My own view on gun control is that it’s a kind of prisoner’s dilemma equilibrium, with the “high gun” equilibrium (US) being the defect situation, and the “low gun” equilibrium (France) being the cooperate situation. And that like many cases of real life prisoner’s dilemma, an “external power” (in that case the state) enforcing the cooperation by adding an additional penalty to defection can work, but doesn’t always work.
I definitely think the French situation is much saner than the US one, but I just don’t know if it’s realistically possible to apply it in the US.
An important point is that guns take less skill and strength to use effectively than other weapons. Thus someone without much strength or the free time to acquire the relevant skill may well prefer an environment where guns are the strategically dominant weapon. Or as the famous quote goes:
God made some men bigger and stronger than others, but Mr. Colt made all men equal.
If they are predominant amongst agressors and victoms alike, that obviously cancels through. In fact, if one had ones druthers, no ratioanl individual would want to be sitting at the end of an arms race.
If they are predominant amongst agressors and victoms alike, that obviously cancels through.
My point is that it doesn’t. Aggressors are the ones who have an advantage in combat, e.g., those who are stronger or have the free time to train. Guns reduce the “strategic inequality” between those in the biggest advantage in combat and those with the smallest.
In a way that increases the chance victims will die or be injured in a confrontation.
It also increases the chance the aggressor will die or be injured, thus reducing the motivation to become an aggressor and decreasing the chance that a confrontation occurs in the first place.
Add a constitutional right to defect in prisoner’s dilemmas, and a powerful well-funded defection lobby, and yes; it is hard to see how to get out of this.
The rationalist answer (viewed from a non-US perspective) is “well just change the frigging constitution then”. It’s not holy writ, handed down on tablets of stone, and it is—after all—designed to be changed. There are a few other things you could usefully change while you’re at it.
That said, other less effective(but more politically palatable) options being a better way to spend your time seems a plausible case to make, at minimum. Can you imagine what it would take to get 38 states on-board to repeal the Second Amendment? Euro-style gun control in the US is about as likely as American-style gun worship in Europe. The cultures are just too different.
Actually that is a very good point—is the effort really worth it in terms of lives saved? Possibly not… though the only alternative suggestion at the moment from the gun lobby is stationing armed guards in all primary schools, which to a non-US citizen sounds utterly desperate. Is the 2nd amendment really worth that much to you??
The issue of effort needed to force through an amendment does highlight a bigger constitutional problem: making changes is getting too hard. One consequence is that daft supreme court decisions then get set in stone. If you were going to spend effort on one single constitutional change, an amendment to make other amendments easier could be in order. A lot of European countries use referendums for amending their constitutions, which provides for stability against trivial changes, but still allows for amendments every decade or so.
Historically, the US has had 27 amendments in 225 years, which is basically “one every decade or so”. Even if you aggregate the whole Bill of Rights into one, 18 in 225 is every 12.5 years. They’re in a bit of a lull now(though only 20 years), but they’ve done a dozen in the last century. The cutoff seems to be set at precisely the level that stops idiocy like anti-flag-burning and anti-gay-marriage amendments from passing, which is to my mind a good level.
My own view on gun control is that it’s a kind of prisoner’s dilemma equilibrium, with the “high gun” equilibrium (US) being the defect situation, and the “low gun” equilibrium (France) being the cooperate situation. And that like many cases of real life prisoner’s dilemma, an “external power” (in that case the state) enforcing the cooperation by adding an additional penalty to defection can work, but doesn’t always work.
I definitely think the French situation is much saner than the US one, but I just don’t know if it’s realistically possible to apply it in the US.
An important point is that guns take less skill and strength to use effectively than other weapons. Thus someone without much strength or the free time to acquire the relevant skill may well prefer an environment where guns are the strategically dominant weapon. Or as the famous quote goes:
If they are predominant amongst agressors and victoms alike, that obviously cancels through. In fact, if one had ones druthers, no ratioanl individual would want to be sitting at the end of an arms race.
My point is that it doesn’t. Aggressors are the ones who have an advantage in combat, e.g., those who are stronger or have the free time to train. Guns reduce the “strategic inequality” between those in the biggest advantage in combat and those with the smallest.
In a way that increases the chance victims will die or be injured in a confrontation. It’s choosing to stand at the end of an arms race.
It also increases the chance the aggressor will die or be injured, thus reducing the motivation to become an aggressor and decreasing the chance that a confrontation occurs in the first place.
The UK is much more low gun than France. Gendarmes are routinely armed, bobbies are not.
Add a constitutional right to defect in prisoner’s dilemmas, and a powerful well-funded defection lobby, and yes; it is hard to see how to get out of this.
The rationalist answer (viewed from a non-US perspective) is “well just change the frigging constitution then”. It’s not holy writ, handed down on tablets of stone, and it is—after all—designed to be changed. There are a few other things you could usefully change while you’re at it.
That said, other less effective(but more politically palatable) options being a better way to spend your time seems a plausible case to make, at minimum. Can you imagine what it would take to get 38 states on-board to repeal the Second Amendment? Euro-style gun control in the US is about as likely as American-style gun worship in Europe. The cultures are just too different.
Actually that is a very good point—is the effort really worth it in terms of lives saved? Possibly not… though the only alternative suggestion at the moment from the gun lobby is stationing armed guards in all primary schools, which to a non-US citizen sounds utterly desperate. Is the 2nd amendment really worth that much to you??
The issue of effort needed to force through an amendment does highlight a bigger constitutional problem: making changes is getting too hard. One consequence is that daft supreme court decisions then get set in stone. If you were going to spend effort on one single constitutional change, an amendment to make other amendments easier could be in order. A lot of European countries use referendums for amending their constitutions, which provides for stability against trivial changes, but still allows for amendments every decade or so.
Historically, the US has had 27 amendments in 225 years, which is basically “one every decade or so”. Even if you aggregate the whole Bill of Rights into one, 18 in 225 is every 12.5 years. They’re in a bit of a lull now(though only 20 years), but they’ve done a dozen in the last century. The cutoff seems to be set at precisely the level that stops idiocy like anti-flag-burning and anti-gay-marriage amendments from passing, which is to my mind a good level.