Samizdata.net

Matters Abroad:

Our honorable brethren across the sea, Samizdata, have two interesting posts today. One is on what they call a "counterrevolution" in British constitutionalism, which is worth considering in light of Scalia's comments on US constitutionalism. That can be read here.

The other is about the current Blair government's attempts to impose global gun control. In this matter, the government in the UK has its principles all wrong. The UN, also cited in the piece, knows exactly what it is doing: it is using its pseudo-democratic mechanisms to pursue the defense of human tyranny, like always.

My wife and I were discussing gun control principles the other day. She began with the assertion that gun control was foolish because it wasn't practical; since it wasn't possible to really remove guns from the hands of criminals (as the British surely ought to understand by now), it was unwise to remove them from the hands of good citizens. People should be allowed to protect themselves.

I'm glad to say that I convinced her completely to reconsider this principle. Firearms, and particularly handguns, represent a positive good in society. The small, handy, concealable firearm is unique in that it makes equals of thuggish brutes and the elderly; or the brutes and young women, who may have children or their own bodies to protect. A rifle makes it practical for such a person to defend their home. In those places where roving gangs control the streets -- say, the Congo or Philadelphia -- that can make all the difference.

If gun control were practical, we would be thrown back into a situation in which the strong had more force to bear than the weak, and crime would simply be easier for the brutal.

We've seen this in Rwanda, as Samizdata mentions, but also the Congo. I assume you saw the piece about African victims cooked on spits and boiled alive? Didn't need guns for that -- just strong men of no character, fire and oil. Didn't need guns for the raping or mutilations either -- nature provided the necessities for the one, and a machete works fine for the other.

A firearm would have been useful for the mother wanting to protect those children. Life would be better if the villagers of the Congo kept rifles handy, instead of merely the "militias." It is a slander to use that word, as the above article does; these are merely gangs of thugs. If there were real militias, militias of the people that trained together and could rise to protect their common peace against these thugs, Africa would be a happier place.

Those are the principles we ought to use when considering the issue.