[Drjones]

Hi all. I'm having a debate via email with a guy who is trying to get me to see the "idiocy" in saying that "gun control either works or it doesn't."

Here is his email:
------------------------------

"Gun control either works or it doesn't."

How about this one: "Welfare either works or it doesn't." Or this one:
"Capital punishment either works or it doesn't."

"Gun control either works or it doesn't" is a facile statement. Libertarians
(or Objectivists) make statements like that all the time.

Show me why the statement "Welfare either works or it doesn't" is not equal
to the gun control statement. And try to figure out where I'm going with
this. Try to think like me for a moment. Try to understand where I'm coming
from instead of always rushing forward to your response. Ask yourself WHY
someone who is most likely as intelligent as you would say such things. What
do you gain from thinking I'm "wrong" about this issue, and repeating it
over and over?
-----------------------------------

Frankly guys, I don't even know the intended purpose of welfare, so I'm having a hard time with this one.

Thank you!
Drjones

[Chris Rhines]

I'm not sure where he's going with this, either. My best guess is that he's not going anywhere, and is trying to make himself look smart by using pseudo-intelectual obfuscation.

Perhaps your opponent is trying to make the argument that one cannot objectively state whether a certain program works or does not work by observing the program, its inputs, and its results. If this is the case, then the dude is probably a philosophical Relativist, and it's a waste of time arguing with him any further.

Anyhow, gun control, like welfare, has a number of different purposes. In order to determine whether welfare (or gun control) works, you have to examine these purposes.

Some of the purposes of welfare:
- To create a permanant social class that is dependant on the largesse of the government for its very survival.
- To promote the meme of forced entitlement; i.e. that an individual is entitled to the wealth of others.
- To redistribute capital according to the whims of economic/social planners.
- Put them all together, and you can make an argument that the core purpose of welfare is to increase the power of the state at the expense of the individual.

Some of the purposes of gun control:
- To prevent individuals from seeing to their own defense, instead forcing them to rely on the state for their personal security.
- To consolidate armaments in the hands of the government and its agents.
- To further promote the meme that individuals have no property rights; that only government-approved property may be owned and used in a government-approved fashion.
- Put those together, and you can make an argument that the core purpose of gun control is to increase the power of the state at the expense of the individual.

Honestly, dig far enough into any Great Society government program, and at the creamy, liquid center, that's what you'll find. Up with the state, down with the individual.

- Chris

[Art Eatman]

"Works" or "doesn't work" to me means that gun control either reduces the incidence of crime with guns or it does not.

The statistical research of Florida's crime rates and gun-control laws by Wright, Rossi and Daly in their 1981 publication "Under The Gun" (Amazon.com) shows pretty well that gun control laws do not affect crime rates. These authors expand on their early work with at least one later publication, which I believe is broader and looks at a more national picture. We also have the more recent and more recently publicized work of Kleck and Lott.

Ergo, gun control doesn't work. It only affects those who would not misuse guns, as demonstrated daily around the world, not just in the U.S.

Art

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

Drjones:

You have struck upon the key to the question. Ask your correspondent to state the goals of welfare. He's telling you that saying that "xxx either works or it doesn't" reveals a lack of insight into the true nature of the subject. (I suspect he's trying to get you to admit to the premise that social engineering of any sort is a worthy goal in its own right.) But, since he is intimating that you do not have a deep enough understanding, make him walk you through it from the get-go. So ask him, Ok then, what is welfare supposed to accomplish? What is gun control supposed to accomplish? What are their purposes? Ten-to-one, you'll get some drivel like "Well, they're not supposed to accomplish any one thing, per se. They're supposed to enoble and empower humanity.... ad nauseum. As soon as you try to get him to commit to a logical, reasonable progression of the merits, he will bail. Betcha money. :D

[Tamara]

Idiocy? No, but it's kind of pointless. ;) Who cares whether gun control (or any other prior restraint law) works or not? Why discuss utility when the subject is whether something is right or wrong?

[Drjones]

...nevermind...