With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Barun Mitra, New Delhi
Jan 3, 2013, 1:26:44 PM1/3/13
to Ayn Rand In India
With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral
Harry Binswanger
Forbes magazine
1 Jan 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/
Before the Newtown horror, I, like many people, was in conflict
regarding gun control. On the one hand, guns are dangerous. Their wide
availability means people can kill on impulse, and surely that means
more domestic quarrels turn into killings. And only anarchists would
deny Ayn Rand’s point that “the government is the means of placing the
use of retaliatory force under objective control.”
On the other hand, what about those who want to use guns to defend
themselves? What about people who aren’t ever going to fly into a rage
and shoot anyone in anger? And at Newtown, wouldn’t a few armed adults
have meant that the lives of many of those children could have been
spared? We don’t need statistical studies to know that banning guns
from cities doesn’t stop criminals from getting them.
Note that this “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” does not
arise from looking at different aspects of the same case but from
focusing on two different kinds of cases. The pro-gun side focuses on
cases of legitimate self-defense (and hunting and target-shooting).
The anti-gun side focuses on wrongful uses of guns: the Newton killer
or an enraged husband who shoots his wife (and on deaths from
accidents with guns).
Both sides are looking at cases that are real. The question is: how
can we take all of them into account? What is the proper way to think
about this issue?
The answer I’ve come to is radical: reject entirely the collectivist
mindset. Don’t look at populations; don’t ask: among 300 million
Americans, would law X result in more lives being saved than lost?
That sort of cost-benefit analysis is amoral; lives are not
balanceable one against the other. And, in practice, it leads to
endlessly battling statistical studies. I realized I should not take a
God’s eye perspective, looking down on the flock, seeking to preserve
the herd. Mankind is not a herd.
Junking the collectivist approach, ridding myself of the idea that the
lives of the few can be sacrificed to the lives of the many, I found
the issue almost settled itself. Taking the individualist approach, I
asked myself: what laws should the individual be subject to? What is
the principle governing the individual’s relation to the state?
The principle is “individual rights”–your rights and mine.
Rights define the proper limits of state action. They recognize the
areas within which the individual is sovereign, entitled to act on his
own judgment, free from interference by his fellow man and by the
state. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its expressions are
the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As the
Declaration states, government is established “to secure these
rights.”
To secure them against what? There is only one thing that can deprive
a man of his life, liberty, or property: physical force. Only guns,
clubs, chains, jails, or some form of nonconsensual physical contact
can kill you, injure you, or negate your ability to act on your own
judgment. The proper job of government is to protect the individual’s
rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by
criminals or foreign aggressors.
The issue with guns is the threat of force. But the threat of force is
force. Orders issued at gunpoint are as coercive–as rights-violating–
as laying on hands and overpowering you. (All this is explained in
more detail in Ayn Rand’s articles “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of
Government.”) The government may use force only against an objective
threat of force. Only that constitutes retaliation.
In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of
preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they
have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can
require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s
rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.
But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use
force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence
that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational,
responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others
have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law
sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and
irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.
The government may coercively intervene only when there is an
objective threat that someone is going to use force. The remaining
issue is: what constitutes an objective threat?
An objective threat is constituted by specific evidence of a clear and
present danger to someone’s person or property. For instance, waving a
gun around (“brandishing”) is an objective threat to the individuals
in the vicinity. Having a rifle at home in the attic is not. Carrying
a concealed pistol is not (until and unless it is drawn). Yes, there
are always borderline cases, but rational standards, such as “clear
and present danger,” can be set.
Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population
is no evidence against you. That’s collectivist thinking. The choices
made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make.
People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other
cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given
racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his
skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies
to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no
evidence about what a given individual will do.
The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a
shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat
to the members of your household. Likewise, the fact that there are a
certain number of accidental injuries from guns is no justification
for regulating or banning the ownership of guns for everyone. And The
tragic fact that the psychotic killer at Newtown used a gun to kill
school children is zero grounds for disarming teachers and school
personnel.
The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively
evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a
gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is
threatening to initiate force.
Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the
evil of preventive law and should be abolished.
Harry Binswanger
Forbes magazine
1 Jan 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/
Before the Newtown horror, I, like many people, was in conflict
regarding gun control. On the one hand, guns are dangerous. Their wide
availability means people can kill on impulse, and surely that means
more domestic quarrels turn into killings. And only anarchists would
deny Ayn Rand’s point that “the government is the means of placing the
use of retaliatory force under objective control.”
On the other hand, what about those who want to use guns to defend
themselves? What about people who aren’t ever going to fly into a rage
and shoot anyone in anger? And at Newtown, wouldn’t a few armed adults
have meant that the lives of many of those children could have been
spared? We don’t need statistical studies to know that banning guns
from cities doesn’t stop criminals from getting them.
Note that this “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” does not
arise from looking at different aspects of the same case but from
focusing on two different kinds of cases. The pro-gun side focuses on
cases of legitimate self-defense (and hunting and target-shooting).
The anti-gun side focuses on wrongful uses of guns: the Newton killer
or an enraged husband who shoots his wife (and on deaths from
accidents with guns).
Both sides are looking at cases that are real. The question is: how
can we take all of them into account? What is the proper way to think
about this issue?
The answer I’ve come to is radical: reject entirely the collectivist
mindset. Don’t look at populations; don’t ask: among 300 million
Americans, would law X result in more lives being saved than lost?
That sort of cost-benefit analysis is amoral; lives are not
balanceable one against the other. And, in practice, it leads to
endlessly battling statistical studies. I realized I should not take a
God’s eye perspective, looking down on the flock, seeking to preserve
the herd. Mankind is not a herd.
Junking the collectivist approach, ridding myself of the idea that the
lives of the few can be sacrificed to the lives of the many, I found
the issue almost settled itself. Taking the individualist approach, I
asked myself: what laws should the individual be subject to? What is
the principle governing the individual’s relation to the state?
The principle is “individual rights”–your rights and mine.
Rights define the proper limits of state action. They recognize the
areas within which the individual is sovereign, entitled to act on his
own judgment, free from interference by his fellow man and by the
state. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its expressions are
the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As the
Declaration states, government is established “to secure these
rights.”
To secure them against what? There is only one thing that can deprive
a man of his life, liberty, or property: physical force. Only guns,
clubs, chains, jails, or some form of nonconsensual physical contact
can kill you, injure you, or negate your ability to act on your own
judgment. The proper job of government is to protect the individual’s
rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by
criminals or foreign aggressors.
The issue with guns is the threat of force. But the threat of force is
force. Orders issued at gunpoint are as coercive–as rights-violating–
as laying on hands and overpowering you. (All this is explained in
more detail in Ayn Rand’s articles “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of
Government.”) The government may use force only against an objective
threat of force. Only that constitutes retaliation.
In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of
preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they
have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can
require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s
rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.
But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use
force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence
that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational,
responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others
have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law
sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and
irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.
The government may coercively intervene only when there is an
objective threat that someone is going to use force. The remaining
issue is: what constitutes an objective threat?
An objective threat is constituted by specific evidence of a clear and
present danger to someone’s person or property. For instance, waving a
gun around (“brandishing”) is an objective threat to the individuals
in the vicinity. Having a rifle at home in the attic is not. Carrying
a concealed pistol is not (until and unless it is drawn). Yes, there
are always borderline cases, but rational standards, such as “clear
and present danger,” can be set.
Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population
is no evidence against you. That’s collectivist thinking. The choices
made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make.
People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other
cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given
racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his
skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies
to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no
evidence about what a given individual will do.
The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a
shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat
to the members of your household. Likewise, the fact that there are a
certain number of accidental injuries from guns is no justification
for regulating or banning the ownership of guns for everyone. And The
tragic fact that the psychotic killer at Newtown used a gun to kill
school children is zero grounds for disarming teachers and school
personnel.
The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively
evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a
gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is
threatening to initiate force.
Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the
evil of preventive law and should be abolished.
Barun Mitra, New Delhi
Jan 9, 2013, 2:35:03 AM1/9/13
to Ayn Rand In India
Hi Barun
I tried to post this message directly to the group, but for some
reason Google would not let me do it. Not sure why. Anyway, would
appreciate it if you can post it to the group on my behalf.:
--------------------------------
Hi Barun,
I have been thinking about the topic of gun control for a long time as
well, and my conclusions were largely similar to yours.
However, the problem that I foresee with both my position (and
therefore yours) is - what happens if you extend the same principle to
the issue of individual possession of nuclear/biological/chemical
weapons?
Should individuals be allowed to possess such weapons provided they
don't actually use them, or threaten to use them, on anyone?
Since both you and I deny the validity of preventive law, the only way
that I see that we can defend the right to own guns while at the same
time deny the right of individuals to own such weapons is to say that
ownership of such weapons by an individual constitutes a clear and
present danger to others. However, what if the individual took all the
safety precautions that governments take with these weapons? In that
case, the individual's possession of such weapons presents no greater
danger to the rest of us than the government's own possession of such
weapons. So if an individual took the same safety precautions that
governments take with these weapons, would you say that the individual
has the right to own such weapons?
Regards,
Sumantra
I tried to post this message directly to the group, but for some
reason Google would not let me do it. Not sure why. Anyway, would
appreciate it if you can post it to the group on my behalf.:
--------------------------------
Hi Barun,
I have been thinking about the topic of gun control for a long time as
well, and my conclusions were largely similar to yours.
However, the problem that I foresee with both my position (and
therefore yours) is - what happens if you extend the same principle to
the issue of individual possession of nuclear/biological/chemical
weapons?
Should individuals be allowed to possess such weapons provided they
don't actually use them, or threaten to use them, on anyone?
Since both you and I deny the validity of preventive law, the only way
that I see that we can defend the right to own guns while at the same
time deny the right of individuals to own such weapons is to say that
ownership of such weapons by an individual constitutes a clear and
present danger to others. However, what if the individual took all the
safety precautions that governments take with these weapons? In that
case, the individual's possession of such weapons presents no greater
danger to the rest of us than the government's own possession of such
weapons. So if an individual took the same safety precautions that
governments take with these weapons, would you say that the individual
has the right to own such weapons?
Regards,
Sumantra
gautam
Jan 9, 2013, 1:16:40 PM1/9/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
Hi Sumantra,
There is a similar situation in which the answer was yes. Larry Ellison owns two fighter jets. One of them is a Mig 29, a state of the art aircraft. Countless others own obsolete fighter aircraft which are still capable of packing a devastating punch.
Regards,
Gautam
Barun Mitra, New Delhi
Jan 12, 2013, 8:28:54 AM1/12/13
to Ayn Rand In India
Here are two news item that may interest you, given the recent
discussion on guns and violence.
Barun
Girls with Guns,
Townhall, 12 January 2013
Ashley HerzogI wrote about the Mayan 14 incident, in which a shooter
was halted by an off-duty cop. The off-duty cop, a woman, Lisa
Castellano, shot the wannabe James Holmes after he ran into the Mayan
14 theater and began firing—and managed to snatch away his gun.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ashleyherzog/2013/01/08/girls-with-guns-n1483346?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
India's sharp shooter granny fighting male domination
BBC, 3 July 2011
At first glance there is nothing remarkable about Parkaso Tomar, a
hardy 70-something woman who has spent most of her life working in the
fields and tending to cattle in a small north Indian village. Until of
course she picks up a gun and fires a volley of shots, all bang on
target.
She is the "shooter granny" of Johri village in Uttar Pradesh, a
northern province infamous for honour killings and female foeticide.
Not the best of places for girls to grow up.
discussion on guns and violence.
Barun
Girls with Guns,
Townhall, 12 January 2013
Ashley HerzogI wrote about the Mayan 14 incident, in which a shooter
was halted by an off-duty cop. The off-duty cop, a woman, Lisa
Castellano, shot the wannabe James Holmes after he ran into the Mayan
14 theater and began firing—and managed to snatch away his gun.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ashleyherzog/2013/01/08/girls-with-guns-n1483346?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
India's sharp shooter granny fighting male domination
BBC, 3 July 2011
At first glance there is nothing remarkable about Parkaso Tomar, a
hardy 70-something woman who has spent most of her life working in the
fields and tending to cattle in a small north Indian village. Until of
course she picks up a gun and fires a volley of shots, all bang on
target.
She is the "shooter granny" of Johri village in Uttar Pradesh, a
northern province infamous for honour killings and female foeticide.
Not the best of places for girls to grow up.
gautam
Jan 12, 2013, 3:03:52 PM1/12/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
Here is another story (HT Quent Cordair) that shows a woman with limited weapons training protecting her children when an armed robber broke into her house. This goes to show that the average person is capable of reacting rationally.
"The mother, later identified as Melinda Herman, shot the man five times with a .38 caliber revolver after he cornered them in an attic crawlspace, successfully protecting herself and her two children, TheBlaze previously reported."
Poonam Kapoor Vasudeva
Jan 12, 2013, 11:14:11 PM1/12/13
to Barun Mitra, New Delhi, Ayn Rand In India
Hi Barun,
Concerned to know why my messages are not appearing on this group page ?--------
When replying to a mail, please quote only the relevant portion, and do not allow all the emails in that discussion to repeat, with each email.
*****************************************************************
“Ideas cannot be fought except by means of better ideas. The battle consists not of opposing, but of exposing; not of denouncing, but of disproving; not of evading, but of boldly proclaiming a full, consistent and radical alternative.” - Ayn Rand
=========================================
Ayn Rand in India <www.AynRand.in>
Blog <http://aynrandindia.blogspot.com/>
Facebook <Ayn Rand in India page>
*******************************************************************
Ayn Rand In India", to post to this group, send email to aynran...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
aynrandindia...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/aynrandindia?hl=en?hl=en
Poonam Kapoor Vasudeva
Jan 13, 2013, 8:34:53 AM1/13/13
to Aditya Agrawal, Ayn Rand In India
Hi Aditya,
You're the only one agreeing with me so far. So that makes two of us with one united point of view. Am I right ? Or do you not agree with me ? Not that we are here to only agree or only disagree but just to know. Poonam
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Aditya Agrawal <agrawal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Poonam - just make sure you are sending your messages to aynrandinindia google groups address.By the way I was impressed by your analysis of the gun control articleBestAditya
Sent from my iPhone
Adit
Jan 15, 2013, 9:42:10 AM1/15/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
The problem with this approach to the issue of gun control is typical of the fallacy of positive instances.
Like the original Binswanger article does, arguing by 'junking the collectivist approach' in the context of a democratic (rule by majority or muscle) system is a contradiction and is therefore self-defeating.
Good Premises
Aditya
gautam
Jan 16, 2013, 5:41:45 PM1/16/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
Adit wrote
"The problem with this approach to the issue of gun control "
One can just as easily say the arguments for gun control are typical of the fallacy of the negative instances. That much is evident from their timing. Now all instances and examples are out of the window. Yet, instances and examples are exactly what one forms inductions from so what exactly is the value of a positive example (anti gun control) or a negative example (pro gun control)?
Binswanger does not argue in the context of a democratic system i.e. a system in which the majority wins. There is no evidence to conclude that he is arguing in the context you assert and barring that evidence one must conclude that his argument exists in the context of individualism and of the rights of man as he clearly states, "Mankind is not a herd", "The principle is “individual rights”–your rights and mine" and "group ratios offer no evidence about what a given individual will do"
Leaving all that aside, I have a question for you - What exactly does gun control mean to you? Does it mean that guns should be registered with the government? Does it mean that the government should prevent known criminals from owning guns? Does it mean only government agents should have access to guns? Some combination or something entirely different?
Regards,
Gautam
Adit
Jan 17, 2013, 8:28:08 AM1/17/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
Well, then Binswanger (and for that matter, anyone who argues along those lines) inhabits an imagined world.
Don’t you see my point Gautam? Gun control is not a philosophical issue. Neither is it a political one for that matter. Much like abortion, it is anachronistic and does not resolve a real problem. And for that reason philosophers and politicians who dwell on it have agendas (or plenty of idle time) to address. There are far too many threats to individual freedom (and life), more imminent and real than those of gun-toting maniacs.
And if it is not already clear from my posts, my position on this point is very similar to Poonam’s and therefore doesn’t bear repeating.
What is the fallacy of ‘negative instances’? Could you send me a reference please Gautam?
Regards
Aditya
Aditya
Jan 17, 2013, 10:57:21 AM1/17/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
While I have said my (and I hope the) last word on the un-important issue of gun control, there is another and much more serious problem with this article I wish to highlight.
The article casually states that statistical studies are 'collectivist' in nature. That's a totally unwarranted opinion and anti-intellectual.
Statistical data, both descriptive and analytical - appropriately applied, provide invaluable information in almost every field of inquiry. Statistical analysis is a legitimate and indeed indispensable scientific tool and does not warrant ethical evaluation. The only evaluation they require is critical (analysis).
In the context of gun control (ok this is my last word on the un-important issue of gun control) it is vital to have background statistical information such as whether countries with gun control laws have reduced rates of crime or vice versa, etc.
Arguments made of floating ideas/imagined facts are just that - floating abstractions.
Good Premises
Aditya
gautam
Jan 18, 2013, 11:03:55 AM1/18/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
Gun control is not the most important topic or the biggest threat to individualism. There are
bigger problems but gun control is still open to discussion. Small or not every issue is a philosophical issue. If a person considers it unimportant then they can choose not to discuss it.
I also reject the acceptability of phrases such as ""gun toting maniacs" when it is known that most gun owners are responsible people and by phrases such as "The article casually states" when the reasoning (whether one agrees or not) is visible.
Expressions such as these shift the argument from ideas to the character of one's opponent. This
is ad hominem.
The same thing is done once again when the assertion is made that Binswanger and those who agree with him are living in an imagined world. The implication is that these people are not merely wrong but so wrong that they have taken leave of their senses and have no connection left to reality.
It has also been asserted at various points that Harry Binswanger's article twists and misrepresents Objectivism and Ayn Rand's views. Evidence in the form of what (few) views Ayn Rand actually held on the topic has not been supplied. In the absence of evidence these arguments are arbitrary assertions. Ayn Rand in the little she wrote about gun ownership was not opposed to the idea.
On the other hand, there has been an argument made in favor of statistics which is partially correct. Statistics is an important tool but it says nothing about an individual. The latter is the point that Harry Binswanger makes in his article and that the law has to deal with individuals. There is nothing casual or wrong about that.
Regards,
Gautam
Barun Mitra, New Delhi
Jan 19, 2013, 1:14:01 PM1/19/13
to Ayn Rand In India
Here are some data points, from recent years, for a select few
countries, for your consideration. It suggests that while firearms are
important, the person whose finger is on the trigger is even more
important.
Barun
Civilian firearms per 100 residents - USA (89), Switzerland (46),
Germany (30), Brazil (8) and India (4)
Annual incidents of homicide - USA (15,000), Switzerland (50), Germany
(790), Brazil (41,000) and India (43,000)
Homicide rate per 100,000 population - USA (4.8), Switzerland (0.7),
Germany (0.8), Brazil (21) and India (3.5)
Percentage of homicide by firearms - USA (67.5), Switzerland (72.2),
Germany (26.3), Brazil (70.8) and India (7.6)
Homicide by firearm rate 100,000 population - USA (3.2), Switzerland
(0.8), Germany (0.2), Brazil (18.1) and India (0.3)
Sources: Small Arms Survey 2011; United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crimes
countries, for your consideration. It suggests that while firearms are
important, the person whose finger is on the trigger is even more
important.
Barun
Civilian firearms per 100 residents - USA (89), Switzerland (46),
Germany (30), Brazil (8) and India (4)
Annual incidents of homicide - USA (15,000), Switzerland (50), Germany
(790), Brazil (41,000) and India (43,000)
Homicide rate per 100,000 population - USA (4.8), Switzerland (0.7),
Germany (0.8), Brazil (21) and India (3.5)
Percentage of homicide by firearms - USA (67.5), Switzerland (72.2),
Germany (26.3), Brazil (70.8) and India (7.6)
Homicide by firearm rate 100,000 population - USA (3.2), Switzerland
(0.8), Germany (0.2), Brazil (18.1) and India (0.3)
Sources: Small Arms Survey 2011; United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crimes
Aditya
Feb 12, 2013, 11:52:55 AM2/12/13
to aynran...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Barun
This data says it all.
Just goes to show the cognition-enhancing skills of numeracy. A fully functioning rational mind has to deal with percentages and ratios. To denounce statistics as being non-individualistic is a serious epistemological shortcoming. It implies that one's convictions can be divorced from facts and takes one down the slippery slope of the primacy of consciousness. Exponentials and percentages happen to be facts - they do not lend themselves to ethical evaluation.
I didn’t think I needed to but looks like I must clarify that any criticism made here is not meant to be an attack on the moral integrity of any individual. We all happen to be far removed from each other and do not know enough to make those judgements. On the other hand, as James Taggart was reminded, words have exact meanings: epistemological errors and logical fallacies must be exposed unless one considers this forum to be some kind of groupthink.
So cheer up guys – I bear no grudge … against those I have wronged J
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages