Guns. Lots of Guns.

I’ve been reading Samizdata for a year and a half. It’s a British group blog which discusses libertarian principles.

I agree with a lot of what is posted over there in theory, but yesterday’s and today’s news has made me appreciate one of their recurring themes on a deeper level: the importance of allowing people to possess firearms.

For context, read this post by Skimpy and the Metroblogging Bangalore post on the rioting following Rajkumar’s death. Hooligans have used his death as an excuse to run amuck, destroying government and private property under a pretence of grief. They’ve been threatening business owners to shut down or else. MadMan has written in by email that the police aren’t even bothering to protect anyone, they’ve simply asked everyone to close shutters for their own protection.

Skimpy writes:

No one talks about this one lost day of business for them. No one talks about the fresh bread ‘Iyengar’s Bakery’ would have baked this afternoon and was unable to sell because some goondas forced the shop shut. No one talks about the fact that half the city had to walk back home from work tonight, because the buses weren’t running.

If the Iyengar’s Bakery manager had a gun behind the counter, he could have driven the mob away. He wouldn’t have had to shoot them: the threat would have been enough to control the hooligans, who would have been armed only with sticks. An armed passenger on a bus could have responded to stone-throwing mobs with warning shots.

The obvious objection is that unrestricted gun ownership could lead to the hooligans owning guns too. I think this is not much of a problem- the important point is not whether the hoooligan has a gun or not, but whether the law abiding citizen does. A situation where 80 business owners and 20 hooligans both have guns is still preferable to one where the business owners are unarmed and the hooligans have hockey sticks. Also, a gun in the hands of the business owner is not meant to kill: it’s meant to threaten- to show the hooligans that he faces deadly consequences.
A much bigger problem is our justice system: if someone is arrested for killing a hooligan in self-defense, he could be arrested for murder or manslaughter and end up in police custody for years before the trial closed. Unless police procedure to such homicides is to not press charges, the backlog of cases in the courts could itself make a mockery of self-defence.

0 Responses to Guns. Lots of Guns.

  1. bhavya says:

    A situation where 80 business owners and 20 hooligans both have guns is still preferable to one where the business owners are unarmed and the hooligans have hockey sticks.

    This is a pretty stupid arguement. It’s the kind of shoddy logic organizations like the NRA use to uphold the 2nd amendment in the states.

    80 law abiding citizens are unlikely to use firearms, whereas 20 hooligans are going to use them as they see fit.

    I’d rather not have a bunch of crazed digas armed with guns, there’s only so much damage you can do with hockey sticks.

  2. As I mentioned in the post, I don’t expect the law abiding citizens to use the guns to kill anyone- only to threaten the hooligan. If you’re a hooligan who knows that old Mr. Iyengar has the ability to blow a .44 inch hole through your chest, you’ll think twice about going out on a rampage.

  3. sambar says:

    Aadisht,
    Man, you are going to kick up such a fuss with this one πŸ™‚

    I am with you on the whole weapons-ownership thing of course.

    The issue is, like you pointed out, about deterrence. I think that reasonable limits may be imposed (I guess one does not need rocket launchers and tanks as a private citizen).

    In fact, I think that handing out knives to passengers as they board the airplane is the best way of keeping planes safe. I would say issue guns except that with a gun you can have someone shoot a hole in the plane, depressurize it and cause problems. So, you make sure that no one gets guns on board and basically level the playing field with knives πŸ™‚

  4. bhavya says:

    Okay, your entire arguement seems to hinge on the fact that an armed populace serves as a deterrance towards shooting each other. This hinges on the fact that hooligans and mobs are rational creatures. They’re not. They’re not going to think twice if they know Mr. Iyenger is armed, and they’re especially not going to care because they’ve got a lot more guns than poor Mr. Iyenger, and he’ll be scared to death as it is.

    Freedoms can only be curtailed when then infringe on the freedoms of others, and firearms, and indeed switchblades attack knives do impinge on freedoms.

    Though I guess you’ll just spout the NRA mantra “Guns don’t kill people, People Kill People”

    Yeah, evidence sure goes to prove that.

  5. sambar says:

    Bhavya,

    I am all for peace and love and all that groovy stuff. It’s a worthy goal to strive for. But, in cases where the government is unwilling to impose order, what should we do? I would refer you to the parable of the sheep and the wolves πŸ™‚
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/sheep.html

    I am not trying to hijack the post or provoke an argument here. I used to be a knee-jerk anti-gun guy till I actually sat down and thought about the arguments from the other side.

    As a complete aside, Really, what does anyone have against switchblades, as opposed to other knives? It must be the 80s b-grade movies in which the bad guy (almost always named kalia) almost always uses a switchblade to threaten the heroine/hero/hero’s mom/sister. You can quite conveniently carry a screwdriver in your pocket. A 4-inch screwdriver is about as nasty as a switchblade, especially if stuck in someone’s throat πŸ™‚ So, now, are screw-drivers impinging on other’s freedoms?

  6. bhavya says:

    Well, then the solution lies in bolstering the Police, not arming the populace. The latter has serious negative externalities. I’m no hippy, I’d just not rather walk down a street knowing people around me were packing a gun. It’s called peace, and love for oneself.

    And yes, I know under your paradigm, i could carry a gun too, presenting a “deterrant”, well to be honest, I’d rather not leave the house armed, and I’d rather not fire a weapon.

  7. sambar says:

    Bolster the police? Isn’t privatization all the rage now?:-)
    Well, before this devloves into one of the endless right to self-defence vs gun-control arguments which seem to go on all over the internet, let’s call it quits? πŸ™‚

    I see your point about the problems of having everyone and his aunt armed to the teeth. I hope you see ours about the need for personal protection.

    PS. I don’t carry even a screwdriver. I am in no way affliated to the NRA. I have never so much as shot a gun in my life or cut anything that was not a vegetable with a knife. I have never had to face down an enraged mob, though there was this time with an iyengar… πŸ™‚

  8. Allen says:

    And how, sir, did you arrive at the 80 businessmen vs. 20 hooligan figure?

    When an attack happens it is 100 hooligans vs. 1 businessman figure – with the attacker having the initial advantage of surprise.
    In the present scenario the attackers tell the businessman “Move aside, we won’t hurt you.”
    In your scenario – they wll shoot first and ask questions later – so they don’t get the hole in the chest you were talking about.

  9. Bhavya, if the hooligans are as irrational as you say, then even a bolstered police force is not going to deter them. Your point about Mr. Iyengar being scared to death is more relevant.

    I also have doubts about how irrational the mob actually was. People have been suggesting that they were political hooligans out to create trouble, and that’s a credible theory. Those guys would be rational enough.

    Allen, if you look at the proportion of rioters to the total population of Bangalore, 80 businessmen v/s 20 hooligans is pessimistic.

  10. Arnab says:

    I find it curious that the post chronologically before this is called “The Futility of Regulation”.

  11. Manu says:

    Madman Aadisht,

    This is what I hate about your clique of self-righteous Indian bloggers. Indubitably, this post has been created just to get a desipundit referral and perhaps a few random links from the blogs of a few Gauravs.

  12. basil says:

    hey this post reminds me of a chapter from FREAKONOMICS…similar..or extly the same arguement is made ther and backed with furthur arguements…good one

  13. MadMan says:

    Manu, don’t you have some navel-gazing to do on your LJ?

    Bugger off! πŸ˜‰

Leave a Reply