Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

Own Guns, So that I Don’t Have To

While attending the Agora Financial Symposium in Vancouver, I became aware that Americans enjoy some rights that Canadians do not: among them, the limited ability to carry weapons. Even private security guards seem unable to be armed in Canada.This does not make me feel safer. Quite the reverse.

Private people who carry guns make me feel safer.

So I would like to make a plea to my fellow citizens: please buy, carry, and even stockpile weapons. Carry them with you always. Keep them in your homes and cars. It’s especially important to do this in public places, where freak murderers like that guy in Aurora, Colorado, lurk. The weapons should be loaded and dangerous, capable of killing with one shot.

I especially desire this because I don’t want to buy or own a gun. Truth be told, I hate them. I don’t want them in my home. I don’t want to go shooting at the range. I don’t like looking at them, shopping for them, cleaning them, or even thinking about what they do to others. I loathe violence of all sorts, and hope to never have to use it. I’m a pacifist in spirit.

The only way I can really hope to get away with indulging my wimpy temperament here is if others are willing to pick up the slack that my unarmed self has created. I want burglars, kidnappers, and thieves of all sorts to believe that every home in my neighborhood is heavily armed and populated by fearless gun owners.

I want every robber around every corner to hold the expectation that anyone he mugs is carrying a deadly weapon. I would like to sit in theaters, airplanes, and restaurants where the trolls and scum among us believe that they could pay the ultimate price for misbehavior.

The thing is that I do not want to personally contribute to this cause in any way. I’m not up to it.

To be sure, I was raised with guns in Texas. As early as my trigger finger could work, my parents gave me a surprisingly powerful BB gun. All my friends had them too. We played in the backyard with them regularly. The older kids had 22 pistols and rifles. When they weren’t playing basketball or street football, they were in someone’s backyard (in city neighborhoods!) blasting away at cups, cans, and targets. When I came of age, I got a pistol too.

It was enjoyable enough. But as the guns got bigger, I lost my interest. The shotgun my father taught me to shoot I found to be alarming. His 33 rifle was no better. The bullet was long and looked deadly, even horrible. Once a friend took me out to his farm to shoot his 44 pistols. The sound, the kick, the astonishing damage that these guns caused was it for me. It burned me out on weapons forever. I never want to hold one again so long as I live.

My sincere hope is that other people are not as squeamish. If everyone felt like I do, the world would be a much more dangerous place. The criminal class would rule the day. The pathway for their craft would be clear. So too for government agents, who would hold a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Barriers to tyranny would removed. Those who prey on others would have a free hand.

A friend who grew up in Brooklyn in the 1960s said this was a common slogan in his neighborhood: “For every Jew a 42.” It was commonly understood that if the Jews had been heavily armed in Germany, the rise of the Nazis would have been checked, and perhaps the Holocaust could have been prevented. Neither he nor his friends were particularly interested in doing this but the point was clear.

Today, he too hopes to be a free rider on gun nuts. I’m with him on this point.

In so many ways, the debate on guns in deeply disturbing. Those who love guns, collect them and shoot them, are the people who are dedicated to defending Second Amendment rights. They go to gun shows, sign up for gun-rights advocacy groups, read gun magazines, and hang out with friends at the rifle ranges to practice.

On the other hand, the opponents of gun rights, those who would want to disarm everyone and stupidly think that the criminal class will go along with the bans, are also the same people who can’t imagine ever owning a weapon. None of their friends own weapons. They live in places like Portland, Oregon, where there doesn’t seem to be any purpose to owning a gun. They are sickened by them. Therefore they want to ban them.

This group has a corollary among those who have no desire to smoke pot and therefore want to deny everyone else’s right to smoke the stuff. So too the people who want to ban liquor and prostitution exercise no effective demand for the goods and services. These people all see the law as an extension of their own moral and aesthetic preferences, and means of institutionalizing and universalizing their own lifestyle and belief systems.

Actually, what the law is should have nothing to do with our own personal choices about what we like and do or dislike and do not do. This view seems nearly extinguished in our world today. If you don’t drink sodas, you are happy to ban them. If you are not gay, you are glad for laws that restrict freedom for others. If you don’t like guns, you want them banned.

That’s not how the free society works. The preservation of freedom requires that we be willing to stand up for the rights of others to own and do things we do not like but which harm no one, or, in the case of guns, actually save lives.

For this reason, I have far more respect for the teetotaler who favors a free market in liquor than I do for the heavy drinker who favors them same. Non-smokers should stand up for the right to smoke. And so too should people who do not own guns and have desire to own guns stand up for the right to possess and carry.

Especially in the case of guns, we gun wimps have a special and personal interest in defending not only gun rights but also the massive proliferation of weaponry among the citizenry. It’s the only way that we can truly deter crime and stop crime in public places when it is unleashed.

The Aurora theater case is a great example. An unarmed population is vulnerable to mass killers, and there is nothing the state can do to prevent this. You can turn the whole of society into a prison and not even that would prevent violence, as anyone who knows prison life can tell you.

The push to disarm is actually a very scary trend. Think of how it applies among travellers today. All weapons are confiscated before people board the plane. So we have large numbers of unarmed people landing in unfamiliar places and wandering around without the ability to protect themselves. Every tourist has a sign on his or her head: mug me.

The only real means to prevent the emergence of a world safe for criminals and government is to see the proliferation of guns among everyone else. I’m sorry, but I will not do my part in this respect. But I will defend the rights of others to do so, with a sincere hope that they will stockpile and be ready. Yes, I’m a free rider, but gun nuts need to know that I’m truly grateful.

  • Christian Bennett

    The nutcase in Colorado wasn’t wearing body armor, rather a tactical vest. A tactical vest is made of heavy nylon and all it is designed to do is have lots of pockets and hold things. Like extra magazines, holsters and what not. It won’t stop a bullet anymore than a heavy jacket will stop a bullet. Thus really any gun would score hits. Any defensive cailber (.380 and up) would ruin his day.

  • http://www.nutritional-supplements-information.com jaxhere

    I generally agree with your sentiments of allowing people who want guns to have them, but since you mentioned Canada, I would like to make an observation: I am a Canadian and have also lived for several years in Chile which also has limits on private ownership of fire-arms. Oddly enough, I feel considerably more secure for my personal safety in both of these countries than I do in the USA.

    My own perception of this issue is not so much the availability of fire-arms and related legislation but there are other issues within the US that threaten personal safety that will not go away by changes in the legislation. Precisely what those issues are, I can’t really say, but I’m confident that more laws will not solve them.

  • visitor

    Yes, but the willingness to relinquish a right to gun ownership is evidence of this sort of subserviece.

  • visitor

    Not liberals with guns. It’s just that the Northwest is an odd mix of hippies and libertarians, and the libertarians win the day on guns.

  • Pingback: News of the Week: Remembering the Horrors of War | LibertarianChristians.com

  • Paul Bonneau

    “FWIW (and for the record, I’m no ballistics expert, so take this with a grain of salt), from what I’ve read about the shooter’s attire, standard handguns would not have helped at all in the theater.”

    Not so. A lower abdomen, leg or head shot would have done the job, or at least taken him out of action long enough to jump him and stop what he was doing. Even aiming “center mass” probably would have taken an arm out.

  • Paul Bonneau

    “They live in places like Portland, Oregon, where there doesn’t seem to be any purpose to owning a gun.”

    It’s funny that Portland would have a reputation like this, because Portland is not a particularly gun-grabbing city. Oregon’s concealed carry law is a good one, which couldn’t happen if Portland didn’t go along with it. I think of Portland as “liberals with guns”.

  • http://austrolibertariancatholic.wordpress.com/ Martial Artist

    @Gregory Gauthier,

    His protection was most likely not complete. Most body armor only covers the torso, and a helmet only the head. There is often a gap between the two and if his hip joints were not covered by the body armor it would have been a relatively straightforward shot to put him on the ground, at which point anyone shooting from the direction of his feet would have been able to neutralize him quickly, assuming adequate marksmanship skills.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • http://austrolibertariancatholic.wordpress.com/ Martial Artist

    Mr. Tucker,

    Count me in. I have been a CCW permittee in my home state since the early 1990s.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • Paulo Kogos

    Nice article.

    I am from Brazil and my government, a leftist kleptocracy with totalitarian desires, is attempting to make private guns illegal. This is frightening.

    I would like to know your opinion about heavier stuff such as tanks, cruise missiles, fighter jets, and stuff such as biological weapons and explosives,as well as nuclear warheads.

    How should a freer society deal with these types of weaponry? Should they be regulated somehow?

  • STEVEN BURDEN

    Wonderful essay. Of course, you could have added another group: The so-called “Bootleggers and Baptists” who lobby for legislation not necessarily based on personal preference, but for economic gain.

    However, that is a relatively minor point. What really needs to be addressed is the “Free Rider” issue you have uncovered. Economists should be up in arms! We must immediately nationalize the “Gun Nut” sector to insure that all citizens are paying their “fair share”. The costs of arming the Gun Nut sector must be shared, or else we will be facing a truly horrific shortage of “Gun Nuts”…

    Yeah, bad humor, I know. But I really just wanted to highlight how fragile and ridiculous most “free-rider” market-failures–and the necessity of government intervention to address those failures–appear to be. If they are all this straightforward and simply resolve to individual preference, do we not “solve” a good number of free-rider problems simply by liberating the individual to openly act on their personal preferences?

    After all, it is not like we have a dearth of “Gun Nuts.” (Myself being one…)

    • STEVEN BURDEN

      EDIT: Myself being one…

  • GREGORY GAUTHIER

    FWIW (and for the record, I’m no ballistics expert, so take this with a grain of salt), from what I’ve read about the shooter’s attire, standard handguns would not have helped at all in the theater. It might have impeded his progress a bit, or it might have just added to the carnage, what with people running all over the place…

    As for the Jewish community in Germany, I think their fate had a lot more to do with a pathological belief in their own subservience, and the inevitability of their own suffering (conditioned into the community by religious leaders and parents), than it did with gun ownership. Elie Wiesel’s book “Night” is full of examples of this.