Alphecca: Clear Thinker of the Day

April 12, 2006

Clear Thinker of the Day

This is part of my occassional series on letters to the editor and op-eds by people who demonstrate clear thinking on the issue of guns and gun control.

Jacob Greenleaf does not have any guns of his own. What he does have is an excellent, sane grasp on the reality of criminals. Regarding the murder of several people in the Capital Hill district of Seattle by Kyle Huff, he writes in today's Seattle Times:

"Not adequately restricting people from acquiring guns," the argument goes, "causes incidents like this one." To the casual observer, this appears true and is adequate reason to ban firearms.

But beyond casual observation, things are not so simple. In order to consider this issue, we have to accept a couple of facts:

• First, guns are not going anywhere. A dedicated person with the right know-how can build a gun in an afternoon. Also, since the demand for guns isn't going away, there will always be suppliers in the market, no matter how regulated. A good example of this phenomenon is illegal drugs: The demand is high enough that suppliers are willing to risk exposure and prosecution to meet it. It is not possible to stop the exchange of a desired commodity by regulation; the most secure and regulated society on Earth is prison, and even there these demands are met.

• Second, no law will prevent people from breaking the law. Kyle Huff legally purchased an arsenal, and then illegally killed six innocents. Considering the magnitude of this crime, it is ludicrous to propose that breaking a gun-ownership law would have given him any pause. To put it differently, if I have already mentally consented to robbing a bank, will it matter that I jaywalk while crossing the street to get there?

• Third, crimes occur regardless of means. Even if we ignore the fact that there is no getting rid of firearms and establish some Pollyanna reality wherein we can cram all guns — and the know-how for creating them — back into Pandora's box, the fact is that people don't need guns to commit extremely violent acts. You need no history degree to know that we were remarkably successful at brutality with bows and arrows, spears, swords and clubs.

I know that the opiners are well-meaning, believing that they can better the world by limiting access to firearms. Given the tools available, however, it is not possible to limit access to firearms for anyone who is already willing to break the law. If I am willing to break the law by using a firearm in a crime, then I would be willing to break the law to acquire it in the first place.

Read the whole thing. Incidentally, he brings up the fact that violent crime is increasing in England notwithstanding the ban there on most gun ownership. His point is that Huff obtained the guns legally and no amount of restrictions or gun control laws could have prevented the tragedy that took place.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at April 12, 2006 08:24 AM

Comments

Hi Geoff,
That guy has got it so clear. Let us hope that the 20% plus of the population who can't make up their minds and therefore decide who we get to govern us, get to read that and vote accordingly next time they get the chance.

Currently in 4th world (no, not blair's britain, though it's heading that way too), and got to thinking of upcoming UN conference on the "problem of smallarms".

strikes me, that those who live in democracies should be urging their govts to form an alternative group that only admits democracies. so long as dictatorships are allowed in the "UN" their votes are only going to be used to perpetuate the conditions that favour dictators.

also (sorry, i'm going way off track) let's help put the word around about OXFAM. Apparently it is OXFAM Canada that Sponsored a study for the south african Govt, with a title something like "gun free South Africa"...

ps, a south african cop killed about 8 people (inc family & colleagues) last week with his service issue pistol...

regards, Keith

Posted by: Keith at April 12, 2006 08:47 AM

Check John Lott's site from 4/12/06. Cops in so-called "gunfree" England won't even respond to a 911 call if a gun-toting mutant is involved. They say it's too "risky" and they wait miles away until it's determined safe to investigate the murder scene. By then of course the bad guy is long gone or has shot his sorry self along with anyone else around him. Combine this with the police being told to let some criminals go with just a warning for certain crimes (if they can even catch them), guess which European vacation location I'm never going to?

Mike

Posted by: Mike at April 12, 2006 10:50 AM

Soon we'll see the Brady Bunch handing out flyers telling folks to avoid England because it's too dangerous for tourists? Jack

Posted by: Jack Lorenz at April 12, 2006 12:12 PM

Weird isnt it the same liberal left-wing hollywood celeberties who want gun control are the same ones who often use guns in their movies or have their armed body guards just look at ROSIE O,DONNELL

Posted by: Dirty Bird at April 12, 2006 03:55 PM

Dirty Bird, Ur dead right, that great scottish nationalist (who refuses to live in britain) sean Connery did voice overs for anti gun adds in cinemas, and roger moore was trying to keep his name in the news a couple of weeks back by saying he hates guns.

nothing like being two faced is there?

neither of them refused 2 take the role of psychopathic killer james bond, in order to play a less well payed job.

Posted by: Keith at April 13, 2006 04:45 AM

I thought he hit it out of the park until I read that last paragraph. Yes, the "lethality" of saw-off, pistol grip shotgun is less that that of a regular shotgun but what the hell do you need to conceal a shotgun for???

Posted by: caribjohn at April 17, 2006 10:23 AM

do you really think so?
here is my opinion

Posted by: Old Lady at April 20, 2006 05:07 PM

Note: Comments close down on posts after seven days and then
the comment input form disappears.

Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that.

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah.
See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips.

Alphecca

Check it out: My group sci-fi blog novel: Colony: Alchibah

April 12, 2006

Clear Thinker of the Day

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Check it out:

My group sci-fi blog novel:

Colony: Alchibah