There’ nothing shocking about this graph. It logically follows that when individuals aren’t prohibited from defending their rights to life and property, those who would violate said rights are less likely to do so.

Violent Crime and CCW:

Chart data sources:
Right to Carry Laws 2006 - www.nraila.org/map.
Violent Crime Rates in the United States 2006 - www.fbi.gov/table5.
National Average - Violent Crime Rates in the United States 2006 - www.fbi.gov/table1.

by Jeffrey R. Snyder - (C) 1993 by The Public Interest.

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture — from fashion magazines to the cinema — positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person’s “self-esteem”; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist’s spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one’s life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: “I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want.” For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim’s person and liberty. If the individual’s dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim’s dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m overwhelmed with joy. I stumbled on this refreshing LTE in reference to the insidious “gun free” mentality. There are conflicting premises floating amongst the primary Objectivist circles. At times, the subject of guns, open or concealed carry, and objective laws pertaining to their uses and limitations seem almost taboo. Specifically, the question of what involving a firearm constitutes a threat of force.

I’m encouraged to find others who see reality as I do, and that I’m not intrinsically at odds with some obscure Objectivist tenet that I’ve yet to integrate.

The NRA is clearly not who I thought they were. To the extent that they persist in their crusade for Florida’s HB503 bill - a bill that enables possession of firearms on another’s property, and regardless of the owners discretion - the association has revealed themselves as unprincipled and obtuse warriors for a cause at any price.

Per their public statements and my private conversations with NRA-ILA staff, their claim that an individuals right to life trumps property rights. Their error is failure to distinguish the right to life, and the right to defend one’s life by use of deadly force courtesy of the second amendment. The former inalienably stands alone, while the latter assumes a corollary right - the right to property.

In the Florida bill, they are opposing the sanctity of property rights as they pertain to a situation where all involved parties are voluntarily present, and most likely bound (also voluntarily) under contractual terms. If an individual’s right to property is subject to the whim of political consensus, then what’s the NRA’s wildcard for excluding a specific type of property (firearms) from such whim? Based on their logic, a homeowner also should have no right to allow others to possess firearms on his property. How can the NRA not see how detrimental such precedent will be? Maybe not until gun owners property rights are trumped by the same premise that the NRA now blindly ignores when a new state bill crosses a Governor’s desk that deems firearm owners have no right to their property (firearms) because such right encroaches another’s right to life.

The counter claim that an employee’s automobile is shielded by his property right fails to consider the overall context. An employees car is (typically) their property, but that car is parked on the employer’s property. There has to be an authoritative hierarchy of rights, otherwise the employer would have no legal basis to tow an employees car from their parking lot. If an employer’s rules specify no weapons on premises, it doesn’t matter where or how, or what justifications, none are allowed - period. If you can’t/don’t accept those terms, attempt to negotiate or find a new job.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription. In this case, the employees right to property isn’t forcefully encroached because their presence is voluntarily acceptive of a particular set of stipulations. They are agreeing to a stipulation regarding their property right while present on the employers premises. Therefore, any law overriding this hierarchy is irrational and a detriment to our nation. Neutering a business owners right to enforce his preference to ban weapons is no different than government telling a restaurant owner, who’d otherwise allow weapons, that he can’t. The underlying principle is identical. If you support the fist case, you are supporting the second - you can’t have it both ways.

Not only are the NRA wrong in their stance on this measure, but by throwing phrases like big business and corporate bullies, they’re now bordering on class-warfare, anti-business rhetoric that would feel at home in any DNC stump speech. Heston would be so proud.

The result of any political stance void of explicit premises is nothing more than a pragmatic and likely contradictory opinion. To compromise a fundamental principal for the sake of one that relies on such is irrational. This case is perfectly illustrative of a misguided and ignorant crusade that will serve to undermine the more important cause. The NRA is doing nothing more than arming the enemy (the anti-gun crowd) with yet another avenue of battle. What a tremendous mistake.

UNC-Charlotte, Appalachian State, and UNC-Chapel Hill joined several schools in protesting the “gun-free” nature of state college campuses. We should hope the idiots that support these delusionary laws will feel at least uncomfortable, if not intimidated, noticing all those who take their life, and the right to defend it seriously. Honestly, I’d like to see (and partake in) the same type of statement explicitly made in “safe-zone” restaurants, where the attribute “safe” applies only to thugs who disregard laws.

It takes a flimsy intellect to evade the non sequitur common to all concealed carry laws, that only law abiding individuals grant them any respect. Instead of protecting rights, they prescribe an environment where individuals are handicapped in their ability to defend themselves from those who’d assault them.

I recently received a response to my letter from Erik Eckberg of NRA-ILA, the lobbying function of the National Rifle Association.

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. We appreciate your comments but must respectfully disagree. The ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is a fundamental right. In fact it is as important as any other right since it is a right that can defend all other rights.

Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA

To which I responded:

Hi Erik, thanks for the response. Keep in mind, if the goals are freedom and justice, you and I are on the same page. I know the association has firmly decided it’s stance on this, so this conversation may be of no other use than constructive thought.

The NRA does not believe that that a business’s property rights supersede the property rights of the vehicle owner.

They must to some degree, for example, when an employer needed (for whatever reason) to tow an employees car off of their premises. Should they not be legally enabled to do so because the car is someone else’s property? Additionally, most employment contracts would contain a clause relating to their weapons policy. In this regard, the measure in Florida would also invalidate contractual law. An employee chooses to become so by agreeing to the terms set by an employer. If such terms indicate a ban on weapons, the employee can either accept the terms and comply (or risk the consequences of violation), or not.

In principle, this is no different than a government mandated smoking ban on a private establishment, where the rights of the owner to determine their own policies are clobbered. The owner of the establishment has the right to set the terms of patrons or employees.

We do have a right to life, and property. When we enter anther’s property on contractual terms, the terms may include a limitation to those rights. We can accept them or walk away.

For what it’s worth, my former employer bans weapons on premises, and I chose to carry (and left in my car) most every day. I worked in a rough area, and to me the security was worth the risk of any consequences I would’ve reaped if my violation of their terms were revealed.

For the government to tell them their opinion on the matter is irrelevant is a gross injustice, and goes against a fundamental premise of this country. Rights are violated when an entity initiates force against another. The role of government is to protect the rights of it’s citizens, not to violate them, regardless of the cause. Since employment is a contractual relationship of volition, there is no force. This measure is initiating force against an individual (the business owner) who is violating no other’s right to life, liberty or property - he’s only setting contractual terms with another individual, who’s free to choose to accept them or not. The only force being initiated here is by government - a complete inversion of of it’s purpose.

The reality is that the business owners who want to take away your Second Amendment rights are doing it because they have bought into the anti-gun argument that the mere presence of firearms is a danger and that law-abiding individuals who have access to firearms are a threat.

I agree their premises, as well as most all anti-gun arguments are illogical, emotion-driven nonsense. Regardless, by simply setting contractual terms which can be accepted or not, they’re not taking away anything from anyone. As long as individuals are free to choose their place of employment, no rights are in jeopardy.

Again, I appreciate the response and all that your organization does. In any war, there are battles that must be “picked and chosen”. I wish the NRA would’ve seen the potential damage from signing up for this one.

As a citizen and member, I must advise the association to not support the Florida “take-your-guns-to-work” measure. Our right to keep and bear arms is only derivative to our rights to life, liberty and *property*. Overriding a business owners discretion to allow firearms or not on their legal property is a clear encroachment of property rights.

I’m all for removing barriers to carry, but not at the sacrifice of our fundamental rights.

A more appropriate cause to support would be the similar encroachment on property rights by government overriding an establishments discretion to allow concealed carry (or not) based on alcohol sales or any other silly metric. Here again, the property owners are the only ones who should rightfully determine their preference with regards to weapons on their premises, not government.

Supporting this cause would advance the more fundamental right to property as well as those mandated by our 2nd amendment. Support of this measure discredits the purpose of the NRA. Lets not cut off our foot in order to paint our toenails.

Member #153435425

Poor, poor bureaucrats. Those pesky individual rights are so tricky to grasp… they keep trying, but just can’t seem to get it.

In Florida, a measure soon to be signed into law would allow legally permitted individuals to possess firearms on their employers premises, regardless of the property owners discretion. I’m all for removing all barriers to concealed carry except for those imposed by individuals in pertinence to their property. This is a clear violation of property rights and a perfect example of the ends not justifying the means. Interesting that GovCo. is perfectly fine with individual rights to property being violated for the sake of another individual’s self-defense, but only in areas where GovCo. sees fit.

So, in this chaotic blob of mob-rule spooge our nation has become, you can carry a gun on your employers property despite their wishes and legal right to specify that you don’t. But, you cannot carry in a restaurant where as little as one molecule containing alcohol is sold, despite the owners legal right to decide for themselves. In other words, they can mandate where you can carry against the property owners will, and they can mandate where you can’t carry regardless of the property owners will. I think the message is clear, they presume ownership of everyone and everything.

Of course this does fit the template of failing to see a business owner as himself an individual. Without that identification, the faceless nothing is much easier to sacrifice on the altar of the collective.

It’s very strange hearing a politician mention the sanctity of property rights, especially one with a ‘D’ beside their name. I’m sure if the issue were minimum wage, eminent domain abuse, or smoking bans, he’d lose the individualistic spirit. Selectively supporting rights based on whim or consensus is much more effective in buying votes.

On another note, this article and others mention the support of the measure by the National Rifle Association, although I cannot verify to what extent if any. As an NRA supporter , I must contend that any support of this measure would be an ignorant and self-defeating blunder, considering the right to “keep and bear arms” is only derivative to our rights to life, liberty and property. Condoning such an encroachment would essentially be them cutting off their foot to paint their toenail. Their involvement in this issue will likely determine my future support of their cause.

Wesley Chapel, an aspiring collectivist suburb, is apparently trying to highlight it’s potential to big brother Charlotte, NC.

It’s latest endeavor of political charades is to trample the property rights of Michael Land by criminalizing the use of firearms within “Village” (how cute) limits. Dr. Land is a fellow firearm enthusiast and has been enjoying his six acres of freedom since 1991, when the area was little more than farmland. For some odd reason, individuals who’ve moved into a subdivision adjacent to Land’s property feel comfortable using government force to compensate for their lack of thorough research when deciding to move into the area. Many of the interviewed shared hollow, emotional sentiments such as:

If we’re sitting on our back deck and he’s firing a high-caliber machine gun, we can’t carry on our conversation,” said Mike Failor, who has lived in a Stonegate house behind Land’s property since 2001.

Hmmm… even sweeping aside concept of property rights, which should end this debate, doesn’t the 10 years of precedent mean anything with regards to who should have to change their lifestyle?

On the other hand, there are some who are a little more explicit with their wishes:

For now, Dr. Land lies perfectly within his rights as prescribed by current law, but what about my rights to enjoy my property? He should consider those who live around his firing range & remove the range as a sign of goodwill and buy property further out. The time has past when this was a rural area as there are many more taxpaying residents that he should take into consideration. [bold added]

In other words, my wishes trump his right to property even though he isn’t breaking any laws. He should forfeit that right and go elsewhere as a symbol of his devotion to ‘public interest’. My gang of taxpayers is bigger than yours.

Once again we see the ominous perils of subjective law. Invoking force against an individual is only proper as a response, or as an extremely rare preclusion, to that individual’s violation of another’s right to life, liberty or property. Law based on any other basis is nothing more than mob rule, where legal objectivity is mere inconvenience.

Dr. Land has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an effort to make his personal range exceptionally safe. Although I’m not sure on what legal grounds, his property has also been “inspected” by the local sheriff, and earned his approval of safety. Dr. Land has violated the rights of no one, in fact his are the only rights that are being encroached upon.

The latest ARI op-ed (also unfortunately featured here) is an interesting congruency of interests for me. I appreciate the intent of the piece, which is supportive of an individuals right to own firearms for legal self-defense. However, I think the author’s strict sense of stipulation is debatable.

The victim must summon police, if possible. An emergency ends when the threat ends, or as soon as police arrive and take charge. During that narrow emergency interval, a victim may defend himself, but only with the least degree of force necessary under the circumstances to repel his attacker. A victim who explodes in vengeance, using excessive force, exposes himself to criminal liability along with his assailant. [bold added]

I would argue that the victim not only may defend himself, one who values life should defend himself, and to a further extent than simply “repelling” his attacker – he should defend himself to the extent that the author prescribes above - until the threat ends. Calculating anything under the typical stress of a violent crime is difficult. If an individual has chosen to forego reason and deal with you in terms of force, force is what he should be granted, and to the extent that he chooses to encroach your right to life. In the same manner by which a free country should defend itself from foreign aggressors, an individual should respond to another who initiates force. As Gus Van Horn articulates:

Fighting a war entails a whole host of otherwise barbaric acts performed with one objective in mind: The most rapid incapacitation of one’s enemy as possible. Again, whatever acts had to be done on the account of an aggressor are entirely that aggressor’s fault. Period. [bold added]

Unless Government, the entity to which a free people delegate the responsible for protection of it’s individuals right to life, is able to effectively do so, and with reasonable timeliness; any response to an attacker, an initiator of force, should be admitted under objective law.

Many objects commonly owned for peaceful purposes can be pressed into service for emergency self-defense. But unlike kitchen knives or baseball bats, handguns have no peaceful purpose –they are designed to kill people. [bold added]

Firearms are designed and engineered to effectively deliver a projectile. How they are used is to the discretion of their owner. Yes, maiming and killing not only people, but living objects in general is one of the primary uses of firearms. The market, however, also functions in other completely benevolent manners. Competition shooting is a very popular sport that takes years of finely honed mental and physical training. Also, collecting firearms is a completely peaceful function that also serves as a celebration of man’s mind by way of an appreciation of engineering and aesthetics.

The same lethal power that makes handguns the most practical means of self-defense against robbers, rapists, and murderers, also makes handguns an essential tool of government force. Handguns are deadly force and nothing but–a fact that gives rise to legitimate concerns over their private ownership in a civilized society.

As I mentioned above, they are more than simply a ‘deadly force’ in the same manner as a chainsaw is more than a ‘deadly force’. Yes, you can kill someone with a handgun, but the motivity of murder (or any initiated force) is the volition of the perpetrator, not the instrument by which he commits his crime.

These concerns can be resolved only by laws carefully drawn to confine private use of handguns to emergency self-defense, as defined by objective law. Such laws must also prohibit all conduct by which handguns might present an objective threat to others, whether by intent or negligence.

As an individual, I have to right to peacefully engage in any practice so long as it doesn’t encroach the rights of others. Using a handgun for any purpose other than initiating force against another should be completely legal, and without stipulations in a free nation. Prescribing law based on the potential negligence of any object is a very slippery and subjective slope.

-3/16/08 Edited to include link to Gus, parallel to national defense…