I think that any way that you cut it, mass shootings will make people more statist. I have been saying for quite some time that this is not a libertarian moment, primarily because of concerns with terrorism.
The San Bernadino shooting is going to strengthen support for the anti-libertarians on both left and right. On the left, there will be more calls for gun control. On the right, there will be more calls for tightening immigration policy.
My reaction to the initial reports that said that there were three shooters was to think Charles Manson. That is, a psychopath with enough charisma to draw in some other people. As of this morning, that still would be my guess. A Charles Manson who happens to be Arab-American.
Of course, I have plenty of opportunity to be wrong. [update: one argument that goes against my view here.] But if my guess turns out to be right, then I do not think that this undermines the libertarian position in favor of admitting Syrian refugees or against intervening in the Middle East.
On the other hand, if my guess is correct, then I do think that this undermines the libertarian opposition to gun control. I believe that people who want guns for self defense do not need weapons that can fire many bullets rapidly. It should not take more than a couple of shots to ward off an intruder. There are a lot of proposals for gun control that serve only to take away liberty and do nothing to prevent mass shootings. But I can imagine proposals that would do a little bit to prevent mass shootings and do very little to take away liberty.
Those type weapons used were presumably illegal and illegally obtained (as was the case in France as well).
Actually, it appears all of the guns were legally obtained in accordance with CA’s very strict gun laws, i.e. the ones gun controllers say we need nation-wide.
I had seen a report that 2 were purchased illegally and also presumed they used over 10 round magazines, but maybe information is forthcoming.
The reports this morning were saying all four were legal, two of them purchased by the shooter himself and the other two purchased by an acquaintance. That could obviously have changed.
Per USA Today: “The two handguns were purchased by Farook, while the two assault-style rifles were purchased by an individual whose identity and relationship to the suspects remains unknown.”
I’m not sure why this is assumed to mean that the killer obtained these legally, because that is not necessarily true simply from a report that they had at one time gone through a background check for somebody else.
I only recently acquired a gun (purely for home defense) so my knowledge is limited, but what I gather is that pretty much *all* guns – especially ones for self defense purposes – fire multiple bullets rapidly, limited only by the speed of the trigger. So I am not sure that is a meaningful category. It also seems that it takes more than a couple of rounds, on average, to bring down an assailant due to missed shots, adrenaline, and shock delay. Getting shot once and instantly dying seems to be a property of the Hollywood universe. Then there is the type 1 vs 2 error trade off concerning having enough rounds in a life or death situation. Anyway, like I said my knowledge is limited to one training session plus conversation so discount accordingly.
Your general point is perfectly correct. The time to fire 6 shots from a double-action revolver is not all that different from firing 6 shots from a semiautomatic pistol. (Single action revolvers are significantly slower for a typical user, and a bad choice.)
VP Biden’s recommendation of a double-barreled shotgun would be close to the slowest speed unless you only need two shots (although any break-open single-shot gun would be even slower, but not many people have those.) So slow, in fact, that it would be a moronic choice for self defense. Two shots before having to reload is likely to be insufficient in a significant number of situations.
If you were caught in the San Bernadino scenario as a potential victim, and were carrying (let’s say you managed to get a CCW permit in CA). Would you be happy with 2 shots, or 6, or 10, or ??? Any legal limit arbitrarily overrides *your* judgement and substitutes the politicians’ judgement; and note that if the politicians get it wrong, they are not going to be the ones that suffer the consequences.
If .22 Derringers were universally legalized, mass shootings would cease.
Whatever the rule is for which firearms we are allowed to carry, I think it is reasonable for it to be the same rule for personal or home protection as it is for the bodyguards of ordinary VIP’s.
But fat chance of that.
This is one reason I’d welcome universal legalization of basic self-defense tooltools in addition to more effective tools. I’d like to not have to hide my knife under a trash can before going into a concert for example.
Mass shootings are exciting news to read about and eat popcorn while doing so. However, they are a very small concern if you are worried about overall public welfare. They affect something like 200 people in a big year, and most years are not big years. In any other domain, 200 people per year would be considered a resounding success.
If a country had 200 illiterate adults, we would say that it has 100% literacy. 200 is too small to even worry about.
If a country had 200 motor vehicle fatalities a year, again, we would say that cars are now perfectly safe. There would be no call for any change in policy on account of safety.
If a country had merely 200 people die from preventable errors in a hospital, we would say that hospitals are now safe, and stop worrying about it.
Great point Daublin. I looked at the FBI number link below:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
in 2011 the last year in the stats there were only 356 people murdered with a rifle in USA. Not even much to gained by banning all rifles let alone semi-automatic rifles. I am not so libertarian that I would not support gun control that would make a significant dent in the crime that we have in the USA. I just do not see it working.
From what I hear these mass shooters sometimes reload and kill reload and kill. It is not only a single bust.
On the other hand, if my guess is correct, then I do think that this undermines the libertarian opposition to gun control. I believe that people who want guns for self defense do not need weapons that can fire many bullets rapidly. It should not take more than a couple of shots to ward off an intruder. There are a lot of proposals for gun control that serve only to take away liberty and do nothing to prevent mass shootings. But I can imagine proposals that would do a little bit to prevent mass shootings and do very little to take away liberty.
The ability to fire multiple bullets rapidly is pretty intrinsic to defensive utility – a one shot stop is what you hope for, not what you expect.
Also, from a purely technical standpoint, there isn’t any such thing as a clear line between “fires multiple shots” and “fires many bullets rapidly”, and there are strong incentives for the law abiding to want to be able to fire more bullets and more rapidly.
On mass shootings specifically, despite what the President likes to say, there are five other developed countries with more mass shootings per capita than the US. All of them have stricter gun control.
If you want to know more about the gun angle, I can go on at whatever length you’re willing to tolerate, but the short version is this: gun control is a lot like housing finance regulation. Almost everyone who talks about what should be done is ignorant, and whatever it is they think should be done has likely been tried somewhere and failed.
If by “weapons that can fire many bullets rapidly” you mean automatic weapons, then these are already illegal for nearly anyone outside law enforcement to possess. If you mean semi-automatic weapons, then this encompasses the vast majority guns in circulation today. And even many guns that are not semi-automatic can fire six or so bullets rapidly, like revolvers, and its pretty easy to carry multiple ones to limit the need to reload. Are you proposing that everything but muskets be allowed?
There’s an argument for libertarian position as well. I hear more people taking responsibility for their own safety rather, as commenter S has done.
It is reported the attackers (a) had bombs and (b) were wearing go-pro cameras and (c) had no obvious history to preclude legally buying arms IN CALIFORNIA which has some of the most restrictive rules in the US. Arnold’s “they’re whackos like Manson” guess still seems quite plausible to me. But the “they’re some of kind terrorist” claim also seems quite plausible.
There’s another very important argument against “gun control” laws – which is that they increase a very important kind of inequality.
First, realize that industrial capacity to make complicated things (the evolution of machine tools) was largely driven by three things – transportation, sewing machines, and perhaps above all, firearms.
Passable firearms are in a deep sense easier to make than bicycles, and certainly easier to make than sewing machines. Firearms as a technology are older than almost any other technical thing we interact with our daily lives.
Second, saying “ban X” in a technical society like ours really means “ban X among those too willing to follow the rules of the state, or not aggressive enough to find alternate paths to X” It turns you can make a passable firearm, literally, from hardware store supplies such as pipes and nails.
The inequality that arises is the creation of a “no possible defense zone” that lone actors (who were apparently FILMING THEMSELVES with gopros) can attack and be sure of great drama. Compare this to the incident in Texas where security guards thwarted an attack and a swat team shot the attackers. What was different? Defenders.
The train in paris where travelers stopped the attack. Again, vigous defenders.
Mass murder in our society depends upon masses of people with no possible hope of opposing the attack. Armed guards, police everywhere, or even scattering of citizens with even low level preparation would drive down such attacks.
In an age in which devices suitable for mass mayhem against any undefended target can be built from supplies from the hardware store, the technicalities of semi-auto, full-auto, magazine size, and so forth are unimportant. The broad social questions of how many police can we afford, should we have “aux police” citizens who carry guns, first aide kits and radios everywhere they go, more citizens with concealed weapons permits, and maybe all high school students required to pass a basic self defense course, those broad questions, will drive the outcome.
The Virginia Tech shooter used essentially the same pistol the large majority of police use. The Columbine killers used a bunch of really goofy weapons. If they can get an AR they will use that. But the body count will not be drastically different. The common denominator is indeed the target environment. As we transition from lone nuts to terrorists I think we are going to have to decide if we want to have a limited number of government workers sporting submachine guns at dispersed but highly visible security theater venues, or are we going to empower citizens, or at least allow states to decide.
The San Bernadino shooting is going to strengthen support for the anti-libertarians on both left and right. On the left, there will be more calls for gun control. On the right, there will be more calls for tightening immigration policy.
Yes, and you could throw in more TSA-style checkpoints, metal detectors, pat-downs, etc. Look at NFL and MLB stadiums having adopted these in recent years. More domestic surveillance, too. This is something I think open borders advocates are simply failing to contend with or rationalizing away and really makes me question their intellectual honesty.
Yes mass shooting and terrorism hurt the libertarian movement but it has faltered since Ron Paul 2012 as well. Rand Paul has not run a good campaign but libertarians still feel like the movement is missing its mark. (Realize Rand Paul was on Time a couple years ago so please don’t blame the media.) In reality, I don’t know the exact answer but the libertarians are not sending a clear and winning message to gain support.
” It should not take more than a couple of shots to ward off an intruder.”
Really? Perhaps someone who is just trying to bully you, but what if they are motivated to kill you? What if you are a crack shot but they turn just as the bullet arrives? A family member who was police, all the way up to picking up Homeland Security duties the afternoon of 9/11, whose whole high-risk entry team switched calibers after it took 18 rounds to stop an individual. Finally, a shot to the ankle brought him down so he could be subdued. The ER doc plucked the bullets out of his chest with his fingers. Something about the guys musculature and body fat stopped the 9mm bullets.
But true, you can use fewer bullets if you have more skill and discipline. If you learn not just center of mass shooting but to locate high probability trajectories, like taking the kill shot on a deer. You don’t just shoot, you target right below the shoulder so the bullet traverses the heart and lungs. On a human, you aim just to their left of the sternum to avoid the sternum, which can stop a bullet and more centrally impact the heart and do more damage to the lung. The ear is a good target as well. Of course, most gun owners don’t learn kill shots on humans. Most would rather their assailant survive for court, but fewer bullets, best to go for the high probability of a quick stop shot rather than wait for their blood pressure to drop and stop their attack.
Gun owners could spend their time doing combat stress training routinely like special operations do so they keep their breathing regular and their aim true. Can’t stop, it’s a perishable skill at that level. Of course, probably not the best use of resources given the infrequency of the non-spec ops operator needing to shoot at someone, even for police.
I was going to post a lengthy rebuttal but I see that others have already done so.
Suffice it to say that the ONLY effect of additional gun control would be to reduce liberty. No additional safety would accrue to society. None.
Columbine happened during the Clinton AWB. The shooters only having 10-round magazines didn’t limit the carnage. And of course everyone knows they acquired their weapons through an already-illegal “straw purchase” (for which the buyer is serving hard time).
Strict gun control in France obviously didn’t stop the Paris shootings.
The War on Drugs obviously doesn’t stop drugs from flowing into the US, across our massive (and massively porous) land and sea borders. There’s no reason to believe that a comprehensive gun ban would fare any better.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter if you think getting rid of or limiting the availability of guns would be a good idea. You can’t actually *do it* in the actual United States that we live in.
“It should not take more than a couple of shots to ward off an intruder.”
What about three intruders with body armor, pipe bombs, and multiple weapons?
If 10 people had derringers?
I think Arnold is at least half right here.
In other words, simply doing what I imply from what Arnold suggests would be an onstant increase in firearm-related self-defense freedom.
I can’t see how anyone calling themselves Libertarian can believe the government has the right to determine what threats a citizen might face, what might be required to defend themselves against such threats, and how their natural right to self-defense should be limited as a result.
But more than that, the assumptions inherent in his statement, that in every scenario there is only A (SINGLE) INTRUDER, who would always be WARDED OFF by no more than a COUPLE OF SHOTS, should give him pause as a thinking person who is reacting to a mass killing by people who don’t fit that description at all.
In other words, when you find yourself essentially quoting Joe Biden on guns, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door,” it’s time to step away from the keyboard.
“I believe that people who want guns for self defense do not need weapons that can fire many bullets rapidly. It should not take more than a couple of shots to ward off an intruder.”
Then you’ve never been in an encounter when your life was threatened. It often happens with several assailants and aiming accurately under stress is difficult.
Fully automatic firearms are almost totally impossible to get without letting the gov’t know everything about you and have been for decades. This hasn’t helped.
The fact that this occurred in the most strictly gun controlled state in the nations should tell you something about the effectiveness of gun control. It doesn’t work. The argument that we just need a national policy of strict gun control doesn’t bear out in the literature and doesn’t make sense on its face. If the “gun control works” view were correct, states/cities that are more permissive would be more violent. They aren’t, QED.
Further, the 2nd amendment wasn’t designed purely for self defense against a single armed intruder (which seems to be the only thing you think can happen). It was designed as a defense against tyranny. One needn’t bring up Kristallnacht, but one could: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Lessons-from-Nazi-gun-control-5626703.php
I suspect that a majority of those who fall into the anti-gun/gun control group have little to no personal experience of using a handgun. I would encourage anyone who feels compelled to opine on the situation to sign up for a Basic Pistol class, and even take some extra time at a gun range to try out various types of handguns.
No one is forced to own a gun, but anyone who attempts to speak on the issue really should know something about the topic.
I’m a libertarian, and I believe that libertarianism is compatible with gun control laws in principle – so opposition to gun control on principle is not a necessary part of being libertarian.
Libertarianism differs from anarchism. It recognizes the role of government – indeed, libertarians often accept that government is inevitable from a game theory perspective, so anarchism is as foolish as socialism – if not more so.
In practice, libertarianism says that, with respect to virtually any issue, the most successful government policy approach is to make a strong, but rebuttable presumption of liberty.
Libertarians accept rebuttals of the presumption – that’s what makes them libertarians, not anarchists. We accept a role for the state in enforcing contracts, protecting private property rights, establishing right-of-way rules on roads, punishing those who think the freedom of their fist extends past the tip of someone else’s nose, and dealing with externalities when coasean bargaining cannot.
Guns have very significant externality problems (closely related to the fist-nose problem, but worse). The libertarian position would be to ask whether the market can address this problem by itself and, if not, whether there is compelling evidence (not merely evidence or hope or supposition, but compelling evidence) that a government policy could do better.
There’s a great deal of heat around this issue, and I have seen little evidence of either, i.e., the market has not addressed this problem, and it’s not clear to me that any actually-proposed government policy would do better. Indeed, there is some evidence that actual government policies have made matters worse, in some cases.
But, it seems to me that exploring government policies to address the externalities of guns is entirely consistent with libertarianism.
Maybe it’s possible to point out the similarity between gun control and border control to make people who disagree with one to have second thoughts about the other.
Gun control would be another imposition* on Americans. Metal detectors at building entrances (supervised by bored, arrogant, tax-eating guards who make visitors empty their pockets at gunpoint), mass surveillance, bans on “mid-winter holiday” (can’t say Christmas!) parties, segregated (though it’s okay, because they are separate-but-equal!) swimming pools for Muslim women, Muslim cab drivers who won’t take people home from the airport if they have duty-free liquor in their luggage (and cowardly airport officials who refuse to yank those drivers’ exclusive permits to pick up passengers at the airport), newspapers afraid to print G-rated political cartoons that “incite” Muslims, and of course a steady toll of killings and maimings from Sudden Jihad Syndrome (which will be euphemized as “workplace violence” because, you know, Islam means peace), are all impositions on Americans; imposed to deter, or worse, to appease, Muslim mass-murderers.
Why should Americans suffer impositions like these when they could all be avoided by refusing immigration by Muslims?
Restricting immigration by Muslims would arguably be an imposition on foreign Muslims, but one which they earned by being (how shall I put this delicately?) unclubbable. Uncongenial. In fact, extremely annoying and destructive. (Don’t start babbling the “most Muslims are not mass murderers” crap. Do you know what a normal distribution is? Of course most Muslims are not mass murderers (they just, per their own testimony to pollsters support them heartily), but since the mean Muslim propensity for mass murder is far, far higher than the ordinary American propensity, bring a bunch of Muslims into America predicts, to a statistical certainty, a bunch of “excess” (i.e., easily avoidable) mass murders down the road.)
Three axes analysis? On the oppression scale, minimizing the influx of Muslims to America requires a small imposition on them (if a million Muslims moved to the US every year, that would be a huge number for us, but circa 1/10 of 1% of Muslims worldwide, so negligible for them). Not much oppression there. Freedom/coercion? According to our own political masters and now even our libertarian bloggers (looking at you, Dr. Harrass-law-abiding-American-gun-owners-more Kling!) Muslim immigration requires significant coercion of Americans, while averting Muslim immigration requires almost none. Advantage: immigration limits. Civilization/barbarism? To be a devout Muslim is to be a barbarian. The tenets and cultural baggage of Islam, as expressed and practiced by today’s Muslims (not as found in dusty history books next to descriptions of the Spanish Inquisition) are barbaric by the standards of the whole developed world. In addition to incestuous marriage causing shameful rates of birth defects, FGM, near-enslavement of women, and internecine violence on a scale incomprehensible to most Americans, in 2006 the entire Arab world published only one new book for every 40,000 people. The USA published a new book for every 1,900 people. That wasn’t just a question of wealth– Vietnam published around one for every 4,000. The most polite way to secure peace between barbarians and civilized people is separation– good fences make good neighbors.
(Before you-all bring it up, I am in favor of free trade with Muslim countries. The benefits of trade are large and the externalities miniscule. The externalities of immigration are monstrous.)
*A counterproductive and hateful imposition– disarming potential victims will only make it easier for Muslims (as well as local criminals) to attack them. It requires a remarkable degree of stupidity to think that Jihadis intending mass murder will back away for fear of violating gun-control ordinances.