This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Dear Adrian:
I'm way behind schedule on my current book again, so this reply to
your note -- criticizing the recent magazine interview I gave and
generally attacking gun ownership -- will necessarily consist
mostly of assertions you're free to believe (or not) I can back
with evidence and logic I've neither time nor energy to present
now. I've written fully on this topic before and will again in the
future. When I do, I'll make sure you get copies.
There are many arguments I might make, from the futility and danger
of delegating self-defense to the police (see Don Kates in the Jan.
10, 1985 Wall Street Journal) to the real effect of prohibition,
shifting consumers from newly-outlawed handguns or semiautomatic
rifles to items like sawed-off shotguns or homemade bombs, but I'll
limit myself here to commenting on the newspaper clipping you sent
with your note.
First, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Second, publication of some latter-day "scientific study" doesn't
alter the fact that the gun prohibitionists I discussed in my
interview -- annoying you so much in the process -- were lying.
Third, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Fourth, as often happens with these things, the "study" doesn't
support the gun prohibitionists' original numerical contentions
anyway, but simply adds a new layer of spurious claims to an older
body of lies, omissions, and distortions.
Fifth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Sixth, the fact that gun prohibitionists have been caught lying on
countless occasions (Carl Bakal, author of No Right to Keep and
Bear Arms, even confessed to it publicly) makes the value of this
present "study" dubious, to say the least.
Seventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil,
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Eighth, given your own lifelong service as a federal bureaucrat
(not to mention the cynical sophistication of your fiction), you
should be better aware than most people how "progress" -- in
designing "studies" to prove whatever you want -- outstrips our
ability to collect meaningful data. A case in point we might agree
on is the fact that it took another kind of prohibitionist 20 or 30
years to create "studies" "proving" that pornography causes crime.
More naive (and probably more honest) efforts in the 50s and 60s
clearly indicate the contrary.
Ninth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Tenth, another reason to doubt all such "studies" is that human
behavior (as the Austrian School of economics demonstrates) is far
too complex and unpredictable to be meaningfully quantified. The
attempt to do so -- and then create public policy based on the
resulting pseudo-information -- is wrecking our civilization.
Eleventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil,
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Twelfth, the "study" is also worthless because it incorporates
figures for suicide, which is not necessarily a tragedy but
basically another individual right, sometimes with ancillary social
benefits. If anything, perhaps suicide intervention should be a
criminal offense.
Thirteenth and finally, the National Rifle Association officials
quoted in the article, whatever their shortcomings (and they are
many), are correct in this instance: the "study" is meaningless
because the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
And because of that, Adrian, even if the "study" were valid, it
wouldn't deter me from a lifelong personal objective of seeing that
anyone can own any weapon he or she prefers and carry it however,
whenever, and wherever he or she desires without asking anybody's
permission. In this I'm ably assisted by gun prohibitionists
themselves, whose yawping invariably moves previously unarmed
people to go out and buy their first gun "while they still can".
Before the '68 Gun Control Act, most of the "shooting fraternity"
viewed handguns (incorrectly, as it turned out) as inaccurate,
ineffective toys. There probably weren't six million of them in
the whole country. Now, thanks to Kennedy, Metzenbaum, the Bradys,
and their ilk -- America's Greatest Sporting Goods Sales Team --
we probably manufacture at least that many every year.
The fascinating datum is that Handgun Control, et al. are perfectly
aware of this -- so I guess you'll have to ask them yourself what
their real motives are.
Look: gun-making isn't an arcane or difficult art (and by the way,
it's easier to make a fully automatic weapon than a semiautomatic;
the fact that I can still obtain my own weapon of preference, the
self-loading pistol, is the only thing which keeps me from pursuing
this further). Even if it were difficult, there are already a
quarter billion firearms in America, with an estimated "half life"
of 1000 years -- possibly more for stainless steel. Guns are gonna
be around a long time, Adrian, whether you like it or not.
As for me, to paraphrase Elmer Keith, regardless of what the law
provides or any court decides, I'm always going to be armed. And I
will always work to see that others are, as well. The bad news is
that there are thousands more -- perhaps even hundreds of
thousands -- where I come from. We can't be stopped by passing laws, we can
only be forced to arm ourselves and others secretly and -- given
both the practical and alleged differences between full automatics
and semiautomatics -- perhaps more efficiently.
So what's the point?
My home on the web, The Webley Page: www.webleyweb.com/lneil/
My e-zine The Libertarian Enterprise: www.webleyweb.com/tle/
|
||||||||