It occurs to me that you could look at gun control two ways. One is that it can’t be done effectively, and thus you oppose it.
Folks who think this focus on the if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns. As a practical matter this has a lot to recommend it. Rounding up the dangerous guns completely will almost certainly be impossible. That said gun control likely wouldn’t have save the children of Sandy Hook.
But I find that I wonder something about gun advocates. If you had God like power to eliminate all lethal weapons would you? Do you oppose gun limits even if they could be made effective?
I tend to feel that aside from the practical difficulty of gun control, I’d favor no guns. My thinking is the strong pro-gun folks even in principle like a heavily armed world. Here’s a related take.
Suppose someone says, “You know, rather than waiting for the politicians in Washington DC to solve the nation’s drug problem, maybe parents ought to focus on keeping their own kids from using pot.”
Or, suppose a short guy said, “Be the change you to want to see in the world.”
Not only do I think the above statements are correct, I think the second one is downright profound.
This short piece by Amitai Etzioni captures the difference between economists and non-economists. He says that rather than wait for gun control laws, we should just ban them in our own homes and post signs outside announcing that our homes are gun-free thereby becoming “ambassadors for gun control.”
I am reminded of the Hillaire Belloc poem:
Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight.
But Roaring Bill who killed him thought it right.
Look, I’m not being coy. The Etzioni piece is ridiculous, but not because of his opening line. That was actually one of the most sensible things I’ve heard since the awful events last week–if you’re for gun control, instead of asking the politicians to do it, do it yourself! Amen brother. I don’t have guns in my house, and I haven’t kept that a secret.
No, I don’t put up a sign about it, but Etzioni’s point with that was to make it clear to everyone that you personally will not tolerate guns on your property. Russ–and I’m just picking on him because 99.99% of libertarians undoubtedly shared his hilarity at Etzioni’s wide-eyed article–captures the difference between general and partial equilibrium analysis. I’d love to live in a society where 99% of the property owners have a big sign that nobody is allowed to enter the property with a gun. Oops no standing army or SWAT teams in that society; they’d have nowhere to stand. Are we sure it would really be so horrible a place to live?
I know, I know, violence is just so seductive that most of you are still sure I’m speaking nonsense. OK let me end with a poem myself, just like Russ did:
Pale Uncle Sam thought it wrong to use drones.
But Red China didn’t and caused many moans.
What’s the moral today, kids? Often times someone’s argument sounds “from the Onion” only because you disagree with his conclusion. The exact same argument in defense of your position would sound great, and you’d be exasperated with the “idiots!!” who dismissed you with glib poetry.
Last thing: I hope the above post doesn’t come off as an angry young man. Believe me, I understand why people are laughing at Etzioni, and I understand why Russ was just having a quick bit of fun. But by the same token, I can understand why people at MSNBC thought it was hilarious when Ron Paul suggested going back on gold or that US foreign policy might have invited 9/11. “What the heck?! What a weirdo thing to say, ha ha who is this old guy?”
UPDATE: I should be clear that I am not “for gun control” in the way most Americans would mean it. I don’t want armed guys from the government trying to make society gun-free, since that would be using violence to try to change the world–something I oppose as a pacifist.
Also, apparently Gandhi may not have actually said that famous “quote.”
Shooting Down Russ Roberts
Sat, 22 Dec 2012 04:44:39 GMT