Larry

But a good question was raised: how to align libertarian principles with vigilance against those who may crack. Of course that’s the $64,000 question, and there are no easy answers. I would hope that most Americans would have two concerns in such matters: (1) to honour the rights of individuals as best as possible, including the right to privacy, and (2) to protect the populace from aggressors who would do them harm. Sometimes harmonising the two concerns is a tricky business; think the Patriot Act, which is still widely contested across this country.

Cho Seung-Hui had been declared mentally ill by two psychiatrists and a court had noted that he was a danger to himself. Yet he was never committed to an institution. He had been in the system and had been found normal enough to leave the system. He probably qualifies as a borderline case in this regard. There was proof and court records to show that he had mental problems at least. He deserves, as does everyone with regard to their medical information, privacy.

But a university campus, like an employer, has the right to demand certain things from a student at the school. I would argue that if a student wishes to enroll in a university, it is not a breach of their privacy that the school ask for verification of their medical records before accepting them for the protection of other students. The subject still has the right to privacy (they don’t have to attend the school) and the university has the right to deny them enrollment should they fail to provide it.

I do consider rights as inviolable. But there are other measures that organisations can take to do their best to prevent tragedies like what happened last week at V-Tech… the above would be a start.

I guess my first question would be to ask how to align this with your other libertarian principles - assuming that up until he commits the act, the killer hasn’t harmed anyone else? (I’m aware in this case the guy had some minor ‘previous re: harrasment of girls).

And it’s already been hinted at but the whole fertilizer comments undermine an otherwise thought-provoking piece (which by the way advocates a view I’m instinctively against) - if he had been able to kill the first 2 victims, then return to his room and construct an elaborate bomb with the god-knows-how-much-fertilizer it would take to kill that many people, along with obtaining transportation and being able to cover it up, then you would have a point.

(Again, that’s not to undermine the rest of your argument - while I disagree with a lot of it I don’t have the time now and it isn’t the ridiculously reactionary view that unfortunately many on your ’side’ of the gun control debate are incapable of).

You’re right to say that I don’t address the point of “ease” with which one can gain access to firearms; I presume you mean in the sense that worse things can happen when guns are available than when they’re not. Insofar as that affects my argument that America’s ‘gun culture’ is not responsible for this tragedy, you’re right; Hoi may not have been able to murder 32 people with such ease had he not had (relatively easy) access to firearms. But I think it’s worthwhile pointing out that such a concession doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that firearms should be banned.

Say, for example, we invent a method by which to load an arrow onto a bow automatically once the previous arrow has been fired from the bow. This would allow the competition of archery to move along at a greater pace and increase the enjoyment of the sport. Say, then, that Hui decides to murder as many people as possible at his university campus. Are the dynamics of this debate the same, given that scenario? All I’ve done, of course, is to re-invent the semiautomatic pistol, with a slightly different look and an old-fashioned projectile. In each case it’s a deadly weapon, and in each case it’s principal, original purpose was to inflict harm.

The point is that we can identify any number of weapons which may inflict mass-harm with ease: oil trucks, nailguns, chainsaws, bulldozers, homemade explosives, toxic substances, sharp objects. Surely the best action of a society is not to ban or curtail the use of all possible deadly weapons, but to be vigilant against those who would seek to use them in such a way? And the fact that firearms are used daily millions of times more often for legitimate purposes than for murder surely destroys the argument from ‘design’ in an attempt to ban them? Banning guns, of course, did nothing to prevent the Dunblane tragedy in Scotland.

You’re right, of course, that it’s impossible to put the genie back in the bottle (ie. remove guns from America, or even disinvent the gun, come to that). But I’m not so sure it would be that great a feat even if it were possible. America is a much more peaceful society than many of the pre-firearm societies (think ancient Greece, Aztecs, native Americans).

You asked a great question toward the end of your comment: “Why is it such a (by my standards) relatively violent society? This question has perplexed me for years.

Firstly, I don’t think it’s quite as violent sometimes as people think. The American media loves violent, dramatic stories, and they’re responsible for creating part of that image. Where I live in Arizona there are no murders, few burglaries, no beatings, no muggings, no rapes. There’s a little domestic abuse, some (nonviolent) drug use and a lot of drunk driving. I noted with interest that Bill Bryson, in his book ‘I’m a Stranger Here Myself’, upon returning to the States after living much of his life in England, relates his surprise at the low level of crime where he lives in New England.

Second, the United States is huge. I think we sometimes forget that. Three-hundred-MILLION people! With such an enormous population, it isn’t half surprising that there are daily news reports of violence somewhere in the nation.

And I truly believe that racial tensions are responsible for a lot of violence also. Nowhere have cultures, races and religions been mixed so hastily as in the great melting pot of the United States. It’s ironic: the fact that makes America so great is the fact that has the potential to make it so violent. Never before the existence of America were so many different groupings of people expected to live together, in peace, as equals. And I think we’re still seeing the sparks of resolving culture today, between Hispanics, Jews, Africans, Irish, Italians, Latinos, Asians, Europeans, Middle Easterners and more. Give those people so much personal liberty and freedom on top, and you have the potential for violence. Isn’t it surprising, in a way, that there isn’t more violence in America sometimes? Most people really just have a great time living out their lives in this country, which is what makes it such a great place to live.

You are of course right on quite a number of points.

The present European need (it’s far from a liberal thing - conservatives are among the worst)to sneer at all things American is to be deplored and this story was immediately siezed on from that perspective.

Your logic (and that of the NRA) that guns don’t kill people, people do, is also impeccable. But it’s addressing the wrong point. When someone kills someone deliberately (by whatever means)it is wholly their responsibility and the relative ease of availability of particular weapons does not diminish their responsibility.

However, you frame the argument as follows: ‘Countries with high levels of gun ownership are violent places’. You then debunk this quite effectively. But this is a very convenient way (from your perspective) of framing the argument. I suggest that it is better framed as follows:

‘Countries with high levels of gun ownership are more violent places than they would be with lower levels of gun ownership’.

The point you fail to address is “ease”. Guns facilitate killing better than most things (it’s what they’re designed for). If Seung-Hui had not had access to guns, he may well have tried to carry out a similar atrocity. But it is difficult to think of other means of doing so that would have been quite as “effective” (from his perspective) and easy. If he had not had acess to guns, his desire to committ the atrocity may well have been stymied by the relative difficulty of either creating or wielding that weapon. At least, the casualty count would have been likely to be lower.

Having said all that, this is trying to put the genie back in the lamp territory. Whatever, those of us in favour of less availablity of guns may think, the point has been reached where, even if European style gun control laws were introduced in the US (highly unlikely), there are so many guns in circulation that it would make little or no difference.

The question that interests me, as someone who loves the US, is why is it such a (by my standards) relatively violent society?

Steve
Cardiff, Wales, UK

This was an excellent article, if only the nuts would read it with an open mind. Some great arguments and builds upon the body of work already here on the subject at libertarian reason.