Using the Police for Self Protection
Apparently a lady on the phone to 911 was shot to death while waiting for the police to arrive.
A California woman was shot to death as she pleaded with emergency dispatchers to come and help her. Her death will not make the network news programs this evening, but this is the latest reminder that we must take responsibility for our own safety and not rely on the police.
Darwin has argued on occasion that firearms are unnecessary for self protection because law enforcement serves that role. I wonder what his response would be to this story.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Actually, I’ve argued that gun control would lower the number of deaths (in part) because it’s easier to run away from someone with a knife than someone with a gun. She was SHOT TO DEATH, so that sounds like one more point in my favor.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Huh, I guess it was not against the law to kill someone where this happened.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I’m sure there would be many more murders if it was legal. Just like there would be many fewer guns in the hands of criminals if they were illegal.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
Kinda like illegal drugs.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Just to lay out my position here: I’m relatively indifferent on the issue of gun control, except that I think municipal and state borders are far too porous for it to be particularly effective on a local scale. That said, I’m interested to hear what you two have to say.
“fewer guns in the hands of criminals if they were illegal”
This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
“Kinda like illegal drugs.”
I strongly suspect that legalizing cannabis in the Netherlands increased its frequency of use, and I know prohibition correlated with historically low alcohol consumption levels (although admittedly the temperance movement probably had a greater impact). When you legalize something, it makes it easier for everyone to obtain - yes, even criminals - because they don’t have to go to the considerable trouble and expense of smuggling it across national barriers. Tangentially, I’d also submit that sometimes the police will catch a criminal, but can only -prove- some relatively minor infraction, and gun ownership as a charge against a person planning to commit a crime would be such a charge. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate.
Of course enforcement isn’t going to succeed in keeping 100% of criminals from obtaining guns or fail to discourage any criminals from having guns. Armed citizens aren’t going to completely prevent crime - how many tax evaders are discouraged by the prospect of a fellow citizen owning a gun? Police protection isn’t going to be perfect either. These are silly arguments to be having. Since I’d like to see this conversation go somewhere, I’d be interested to see which of these four points is the primary source of disagreement:
1: What degree of enforcement do you envision when you think of gun control?
2: Clearly, possession of more sophisticated weaponry makes it possible for a criminal to commit violent crime on a larger scale, more easily, and faster. Criminals with muscle-powered weapons are going to be less effective at violent crime. You both seem to be operating under the assumption that violent crime reduction is a positive end. What is the magnitude of the gross benefit of gun control, at the level of enforcement you envision?
3: What is the gross cost of gun control in terms of reducing the ease and speed with which law-abiding citizens can defend themselves, if they are forced to rely on muscle-powered weapons rather than firearms in that respect?
4: How draconian and fiscally expensive are the policies that would be required in order to achieve this degree of enforcement?