[Welcome Smallest Majority readers! And thanks, Kevin, for Quote of the Day status. I'm honored.]
I know I have readers who I am about to make very uncomfortable. Please, as you call me friend, bear with me. Read all the way to the end. Talk to me in comments, in email, on the phone, across the dinner table. But please, read the whole thing.
I’ve linked before to Eric S. Raymond’s outstanding essay on how and why exercising the right to keep and bear arms (particularly firearms) helps maintain a free society: “Ethics From the Barrel of a Gun“.
ESR recently started blogging again, after a two year hiatus, and has just posted another crucial essay: “A Brief History of Firearms Policy Fraud“.
The Heller vs. D.C. ruling affirming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms was a major civil-rights victory building on 15 years of constitutional scholarship….
But there was another trend at work; the beginning of public recognition, after the year 2000, that anti-firearms activism has been founded on systematic errors and widespread fraud in the academic literature on gun policy….
Now that the Heller ruling has come down and administered another salutary shock to a lot of people who thought they could dismiss the Second Amendment and its defenders, I think it’s time that civil rights advocates follow up by exposing the history of junk science and dishonesty in anti-firearms studies.
ESR then lists several of the most well-known studies allegedly supporting strong gun control, briefly explains what’s wrong with them, and cites detailed refutations. These are the studies from which almost all of the current gun-control rhetoric flowed, and it’s all grossly mistaken at best, often downright fraudulent:
I described this pattern as “fraud” … because the magnitude of these errors would be too great and their direction too consistent for honest error, even if we did not in several prominent cases have direct evidence that the fraud must have been intended. A further and very disturbing pattern is that conventional academic peer review has largely failed to point out errors that were later readily apparent to uncredentialed amateurs.
Yes, of course, read the whole damning thing.
Occasionally, in discussions about the right to keep and bear arms, I’ll challenge my debate partner on some point of law or fact. The usual response has two parts:
First, a kind of verbal shrug that says, in effect, only a gun nut wannabe killer would know or care about that, coupled with the accusation that I spend too much time studying the issue. This charge is usually leveled by folks who did a bit of reading twenty years ago, made up their minds, and never looked back. This is the only issue I’ve ever run across where knowing too much, having the actual facts on my side, is perceived as a liability in argument. (Oh, and this I love: after a year or so of study, I left the false safety of the gun control fold just before September of 2001. I looked in to the facts, thought long and hard, and changed my mind. And yet, because I will no longer politely suffer gun control arguments to go unchallenged, I’m the biased, close-minded, one.)
Second, I’m reminded that in this fight, both sides have distorted, misconstrued, covered up, and flat out lied. And again, this charge is often leveled by those who did their research and made up their minds twenty years ago.
Twenty years, people. There’s been a lot of water over the damn dam since then. That old dog won’t hunt, and isn’t learning any new tricks. The horse you’re trying to beat has long since died and gone to dust, and you look like an idiot beating the dirt where once it stood.
Since the eighties, there’s been a huge pile of research on the framing, history, and legal impact of the Second Amendment, and on the sociology and epidemiology of gun control, all culminating in the recent Heller decision. The Court unanimously, unanimously, people, found that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, including firearms, outside of any military or organized militia affiliation. The only disagreement is over how much regulation we must tolerate before it begins to “infringe” that right.
It turns out that Second Amendment advocates have gotten their story straight and their act together, while the gun control zealots have fumbled, fudged, and outright lied.
I’ll point to Heller for examples: Among the many briefs submitted on both sides of the question, one brief on Heller’s side became known as the “Errors Brief”, which did nothing but point out a few of the most important errors of fact in D.C.’s Plaintiff’s brief and associated amicus briefs.
After the decision was released, Justice Steven’s dissent (arguing that D.C.’s outright ban on functional firearms in the home did not constitute “infringement”) was found to have several factual errors, errors so severe that many observers think the opinion should be rescinded, rewritten, and re-released, even if correcting the errors does not change the opinion (although important parts of the dissent in fact rest on those errors). As it stands, it’s a profound embarrassment to the Court. [Note: the given link merely lists the errors; other commentators called for revision.]
The Second Amendment means what it says, in the simplest, most straightforward way: the Founders wanted The People, individual citizens, to be armed, particularly with firearms, independently of any military service, and they didn’t want the government to interfere with that in any way. Whatever damage an armed individual might do, the damage that an unchecked government might do is far, far worse (see the entire twentieth century for numerous horrific examples). The Founders did not limit the idea of “balance of power” to the traditional three branches of government, but meant it to work between individual citizens and their government as well.
Most of the Constitution defines the structure of the government, and enumerates its powers. Articles three through ten of the Bill of Rights further limit those powers. Amendments one and two, however, do something truly extraordinary: they declare that The People, acting out their lives solely in accordance with the dictates of their consciences, even in matters of life and death, are as crucial to the structure and stability of this nation of free states as any legislator, executive, or judge. The Second Amendment is not a mistake, not an oversight, not a misinterpretation, not a historical curiosity: it, along with the First Amendment, is the core of the whole enterprise. When you argue for gun control, you are declaring that free men are not fit to rule themselves, that the “balance of power” does not apply to the most crucial branch of government, The People; that We must be utterly subject to the other three branches. (Oh, except we’re allowed to whine. That’s OK, as long as we don’t actually, you know, do anything that might hurt somebody. Or somebody’s feelings.) And that, my friends, is the biggest, foulest, most toxic load of crap to have ever been dumped on our fruited plains, and it is poisoning our nation from the ground up.
From here on out, anyone who reads this blog, and wishes to discuss gun control with me, needs to show that they have read both Ethics and Fraud, and understood them. Let me say frankly, in all good will and friendship, if you haven’t, and if you aren’t willing to sit and listen to me make these points, and if you cannot refute them — not, mind, just wave your hand and tell me I shouldn’t worry my gunsmoke-rotted, troglodyte brain over such obvious offenses to the Way Things Oughta Be, but actually refute them — you are too ignorant and close-minded to be worth arguing with.
You are wrong. History says you are wrong. Sociology says you are wrong. Epidemiology says you are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court says you are wrong.
It is no longer enough for you to say, Guns are bad, Dave. Good people, nice people, do not have or want guns. All well educated, right thinking, decent folk know this, and even if they sometimes err or exaggerate, well, gun folk do too, so that proves the nice decent people are right because they should be right, so there!
No. Sorry. That won’t cut it anymore.
I have a right, arguably a responsibility, to be armed. So do you. I am no longer required to prove this. I am no longer required to show that I need to have this gun, or meet that standard, or took this training, or got that license, or any such thing. (Not that I’m going to stop trying.)
If you wish to argue otherwise, the burden is entirely on you to show that The People’s unfettered access to arms causes unacceptable harm, and that your proposed remedy will a) significantly limit that harm while b) not significantly infringing the right. I’m sorry you don’t like guns, sorry that you’re afraid of them, sorry you once saw someone get shot, sorry that your friend got depressed and ate his pistol, sorry that someone’s child got into Daddy’s dresser drawer and played with the toy he found there, sorry sorry sorry, but you know what? Too damn bad.
We’ve tried your way. It doesn’t work. You’ve done your level best to make this a peaceable nation without guns, and all you’ve done is to create a flock of cowering defenseless sheep, while letting the wolves run free on parole, and all you can say is, we didn’t do it your way hard enough.
No. We’ve done it plenty. See Washington D.C., Chicago, California, New Jersey, even England. See gun-free schools, gun-free malls, gun-free churches. They’re not “gun-free zones”–they’re free-fire zones, where, just like the slogan says, only the outlaws have guns, and nobody can shoot back. Don’t agree? Fine. Prove me wrong. The burden is on you.
Your way does not work. You want to convince me I’m wrong, prove it. Find some facts, solid, current facts, not lies from the dusty, tattered, transparently fraudulent propaganda ESR exposes. No more you-thinks, and you’ve-heards, and you-wants. None, please, of your god-damned feelings. No, not even if you’re sure. Just cold, refreshing, free-flowing facts, please, and not from ESR’s poisoned wells.
Yeah, sure. Gun advocates make mistakes and stretch the facts a bit at times. We too have our wants and wishes, our blind spots and shortcomings.
But your whole position is nothing but a pack of cowardly lies.
From here on out, the burden is all on you.
In the meantime, please read ESR. Please overcome your irrational fear. Please find a range, and learn to shoot. Please try to buy a gun, if your jurisdiction allows, and find out how hard you’ve made it to exercise a fundamental human right, how hard you’ve made it to defend yourself against goblins who have never given two lumpy farts for your laws, your principles, or your feelings.
Please, please, please, learn that it’s OK to be free.
Here are links to other blogs linking to this post. Thanks, folks. (I should have done this long ago; I’ll do better next time. I’m also trying to figure out why trackbacks don’t seem to be appearing automatically.)
Crayton at 13 Crows
Hecate at Hecate’s Crossroad
New Jovian Thunderbolt links here, with fine comments of his own. Thank-ee!
Tags: A Brief History of Firearms Policy Fraud, Eric S. Raymond, ESR, Ethics From the Barrel of a Gun, New Jovian Thunderbolt, Second Amendment, Washington D.C. versus Heller
Your comments are back on line. Cool.
So Dave, let me start by: “I agree (mostly) with you.” My agreement is based on my FEELINGS. Without reading any of that stuff. Makes damn good logic to me. (I disagree with your anger which is BLATANT but then I don’t know the arguments you’ve endured. I just know it ain’t good for you. Yeah, I know—practice what you preach. Whatever.)
I want you to know ONE law abiding, well educated, good person out there (me!) is happy you are putting the effort out to change one thing wrong in the world. Maybe not like I would do it but hey, diversity! I’d much rather you go all ballistic (no pun intended) on the media more and scream about our relinquishment of our freedom of press and our acceptance of the prison of celebrity worship—talk about the American religion . . .. But then again, you ARE the press with this blog so hmm maybe I need to just shut up and sit down.
Oh but what fun is that? So babbling onward I will say that though I fully support protecting the Second Amendment I think the whole “sheepdog/wolves/sheep” analogy is bunk. And I have read it. Its has been awhile. But as I recall, I thought it was a joke when I read it. And laughed.
Seeing you take it seriously, I would say that there is a shred of truth to it in that we each need to have skills to sustain ourselves under unusual circumstances but there is no shame in our society evolving to have the military and police protect us. Indeed it is a hallmark of an evolved society. The first thing the first societies did was specialize. One person farmed. One person made tools. One person protected everyone else while they farmed or tooled.
It is required that we all not try to do EVERYTHING or else we get almost nothing done. So we have protectors.
Yeah and what of it. I am the one homeschooling, growing veggies in the backyard, learning to sew, doing emergency work, etc. so you have to give me credit that I don’t just expect everyone to do everything for me. And I REALIZE that the poopy can hit the fan and we need to not be optical scientists ONLY. So I think it is fine that the majority of the people don’t have a guns in their homes. But those who choose to grow that pepper in their back yard, or know CPR, or own a handgun and can use it fabulously should be celebrated EQUALLY. History shows societies crumble and these skills need to be held by many, at least a rudimentary level, to continue on. So go to the firing range and think of me and my family and I’ll keep practicing my footy pajamas for you. It is part of the plan.
Hugs to you and maybe a chill pill. But I thank you very much.
Now I’ll go find the post that I wanted to comment on the other day but couldn’t.
Chanda, you are not one of the people I had in mind when I wrote this screed, if for no other reason than, as far as I can remember, you’ve never tried to convince me I was wrong while claiming that I’m free to believe any irresponsible, dangerous nonsense I please. This is, simply, not one of your interests, and that’s fine.
You do far more than your share to spread effective citizenship by homeschooling your kids; I can only wish I had your energy and focus. You are one of my heroes, never doubt it. I am always thrilled and honored that you somehow find the time to read and respond to what I write here.
I do need to talk about the anger sometime; I think my readers deserve to know where that comes from. It often surprises even me. There’s not much that gets me this angry, except possibly becoming aware of my own stupidity.
But tonight, for whatever reason, is not the time. I’ve had to throw away everything I’ve tried to write on it. I just need to let that one cook for a while.
No, wait, here’s a taste:
“But Chanda, of course you can’t take a physics class. You’re a girl, you know, and physics is so…crude. Boring, really, Besides, I know someone who was killed in a lab accident.”
How can you coherently respond to a statement like that, when it’s based on such profoundly false assumptions? Where do you start?
What do you say when the speaker, a dear friend of yours, continues, “Now, why are you getting so upset? I’m a girl, too, you know, and of course I’m on your side. I’m only trying to say what’s best for all of us.”
Now imagine that there are federal, state, and local laws making it a felony for a girl to enroll in science classes, and that there’s a whole federal bureau (staffed by officers sworn to uphold the Constitution) dedicated to issuing volumes of incomprehensible, constantly shifting regulations defining what classes girls are forbidden to take, and that girls are occasionally arrested because they get caught testing recipes with a digital scale instead of measuring cups and spoons.
All this despite a constitutional amendment (only rarely tested in court, and not at all in the last seventy years) saying, “A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, to learn and practice science, shall not be infringed.”
Imagine having to listen to earnest learned discussions alleging that the commas in that sentence mean that properly trained and indoctrinated Registered Voters (all males, of course, just like Franklin and Jefferson) are the Only Ones allowed to possess dangerous books like, oh, say, Halliday and Resnick.
“Anyway, that amendment was only written to cover science as it was know to the founders, so nothing later than Newton, right? …Wait, you’re not one of those loons that thinks that girls should be allowed to know nuclear physics, are you? That stuff wiped out millions of innocent Japanese girls in WWII, you know, and I’ve heard that gangs use atoms — atoms, mind! — to kill more than two dozen girls a day in our sadly decaying cities. Europeans have banned atoms completely, being more civilized than us barbaric Americans, and the UN has passed resolutions banning the small-atoms trade.”
Current editions of an advanced assault text like Hecht would, of course, only be available to military girls with adequate clearance, although girls who have passed the FBI background check and paid the $200 per volume licensing fee would be able to purchase texts printed before the 1974 Physics Control Act went into effect, assuming that they could come up with the thousands of dollars charged by the collectors for even a tattered, dog-eared answer key….
And despite all this, respected newspapers regularly publish guest editorials from the Science Policy Center sounding the alarm over the big-business science lobby greedily keeping the library loophole open, and pleading for common-sense science regulation,…
[Oops, is my stridency showing again? I'm sorry, let me tuck it back in....Understand, though, that these are all exact analogies to current gun laws, to scholarly papers on the Second Amendment, to newspaper and magazine articles, and to things people have said to me personally.
[Oh, and my repeated use of the somewhat belittling word "girl"? I have a stock cut-n-paste I use to respond to accusations that I and my fellow right- to- keep- and- bear advocates only like guns because we don't think our penises are big enough. And the folks saying that are convinced they're the sophisticated ones.
[So, yeah, every now and then, the anger boils over. Which is sorta kinda why I have a blog. I'm sorry it occasionally spatters on you, Chanda, because again, you are not the target. And again, I appreciate more than I can say that you put up with the smelly, crud-encrusted burners, pots, and pans, and actually eat this stuff.
[And yes, I used the cooking analogy so that girls can understand it.
]
I don’t, didn’t, and will never feel spattered upon.
Those that *should* feel spattered upon, Dave’s right; you’re wrong. If you don’t accept it now, you will some day. It won’t be pretty. And if he doesn’t say, “I told you so,” I’ll do it for him.
Oh and don’t you dare think of taking my Hecht away. That would make EVEN me get up and take some action. I sleep with that thing. Don’t you? Freedom of science. Amendment 3.14. Use it or lose it.
Oh speaking of Pi did you ever notice our address is almost Pi. 13416. I didn’t either until my tutorees pointed it out. Cool huh. Come take at a look at the door to see for yourself. I dare you. I’ll cook dinner. Salmon with a cucumber dill sauce???
There’s a Quote of the Day in this piece, too. Tomorrow morning’s as a matter of fact.
An excellent, excellent post. Thanks, Kevin for finding and pointing it out.
But it pales in comparison to your reply to Chandra in effectiveness of getting the point across.
A brilliant, brilliant comparision.
“Now imagine that there are federal, state, and local laws making it a felony for a girl to enroll in science classes, and that there’s a whole federal bureau (staffed by officers sworn to uphold the Constitution) dedicated to issuing volumes of incomprehensible, constantly shifting regulations defining what classes girls are forbidden to take, and that girls are occasionally arrested because they get caught testing recipes with a digital scale instead of measuring cups and spoons.”
Of course, I don’t have to “imagine” that. But it might – just might – be what can break through the mindset of those who are all for disarming “The People”
Thank you Dave for both your excellent post, and for commenting on my link to your post over in my corner of the web.
I had previously read and linked to the Fraud essay, but had not seen the Ethics one until today. I had planned on saving the link and reading it when I got home, but have decided to read it at break instead.
I’ll be linking to it forthwith!
In fact, I might have to think of placing up permanent links (something I haven’t done before) to these essays, as the quality is that high.
I’m glad I found your blog, and can’t wait to see what comes down the road.
Thanks again, and take care!
Chad
Testing. Your question anti-spam rejected a rather long comment, and when I went back it was deleted.
Why yes, I did answer it correctly. Let’s see if this one goes through….
Stephen, I’m sorry that evil spammers force me to run the Turing Test, and sorry that the test stole your comment.
Please resubmit it, or if you want, email it, and I’ll post it for you.
[Damn, I hate it when my posts and comments get eaten. I most often have that problem with. blogspot.]
Don’t quite remember what it was I wrote, sadly. Something relating to your reply to Chanda….
Basically I agree with you. I’ve always supported gun rights, but Kevin @ Smallest Minority has made me a crusader.
In terms of metaphorical comparisons, try this:
“Well clearly the First Amendment was only intended to ensure the freedom of government controlled media to speak. But don’t you worry, I’ll protect your right to write the sports page….”
I always get irritated by pols who assure us that hunters need not worry. It’s a very subtle, and very POWERFUL manipulation — twisting gun owners into accepting that the 2nd A is there so they can hunt deer. Ummmm, No. There’s a very specific reason the founders didn’t want _politicians_ to be able to limit people’s right to have firearms.
RE The Spam quiz — this might work better (or not…).
http://striderweb.com/nerdaphernalia/2008/06/anti-spam-quiz-beta-test/
(BTW, you should also consider the “Subscribe to Comments” plugin)
[...] I’m not saying that you should be forbidden to express your opinions, even in a public forum like this, even though most of your very dangerous opinions are based on gross errors and outright lies. [...]
[...] folk have won. We’re right, and the gun grabbers are hopelessly wrong, wrong, wrong. See my discussion of Raymond’s last important post on this point, “A Brief History of Firearms Policy [...]