. I'm not saying it's a desirable situation. It just is. If one student at Va Tech (or anywhere) breaks the rules, as Cho did, then many people suffer.

Your Post is a good one.

steve