Never let a crisis go to waste

Like most Britons (and perhaps unlike most libertarians) I feel instinctively more comfortable in a society where gun ownership is uncommon. Perhaps it helps that our police don't routinely carry weapons (though that's no consolation to Jean Charles de Menezes).

Nevertheless, I'm sickened by the attempts by President Obama and the BBC to exploit the Sandy Hook killings to further the cause of gun control.

Were his tears real?

In a subsequent speech, Obama came out fighting:

We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them we must change ... what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless? In the face of such carnage? ... Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

Perhaps I'm just sensitive to his arrogant and patronising tone, but it all seems very sinister. The warmth of a small child's embrace is indeed a special thing, but I hate to see it abused by Obama's speech writers.

Mises.org today republished an article from 2006 (presumably originally published in the wake of a previous shooting):

Before we even get to the main article, the introduction by Daniel J. Sanchez makes some sobering points:

The heart-rending nightmare that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary on Friday was not only a product of the pure evil of one individual, but also yet another complete failure of the State. The precious children lost were victims, not only of an individual monster, but of a collective monster. The State made it incredibly difficult for their parents to avoid sending them to mass camps (modern schools) every day, all day. And once there, the State completely failed to keep them safe. More than that, by making the Sandy Hook mass camp a "Gun-Free Zone", the State actually made it impossible for anybody (staff, teachers, parents) to protect them.
...
A sign that says, "Gun-Free Zone" serves not as a warning to murderers, but as a welcome mat.

Tragedies and atrocities inspire an intense desire in the human heart for radical action and change. The radical change that follows Sandy Hook should not be to disarm the general public even further, which would only lead to even more atrocities (at the hands of both independent criminals and the State), but a mass rejection of state schooling. In the wake of this tragedy, parents should pull their children out of public schools for the sake of both their education and safety. And they should cry out, with the protective passion that comes with being a father or mother, for the immediate and complete abolition of all restrictions on home-based and private education. It is time for parents to take their children back from the State.

The main article addresses one of the points that I'd been wondering about: what if the teachers had had guns?

in 1985, only eight states had right-to-carry laws — laws that allow a person to automatically get a permit, provided he passes a background check and completed a training course. Today there are forty states that have some version of these laws. Lott's examination of the data showed that "from 1977 to 1999, states that adopted right-to-carry laws experienced a 60% drop in the rates at which the attacks occur and a 78% drop in the rates at which people are killed from such attacks."

Moreover, he points out that before 1995, it was possible for teachers to bring guns to campus in many states and that "the rash of student shootings at schools began in October 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi after the ban," (my italics).

I haven't investigated the facts for myself, but it seems plausible enough.

Meanwhile, CNN is looking across the pond:

In a country where the constitution is treated with such contempt - where a War on Drugs is pursued without any equivalent of the 18th amendment - how long before American citizens will be disarmed?

How much of a defence do hand guns or even assault rifles offer against helicopter gunships, tanks, and neutron bombs? Not so much, really. But it does make oppression a little less convenient, and sometimes that's all it takes.

UPDATE

Today's Mises.org article features a quote from Justice Joseph Story on the 2nd amendment [Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840)]:

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms

Hannan: a welcome end to declamatory legislation

An excellent piece today from Daniel Hannan:

Theresa May has behaved bravely and correctly by resisting the temptation to review our firearms laws following the Cumbria tragedy. The aftermath of these diabolical events is the one time when we shouldn’t rush to make policy. We wouldn’t be human if, at such moments, we didn’t allow our emotions to rule us.
...
Yet, again and again, we have seen governments panicked into essentially declamatory legislation – legislation, that is, proportionate to the volume of tabloid coverage, rather than the need to address a specific problem.

It started during the late Thatcher years. The Football Supporters Act, the War Crimes Act, the Dangerous Dogs Act, Section 28: all were asinine laws passed because politicians wanted to signal that they were concerned about something, to “send a message”. Things became far worse, though, under Tony Blair, especially after the attacks of 11 September 2001, when all manner of Draconian measures were passed, not to deal with identified threats, but to advertise the government’s toughness.

Hannan contrasts May's handling of the Cumbrian tragedy with Tony Blair's response to Dunblane:

Can you be certain that, if Labour were still in power, it would not be treating this calamity as yet another reason to enlarge state power? It happened after the Dunblane killings. No one argued that a ban on handguns would have made the slightest difference in that case: Thomas Hamilton had held his weapon illegally. Nor did anyone seriously take issue with the Cullen Report’s eminently moderate proposal that pistols should locked up at registered gun clubs. Instead, a filthy tabloid campaign suggested that anyone who voted against a total ban somehow didn’t care about the dead children. Tony Blair’s most nauseating speech as Labour leader was the one he gave to his 1997 party conference, in which he brandished the shrouds of the murdered infants:

“Some Tories accuse us of being emotional. Well, if they had been in that gym, if they had met those parents, sitting in those tiny chairs where once their children sat, they’d have been emotional, too”.

In fact, of course, the Tories had been in that gym. In an act of bipartisan decency, John Major had invited Blair, as Leader of the Opposition to accompany him. This is how he was repaid.

Unlike Hannan, I have no love for the Conservative party, but it seems that on this issue they have resisted the urge to make things worse, at least for now.

I'm inclined to agree that New Labour would not have shown such restraint.

Mass shooting and gun control

The BBC reports:

Taxi driver Derrick Bird was the subject of a massive police manhunt following a shooting spree through several areas of west Cumbria.
...
He went on to kill at least 12 people and injured another 25 in the county, before his body was found in woods. Police say they believe he took his own life.

They also have a piece on the history of mass shootings in the UK, and the relationship to gun control:

Multiple shootings are extremely rare in the UK and most incidents involving two or more deaths have been related to organised crime, such as feuds between drug dealers or gangs.

The Cumbria incident is the third mass-shooting incident in the UK in which a lone gunman has roamed around seeking out victims. Each of the previous incidents led to greater restrictions on firearms.

Sean Gabb provides the radical libertarian perspective:

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties institute, today calls for the relegalisation of civilian gun ownership in the United Kingdom as the only way for ordinary people to protect themselves against gun massacres. [This news release is prompted by the killings of at least five people on the 2nd June 2010 in and around the Cumberland town of Whitehaven.]

Speaking today in London, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:

"This outrage will certainly bring calls from the police and other victim disarmament advocacy groups for further gun control. However, bearing in mind that civilian ownership of handguns was outlawed in the two Firearms Acts of 1997, we fail to see, unless the murder weapon was a shotgun, what there is left to be outlawed.

"The Libertarian Alliance notes that these shootings would have been extremely difficult in a country where the people were allowed to arm themselves. We understand that the killer, Derrick Bird, was able to drive in perfect safety around Whitehaven, shooting people at random. None of his victims was in any position to return fire. Only when armed police could eventually be brought in did he feel it necessary to run away.

"In the United States, at least one campus shooting was brought to a premature end by armed civilians. The same is true in Israel, where many members of the public go about armed. Only in a country like England, where the people have been systematically disarmed, can a killer go about like a fox among chickens.

"The Libertarian Alliance believes that all the Firearms Acts from 1920 onwards should be repealed. The largely ineffective laws of 1870 and 1902 should also be repealed. It should once again be possible for adults to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford. They should also be able to use lethal force, at home and in public, for the defence of life, liberty and property.

"Only then will ordinary people be safe from evil men like Derrick Bird."

While I'm sympathetic to Gabb's view, and especially to the injustice of innocent people left defenceless, I'm not certain that society would be better off if adults could "walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford".

Switzerland is an interesting case, though, as a BBC article from 27 September 2001 explains:

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
...
Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

I would tend to agree that there is "not necessarily a link". The BBC article goes on to note that

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Of course, the association between gun crime and drugs is a result of prohibition. Legalise drugs, and the connection will be broken.