Translating deep thinking into common sense
Where Guns are Outlawed, only Outlaws have Guns
By Robert Gore
December 20, 2014
SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)
In nature, every organism has means to protect itself. Camouflage, toxicity, aggression, needles, fangs, and armor are a few of the weapons plants and animals use to stay alive. Even one-celled organisms with short life spans propagate with such rapidity that extermination of an entire species is rare. The theory of evolution implies that those species with inadequate defenses against external threats eventually evolve or succumb. The necessity to respond to threats to its existence, an organism’s right of self-defense, so to speak, is as fundamental as life itself.
Certainly, humans share that right of self-defense. However, one aspect of that right differentiates them from other organisms. Most species do not practice species immolation. One of the biggest dangers to humans, on the other hand, is other humans. In a social order that preserves individual rights, no individual may initiate force against another, and individuals are justified in resisting such force. Because the acquisition and use of property are essential to human survival, the stricture extends to the non-initiation of force to acquire another person’s legitimately acquired property.
The governed delegate to their government the power to use force to protect themselves and their property from violence and punish those who initiate it. That power is delegated, not abrogated. A government has no right to use force against those who have not initiated or threatened to initiate force. A government’s powers are delegated powers, and constituents cannot delegate a right to it that they do not have as individuals. Once a government initiates force against individuals, it violates the rights of those individuals. A legitimate government can only use force or the threat of force to protect life and property and punish those who initiate force or threaten to do so.
No government since governments began has so restricted itself. Every government has violated individuals’ rights to security in their persons or possessions, illegitimately using force or its threat against some or all of its citizens. The right of individuals to resist such force, the right to revolt, is based on their right to survive; nobody must assent to his or her own enslavement or destruction (from government or any other person or entity). Resistance to illegitimate and often overwhelming governmental power requires an ability to counter with force on the part of individuals. Only in the context of the struggle to maintain individual rights against illegitimate governments, can the issues stemming from the private ownership of firearms be analyzed and understood.
Advocates of restrictions on or the complete abolition of the private right to possess firearms do their best to obscure this central issue. How can human beings be denied a right essential to every organism: the right of self-defense? The only plausible answer: constituents renounce their ability to protect themselves and delegate that power to the government. That equates delegation with abrogation, but how can that power be abrogated to an institution that has, historically, been the greatest threat to the security of persons, property, and individual rights? This question allows only the dubious response: trust the government. It also exposes the real aim of many in the gun control and abolition crowd—to make it easier for government to violate its constituents’ rights.
The recent tragedy in Sydney shoots holes in the case for renunciation of the individual right to self-defense in favor of abrogation to the government in the name of gun control. In the United States, one occasionally sees the bumper sticker: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” It is easy to dismiss bumper-sticker wisdom, but if governments that have run roughshod over individuals’ rights for the last century are categorized, rightfully, as criminal, this one is a veritable pearl.
In 1996, in response to a shooting massacre by Martin Bryant in Port Arthur, Tasmania, that killed 35 people and wounded 23, the Australian government enacted restrictive gun regulations, uniform across Australia’s states and territories. Notwithstanding Port Arthur, Australia already had low rates of homicides, accidental killings, and suicide by firearms, but despite some controversy, the public supported the new measures. Mandatory owner licensing requires proof of a “genuine reason” to possess a gun, and self-defense is not considered a genuine reason. Rapid-fire rifles and shot guns are banned. Owners turned in their weapons in two federally-funded gun buybacks and the weapons were destroyed. Handguns are permitted only for target shooters (who cannot carry those firearms around) and certain security guards. Firearms have to be registered to the owner by serial number, except for a small number of pre-1901 firearms.
Implicit in the bumper sticker: criminals or those who intend to commit crimes do not observe the law, including firearms restrictions. No government has ever been able to fully enforce its laws, and self-evidently guns can be illegally obtained in Australia. The Sydney shooter, Man Haron Monis, a self-proclaimed Shi’ite Muslim cleric, had been convicted for sending what a judge called “grossly offensive” letters to families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, had been charged with sexual assault and for being an accessory to the murder of his wife, for which charge he was out on bail. Somehow he illegally acquired the shotgun he used in the Lindt Chocolate Café hostage taking.
When people are rendered defenseless by law, they are, like the patrons of the café, at the mercy of anyone capable of inflicting violence. Mr. Haron was rather inept and some of his prisoners escaped, but two were killed, as was Mr. Haron. There is no saying that if Australia had concealed carry laws the tragedy would not have happened; it is quite possible that none of the café patrons would have had weapons. However, recognizing the private, individual right of self-defense gives individuals a choice: they can arm and rely on themselves—and whatever additional protection the government may provide—for their safety; or they can rely solely on the government to both enforce its gun restrictions and to respond to those who do not observe those restrictions and inflict, or threaten to inflict, violence on innocents. Governments’ execution of those functions will inevitably be imperfect, as it was in Sydney.
Whether or not people carry firearms, when the right is legally recognized, it changes the calculus of would-be criminals by introducing an element of uncertainly: is the prospective victim armed? In the U.S., the conclusion is emerging (although still controversial) that states that institute more permissive laws on firearms possession and ‘concealed carry’ see a decrease in violent crime. Most large-scale shooting tragedies have been in areas, like schools and universities, where the perpetrator was reasonably assured that no one would be shooting back. The generally pro-gun control American press gives little coverage to instances in which men, women, and children successfully defend themselves with guns, but the number of such incidents is significant and counter-balances the amply covered stories of gun violence and accidental shooting deaths.
A legally protected right to possess firearms also changes the calculus of would-be criminal governments, which most defenders of the Second Amendment in the U.S. recognize as the most important reason for defending it. Nobody is suggesting imminent tyranny from the Australian or the U.S. governments, but if they tried to institute such regimes, the former would have a much easier time of it than the latter. It is much harder to strip people of their rights if they can fight back.
-
Can We Profoundly Affect Other Souls in Brief Interactions?
-
Can Social Planning Enhance Individual Flourishing?
-
Has Australia become “Authorataria?” (An Audio Podcast)
-
Freedom in a Global Context: What Japanese Individuality and American Groupism...
-
Ayn Rand’s Aristotelian Philosophy of Human Flourishing
-
Ayn Rand, Aristotle, and the Ethics of Flourishing
-
Could This Be the Most Startling News of the Pandemic Yet?
-
How the Destruction of Property Rights Made Indigenous People Vassals of...
-
Geologist Ian Plimer On the Science and Politics of the Anti-Scientific...
-
Is Chinese Culture Opposed to Individualism?
This is tight logical argument that citizens who delegate the retaliatory use of force to government, as Ayn Rand explained (adding that this put the retaliatory use of force under objective control, such as due process), retain the right of self defense, and, in particular, carrying guns. I follow this logic (assuming Objectivist premises) but pause at this:
“How can human beings be denied a right essential to every organism: the
right of self-defense? The only plausible answer: constituents renounce
their ability to protect themselves and delegate that power to the
government. That equates delegation with abrogation, but how can that
power be abrogated to an institution that has, historically, been the
greatest threat to the security of persons, property, and individual
rights?”
The author says that the most plausible objection to the right to bear arms (and, I, assume, anything else needed for full defense?) is that we have delegated that right to government (in order to bring the retaliatory use of force under objective control). I would observe that when we delegate we turn over certain decisions, choices, and actions to someone else; having delegated, the delegate may complain, rightfully, that we still are making the decisions and taking the actions. Who is in charge, here?
But then, the logic takes a strange turn. Presumably, it is legitimate and rational, as Ayn Rand says, to delegate our right to self-defense to government. But Robert Gore says that this cannot imply that we give up the right to continue to make the choices and take the actions that we have delegated. Why? Because no government in history has refrained entirely from violating our rights. This is a strange movement of the logic. Does it mean we should not delegate our right of self-defense to any government that is not 100 percent laissez faire/Objectivist? Apparently this is not what Mr. Gore asserts. Delegation is all right even to governments that largely but not completely respect our rights. But because our government, at this time, is not 100 percent, our delegation cannot be “abrogation.” If our government were 100 percent, then true delegation would be legitimate and an abrogation of our right to self defense?
Well, not, not even then, because no government can protect us perfectly, l00 percent, from criminals. So no matter what the situation, even a 100 percent laissez faire government, we never truly delegate our right to self defense. Not until there is no crime. Every logical road leads to the right to carry guns.
I would say, instead, that where we accept our government as legitimate (if far from perfect), we find it very beneficial to delegate to government the retaliatory use of force. But notice, by the way, that we NEVERr wholly delegate it. There is no government, anywhere on Earth, that views the peaceful citizen who, when attacked by a criminal, fights back, as culpable. Delegation NEVER means giving up self-defense; that is a false alternative. Fists, Karate, a tire iron. a kick in the nuts–any action to defend ourselves when clearly attacked is accepted by EVERY government.
So, the real question is not of our continued right to self-defense. It is what delegation MEANS. We DO retain the right to self-defense, no one, no government denies it. The question, rather, is: Who decides on the best way to implement the delegation of the right to self-defense? This is not a matter of moral principle, but implementation. How MUCH right to self-defense and how much delegation best serves us? Different localities in different times debate this and reach different decisions.
The question really is: once we have delegated our right to the retaliatory use of force to government, because it is overwhelmingly in our self-interest to do so, how much does the government, in turn, re-delegate to us? Self defense without weapons, always; no question. But how much else? Revolvers? Automatic weapons? What? That is purely a matter of implementation, not of moral principle. And it will depend on the state of the society, the effectiveness of police, and the attitude of the population. It must be decided on pragmatic grounds.
Any argument for gun control is not about the right to bear arms. We have delegated that. It is not about self-defense; we retain that right. It is about the balance between delegation and self-defense that best serves our self-interest. Personally, have lived in downtown New York City for some 50 years, I am very, very dubious that the right be carry a conceal firearm would do more good than harm. But I am open to argument. Not on moral grounds, but simply practical demonstration that carrying concealed firearms benefits me more than threatens me. I that is a very, very tough argument to make.
Glancing back at what I have written, below, I see that I have written at too great length, but, even at that, failed to address a core argument. It is right (in our rational self-interest) to delegate to government a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. But that does not imply that we do not also retain the right to retaliatory use of force. We both delegate it and retain it. Leaving us unsure what “delegate” means. But what I left out was Mr. Gore’s argument that we cannot give up the right to bear arms, even when we delegate it, because no government can be trusted not to become the foremost violator of our rights. So we never can delegate; only share. Certainly history demonstrates, beyond question, that governments are the greatest, most dangerous, and notorious violators of human rights. No criminal competitor comes close. Unquestionably, if government becomes a greater threat to our rights than a protector, then we must become outlaws: take unto ourselves the right to self-defense–in effect, negating our delegation to government. The question is: Does this imply that we always must retain the right to keep all arms and weapons that will be sufficient to resist the forces of a rising dictatorship? Today, that would imply an extraordinarily armed and organized citizenry, well coordinated and in constant practice, with advanced weapons. Implementing that supposed right would undercut the principle of delegation of the retaliatory use of force to government: for such delegation, if it means anything, means that government decides on the best means to protect us–including who and to what extent citizens may bear arms. If we delegate the retaliatory use of force to government, but that does not include control over the arming of citizens, nor their use of those arms in self defense, then it is no delegation at all. And then we are advocating anarchy–a regime in which there is no government that has a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force.