I give Matt Yglesias grief a lot, which should be construed to mean at least two things: first, that I read him a lot, because I think he’s good and important enough read him all the time (I’m still short on time, and my news and blog reading is suffering); and second, that I think that he represents a solid center of one of the most important groups in the Democratic Party. I happen to have some core disagreements with that group, and my arguments with Matt are often arguments by proxy with them.
So now that I’m firmly in sucking-up mode, let me send you over to a stunningly sensible post by Matt on gun control and the assault weapons ban. It’s sensible not only because he takes the position that I think makes the most sense on the ban – “Why bother?” – but because he enumerates what I think are the exactly correct reasons for taking that position, and further looks with a fairly clear eye on the policy and political consequences of the core gun control positions.
No quotes, the whole thing’s good, go check it out.
And if anyone needs proof that the moonbats are the core of the Democratic Party today, one need look no further than:
“I think that he represents a solid center of one of the most important groups in the Democratic Party”
Here are the money quotes:
Matt Yglesias is quote correct that the arbitrary manner in which some weapons are or are not classified as “assault weapons” plays into RTKBA supporters concerns about the slippery-slope. Which only serves to make what he perceives as his one of his other problems even less tenable:
Just out of curiosity does anyone believe that those who propose a federal registry of fire arms would not ultimately try to use such a registry to confiscate weapons from otherwise law-abiding citizens? Particularly if such weapons should some day find themselves on the “banned” list.
Here’s the typical A.L. “critque” of MY:
1. An obtuse 150 word paragraph explaining why the Democrats are weak on defense that leaves the reader scratching his head even after reading it five times. Extra points for every time you mention how MY is part of the Democratic party with which you disagree.
2. A.L. reminds his readers how much he favors gay marriage.
The problem is that the slippery slope cuts both ways. The second amendment does not grant the right to bear *guns*, ir grants the right to bear *arms*. You may be complacent about the spread of assault weapons, but if you go up the scale of increasingly destructive armaments you will eventually find stuff that you do, in fact, want to ban. And face the same dilemna of restricting the rights of an individual for the good of society.
To put the point more clearly, it may be true that there is no clear bright line separating assault rifles from regular rifles, but it is equally true that there is no clear bright line separating assault rifles from other more destructive weapons, including shoulder fired stinger missiles.
In other words, I don’t want a post saying there’s no point drawing the line at assault weapons, I want a post explaining where exactly you’d draw the line and why, including not only the weapons you wouldn’t bother banning, but the weapons you would.
For my part, I would say the second amendment exists to protect the rights of private citizens to bear arms for legitimate purposes, including protecting your family and property, and including protection from potential government tyranny. But also that the government has both the right and the duty to regulate and prohibit possession of certain arms, stinger missiles and cop-killer bullets among them. So with any specific weapon, we must ask to what extent regulation/prohibition constrains the right of law-abiding citizens to bear that weapon for legitimate purposes, weighed against the potential benefits to society of such regulation/prohibition.
Getting down to the practical: rather than an outright ban, or outright repeal, How about licensing and regulation, not for ordinary handguns and rifles, but only for assault weapons and more potentially lethal stuff? With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.
Actually, for any originalist, there is a bright line. “Arms” is a term with a defined meaning: The weapons a solider might typically be issued. They don’t issue grunts Stinger missles when they graduate from boot camp. Those would fall under the catagory of “armaments”, not mentioned in the 2nd amendment, although some of us think the 10th has some relevance here…
Ass for licensing of “assault weapons”, if we’re talking full auto, that would be an improvement over the current situation, though in principle I have to point out that “licencing” and “right” are just not concepts which go together well. A license is govenment permission to do something, and a right is something you DON’T need the government’s permission to do.
I really shouldn’t get into this debate, but…
I personally draw the line at weapons which are useful for an individual infantryman to use in defense of life, family, and community. Stinger missles, crew-served light weapons, and artillery are out (rarely do burglars and rioters have armor and close air support); pretty much all small arms are in.
As for registration, that’s a slippery slope too–register “only” one kind of gun and next year the list of registered guns will grow.
Besides, as we on the guns rights side point out incessantly, “assault weapons” are NOT more lethal than other weapons, indeed less so. I own an AK-47, a scoped .270 Win. and a couple of 12-ga. shotguns (this list is not exhaustive, BTW). The “hunting” guns are much more powerful than the “assault” weapon (which has ballistics similar to a 30-30 Win., the world’s most popular deer rifle).
You can’t justify registering or banning the AK without using logic which justifies registering the “hunting” guns (and, for that matter, digital cameras and computers, which *could* be and *are* used for child pornography). Which is precisely why the AWB stands as a monument to the bad faith of the gun-control movement, as MY and AL correctly point out.
Based on a Citizen’s Militia, I draw the line at anything an individual can carry and operate. So a Javelin would be OK (but they’re pricey), while a Bradley would be out.
There is no reason for gun owners to accept limits on an inalienable right. Just as one would not accept limits on freedom of expression.
There is no need to track a gun to ensure it is not used by a felon. Most felons are using stolen guns, so what does tracking the gun really accomplish?
Lowest common denominator – Registration epitomizes governments ability to disarm the populace, when the population has the right to defend itself from tyranny by the government. A ban on an undefineable qualification itself proves that governement can only take away rights, not grant them.
You want to ban howitzers and vulcan weapons systems, fine. But just because one .22 cal. weapon throws bullets faster than another is no reason to keep it from US Citizens.
One question merits asking Matthew: is he advocating that the Democrats change their gun policy towards supporting gun rights, or is he merely suggesting dropping the AW issue as a matter of political expediency?
This matters, because if D support of gun rights is just a matter of political expediency, then that support can disappear as quickly as it appeared — if it’s politically expedient.
I would take Matthew a lot more seriously if he, in addition to recognizing the AW issue as bad politics, would recognize it as bad law, and how dishonest the Democrats and their allies in the media have been.
Josh Sugarman of the VPC stated:
bq. “The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
This — confuse the public into supporting the ban — became the script for the D’s and their allies in the media, academia and the courts.
And it isn’t just with the AW ban that they have been doing this, but with a whole host of gun issues; “plastic guns”, “armor-piercing bullets” and “gun-show loophole” anyone? Hollywood got into the public deception game too — I watched one of the Lethal Weapon movies this past weekend, which was pretty blatant with its anti-NRA posters in the background and magic “teflon-coated bullets” piercing bulldozer blades and whatnot an important part of the plot.
Then there’s the matter of Michael Bellesiles, who not long ago got the Joe Wilson treatment — the media spread his lies far and wide (and have CA9 cite them in court decisions), then when his lies are exposed, bury them (and quietly remove the cite).
He might also want to point out how the Democrats have amply earned gun owners’ distrust; Bill Clinton and Al Gore both falsely claimed to be second amendment supporters, and John Kerry falsely claims to be one.
So what is MY really advocating — real change or more deceptions?
I was quite surprised to learn at Armed Liberal’s prior blog just how lax enforcement of sensible laws (sales to felons, sales to straw purchasers) is. The goal should be the reduction of gun crime, but to a considerable extent that’s been overshadowed by other factors. Maybe it’s true that on the control side, it’s the desire to ban private weapons. On the pro-gun side, it often seems to be creation of a “right” to use guns totally irresponsibly: more like the right to free speech than the (regulated) right to drive a car, where you have to pass a test and follow a variety of rules.
Case in point above: “There is no need to track a gun to ensure it is not used by a felon. Most felons are using stolen guns, so what does tracking the gun really accomplish?”
First, it’s not clear the premise is true. Much of gun statistics is garbage. (I’ll trade my Bellesiles card for your John Lott, even up.) John Malvo (the D.C. sniper) procured his weapon illegally (he had a domestic violence restraining order against him) from a registered gun shop with a most suspicious habit of losing records. Why the authorities had not shut it down before is a good question. But just suppose it is so, that gun crimes are mostly committed with stolen guns (how would we ever know this without the tracking system Joel just said was unnecessary?). Then we can conclude that (1) guns don’t deter crime, they don’t even deter the theft of guns [!] and/or (2) many gun owners leave guns lying around insufficiently secured and/or (3) there is an epidemic of collusion between ostensibly lawful gun owners and criminals. Great. That’s a really strong advertisement for private gun ownership </sarcasm>.
bq. Then we can conclude that (1) guns don’t deter crime, they don’t even deter the theft of guns [!] bq.
Guns dont deter some crimes therefore they deter no crimes?
Police are sometimes the victims of crimes, therefore they deter no crimes?
I’m waiting for David Blue to weigh in on what the slippery slope has done in Oz.
Police officers are often shot with their own firearms – therefore they have insufficiently secured them, and perhaps should not carry them to begin with?
Incidentally, it is believed that the DC sniper stole his rifle from the Washington gun shop.
Murdered Police officers are often shot with their own firearms – therefore they must leave them insufficiently secured? Perhaps they should not carry guns to begin with?
Incidentally, it is believed that the DC sniper stole his rifle from the Washington gun shop.
Although I do not believe this is true (the gun shop needs an excuse to explain away a sale to a disqualified purchaser), I can’t imagine why you find it exculpatory. If we had an epidemic of fatal hits-and-runs because it was too easy to steal cars from car dealers’ lots, don’t you think (1) the dealers would tighten up for their own profit motive and (2) we’d see laws requiring more checks of people trying cars out and no one would contest them? But if we had crooked dealers selling or lending cars to people with no liability insurance or drivers license, for a premium, well …
Police are sometimes the victims of crimes, therefore they deter no crimes?
The correct analogy is: if a majority of crimes were committed by police officers, then they deter no crimes. And, yes, I think that would be a logical conclusion. At least, the presence of such corrupt police would be a net minus in the war on crime. And if it is really so easy for criminals to steal guns that over half of gun crimes are committed with stolen weapons (and I am skeptical of this), then something is very wrong with what the victims of these thefts are doing with their guns, and should be stopped.
roublen vesseau
In this case, shouldn’t something actually exist before Our Legislators spend their valuable time writing laws to ban it?
jinnderella “I’m waiting for David Blue to weigh in on what the slippery slope has done in Oz.”
Hi, Jinn. (grin)
The situation in Australia is that shooters have no real rights. The Shooters Party FAQ is as good a source of information as any on that.
The struggle in the United States revolves around removing a constitutional protection, whereas in Australia there was no such protection, with the result that any crime with a gun was apt to start a moral panic, to which tightened gun laws are an easy answer. One serial killer who staged a massacre with guns was enough to provoke severe nation-wide gun restrictions, even though this did not necessarily reflect the opinions of the surviving victims themselves. (By the way, I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories. I just linked here in case anyone wanted quotes to support what I said on the opinions of the survivors.)
So the situation is quite different.
It says a lot that when Yglesias does happen to make sense it is postworthy.
bq. The correct analogy is: if a majority of crimes were committed by police officers, then they deter no crimes.
Aren’t firearms used in only 10% of all crimes? Or are we about to witness goalpost shifting where you originally said “crimes” but really meant “murder”?
And no, that isn’t “the correct analogy”. You pointed out a crimes that firearms do not deter and concluded that because firearms do not deter those crimes, firearms do not deter crime at all. The prescence of a firearm requires its handling by a person for it to become dangerous or a deterrant. The gun in a safe, on a table, on the floor or in a drawer is neither a threat nor a deterrent without a human being present to actually operate the gun.
bq. And if it is really so easy for criminals to steal guns that over half of gun crimes are committed with stolen weapons (and I am skeptical of this), then something is very wrong with what the victims of these thefts are doing with their guns, and should be stopped.
Sure, and victims of auto theft should also be blamed when their vehicles are used in the comissions of various crimes.
[V]ictims of auto theft should also be blamed when their vehicles are used in the comissions of various crimes.
Once again, you prove my point. Car owners are required to take steps to prevent the theft of their car—it’s illegal in many places to leave the key in it when you park. The government requires steering interlocks. A dealership that transferred (oh, yeah, he shoplifted a car!) a car to someone whose license was suspended for DUI would come in for well-deserved scrutiny (at least in California, it is no longer legal for an unlicensed driver even to purchase a car).
Is it truly your intention to stand up for the “right” to allow firearms to enter illegal circulation? You’re speaking of this phenomenon as if it were as inevitable as sunrise. It isn’t.
As far as the analogy of police committing crimes, I am working over the same universe as the post I quoted.
Is it truly your intention to stand up for the “right” to allow firearms to enter illegal circulation? You’re speaking of this phenomenon as if it were as inevitable as sunrise. It isn’t.
Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m with Lazarus in thinking closer scrutiny of sources of crime guns is in order. And I think that there may be mechanisms by which we could reduce the incidence of stolen guns entering circulation.
BUT…two points. First off, some of the measures necessary to reduce the incidence of stolen guns in circulation may well go past my comfort zone as far as respecting gun owners’ rights.
Second and more important, I’m not convinced that such action would reduce the amount of crime. After all, the cocaine and crystal meth in circulation in this country isn’t stolen from legitimate owners.
“Just out of curiosity does anyone believe that those who propose a federal registry of fire arms would not ultimately try to use such a registry to confiscate weapons from otherwise law-abiding citizens?”
That’s extremely simple to answer: there is no monolithic horde of people with a single opinion about guns in the Democratic Party, or favoring a federal registry. Some who favor it would further seek to ultimately confiscate guns, some wouldn’t.
The existence of one group doesn’t obviate the existence of the other. Thinking otherwise leads to erroneous conclusions.
Gary, surely you’re right that there is no monolith of opinion among gun-control advocates.
But once a registry existed, I guarantee the anti-gun movement’s center of gravity would shift further toward confiscation. It took 80 years from registration/licensing to confiscation in the UK; surely the original advocates would have opposed confiscation, but they were long dead and thus couldn’t help when the time came.
Have you ever known any political movement of any kind to just dissolve after it achieves its goals? Their natural reaction to victory is to push for more (and here I include pretty much all movements, not just gun control).
So regardless of the intent of present-day gun control advocates (which is impossible to determine or describe), the effect of the polcies they advocate is a move toward confiscation. Which is simply not OK with me.
“Have you ever known any political movement of any kind to just dissolve after it achieves its goals? Their natural reaction to victory is to push for more (and here I include pretty much all movements, not just gun control).”
However, the implied conclusion here, that no policy can ever be enacted because of the not just danger, but sheer inevitability, that eventually, down the line, it will be taken to an ultimate extreme, is actually quite ludicrous.
If we followed this reasoning consistently, we couldn’t make murder a capital crime, because inevitably littering will be made a capital crime. Those who oppose gay marriage will inevitably enact death camps for gays. Those who favor an EPA will eventually shut down all industry. We can’t invade Iraq, because inevitably we will invade China. We can’t oppose invading Iraq, because inevitably we will never fight a just war anywhere.
And so on, and so forth.
I have the following quote on the sidebar of my blog, for a reason:
You say:
I agree that your fear is valid. I don’t agree it’s going to be inevitably fulfilled, and that nobody concerned with the issue should ever compromise because the inevitable “effect” will lead to The Worst (in this case, confiscation). What happens next is always a choice, and insisting it isn’t is counter-factual.
Gary, you’re making the classic anti-slippery-slope argument, and I agree with you in principle. Not everything is a slippery slope. But gun control is the classic slippery slope.
Unlike “shutting down industry” or “making littering a capital crime,” there is no organic, built-in brake on the slippery slope here, indeed quite the opposite. Industry can’t be shut down because everyone needs a job. Littering can’t be punishable by death because everyone commits some kind of petty offense from time to time.
But with gun control, if enough impediments are placed in the way of gun owners, many people will give up owning guns at all, thus shrinking the politcal power base of gun owners, and making further regulation both more popular and easier to enact.
So while cracking down too hard on crime or industry leads naturally to a backlash, cracking down on guns leads to a “frontlash,” and the rate of regulation accelerates.
Besides, do I really need to recite the worldwide list of countries (including common-law countries) that began with “reasonable, sensible” regulations and ended with confiscation? With the Supreme Court taking a disturbingly strong interest in foreign law (with Congress to follow? Some people are eager to compare us to Europe in every respect), I don’t think it’s nuts to worry about those examples.
Finally, the most powerful counterexample to slippery-slope arguments is historical: we in the US have been getting more free for the past 200 years in almost every respect; plainly we can make our way up as well as down the slippery slope. That is less true for gun control than for most other political issues (although I will concede there have been substantial victories for gun owners, so the slope is not impossible to climb).