Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: In Response to Navy Yard Massacre, Government Should Focus

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

800px-Hagel_lays_wreath_at_Navy_MemorialWithin hours of the September 16 massacre at the Washington Navy Yard, various commentators and politicians were calling for more restrictive gun laws—on the theory that the government should respond to murders committed by a psychotic man by further restricting the liberties of rights-respecting Americans. How absurd.

There is a valid political lesson to be drawn from this massacre, however: The government has a responsibility to protect people’s rights by (among other things) appropriately responding to threats and acts of violence. Had the government done so with respect to this murderer—Aaron Alexis—the massacre at the Navy Yard never would have occurred. Consider why this is so.

  • In 2004, Alexis intentionally shot out the tires of a car belonging to construction workers, the Washington Post reports. At the time, he lived in Seattle, and local police arrested him for the act. However, the Post notes, he was not prosecuted for the crime because government officials lost the relevant paperwork. (TPM verifies this account and adds additional details.) Had Alexis been convicted of this crime, he almost certainly would not have been issued security clearance at the Navy Yard.
  • In 2010, when Alexis lived in an apartment in Fort Worth, Texas, he began harassing his upstairs neighbor, calling the police over her alleged noise and confronting her in a parking lot. While the neighbor was home, Alexis fired a shot that went through her floor and ceiling. The victim told police that “she is terrified of Aaron and feels that this was done intentionally.” Although this case involved at the very least gross negligence (more likely, attempted murder), “the county district attorney’s office said . . . that there was not enough evidence to pursue the case,” the Washington Post reports.
  • Just weeks ago, Alexis’s roommate filed “a criminal mischief complaint” and told police that Alexis had vandalized his car by pouring something into the fuel tank, Fox News reports. This was prior to Alexis receiving security clearance for his contract position at the Navy Yard.
  • Last month a civilian police officer warned naval station police that Alexis was psychotic, Fox News reports. Alexis had told police that he was hearing voices and that “people were following him and sending vibrations into his body.”
  • The government prohibits most members of the military from carrying defensive guns on military bases. One soldier at the scene of the murders told CNS.com that, had more soldiers there been armed, they could have stopped the murderer much sooner. (Police officers armed with AR-15 rifles eventually stopped him.)

subscribe-now-por.pngTo review: The government knew that Alexis was a psychotic and violent criminal, yet the government failed to prosecute him for his crimes, failed to act on clear warnings about his psychosis, granted him security clearance at a U.S. military installation, and disarmed U.S. soldiers in the crime area thus giving the murderer ample time to fire away.

The government’s proper purpose is to protect people’s rights, and it should do so robustly and effectively. In this case, the government failed to protect people’s rights on multiple counts.

This massacre and others like it demonstrate that we need our government to do its job. Such massacres also demonstrate something we emphatically do not need. We do not need more laws that divert government resources from dealing with violent psychotics, such as Alexis, to tracking and harassing rights-respecting Americans.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

Image: Wikimedia Commons



Link to Original
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's rather glaring that he left that out.

The reason why he left that out is because prosecuting and locking someone up covers "stopping them from getting a gun". Inmates don't get guns.

 

And, of course, expecting a criminal who is allowed to go free to conform to a law or court order prohibiting him from buying guns is silly. Leaving the conclusion "if the government had told the psychotic murderer to please not buy a gun, this would've been prevented" out of the article was a tip of the hat to basic reasoning skills, not "gun nuts".

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why he left that out is because prosecuting and locking someone up covers "stopping them from getting a gun". Inmates don't get guns.

 

And, of course, expecting a criminal who is allowed to go free to conform to a law or court order prohibiting him from buying guns is silly. Leaving the conclusion "if the government had told the psychotic murderer to please not buy a gun, this would've been prevented" out of the article was a tip of the hat to basic reasoning skills, not "gun nuts".

 

There's very practical, objective reasons you make the punishment fit the crime. Somebody who is suspected (based on being convicted) of being dangerous should have their rights curtailed potentially. The punishment may not mean locking them up, but it might mean other things, including precluding them from various liberties e.g. buying a gun (or getting a driver's license, etc. etc. etc.).

 

Now, there's the old argument, "since we can't catch 100% of the criminals 100% of then time why even bother", which is... retarded. The solution is to improve law enforcement, not give in to criminals.

 

This guy could have also forged his own government ID. Why not? Same argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, we don't seem to know when the shotgun was purchased or transferred. He may have got it prior to the appearance of his violent and psychotic behavior. You chose to talk past the main points of the post and criticize it for not addressing... Something that we don't have enough info to address.

 

Do better next time.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something Armstrong wrote on his personal blog after the Sandy Hook atrocity:

My modest proposal, then, is to replace the current background check system with one that uses only a “no buy” list. By saying a person with a criminal record cannot legally buy a gun, we are in effect giving that person a sort of extended probation. (The method by which that should be declared is beyond the scope of this article.) 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His first few sentences were, "Within hours of the September 16 massacre at the Washington Navy Yard, various commentators and politicians were calling for more restrictive gun laws—on the theory that the government should respond to murders committed by a psychotic man by further restricting the liberties of rights-respecting Americans. How absurd."

 

Thus the entire point of this article (which apparently contradicts a previous article by the same author), is that gun regulations like the one he proposed before should not be given any applicability to this situation because the entire subject is absurd to bring up in this context. If he truly didn't understand all of the facts, then he should have said so, but in framing things this way he makes it clear that gun regulation is not a possible of solution for this situation, which is wrong since he could certainly anticipate that a gun might have been sold to this individual well after all of this evidence was presented to authorities.

 

If we had a system to put people whom authorities suspect, using objective standards, might be a danger to others on a "do not buy" list for guns, that potentially would have saved many lives here and no functioning person's rights would have been violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you understand that the following does not accurately represent Armstrong's position:

 

If we had a system to put people whom authorities suspect, using objective standards, might be a danger to others on a "do not buy" list for guns[...]

What you describe here is not what he suggested in his blog. He suggested that we have a system that identifies people who present objective threats and curtail their rights. Sounds similar to what you suggested a few posts ago, no? Contrast that with your sentence, which (intentionally or otherwise) suggests that we curtail the rights of people who might present objective threats. That's everybody, son. Whether Armstrong thinks that identifying these people is the role of law enforcement or the role of the judicial system (with the help of LEOs and medical practitioners) is also up for debate. It's hard to get into specifics, considering that he explicitly stated that the subject was outside of the scope of his blog post. I personally think it would be more appropriate to place that power within the judicial system. If you're going to stand by the statement that we should curtail the rights of suspected threats, we can have that discussion. But it would address a completely different issue than the one at hand, which is your claim that Armstrong is a self-contradictory conservative ass-kisser.

You're suggesting this guy *might* have purchased a weapon after exhibiting the behavior that should have landed him in jail under current laws... And I am to take that as evidence of your claim? Try again. In the wake of this latest shooting (as with all of the rest), statists call for all sorts of new legal restrictions that violate individual rights. Armstrong's article is a call to respect individual rights. Dropping this context is great if your intention is to make fun of conservatives. It's not so great if your intention is to speak to Ari's argument (which you seem to agree with, BTW).
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, there's the old argument, "since we can't catch 100% of the criminals 100% of then time why even bother", which is... retarded. The solution is to improve law enforcement, not give in to criminals.

Yes, that's pretty retarded. Not as retarded as equivocating between committing a crime and acquiring an object though.

 

Crime fighting works when it uses effective, enforceable laws. A law against theft or murder doesn't work because the government declared theft and murder illegal. It works because the government takes away thieves and murderers' ability to steal or murder, by putting them in jail.

Trying to prevent murder by passing another law, this time declaring criminals owning guns illegal, is idiotic. It's the equivalent of adding "and I mean it" to an unenforced demand. It doesn't affect criminals' freedom to commit crimes in the least, it's just an empty, unenforceable declaration.

You fight crime by putting criminals in jail, not by feel-good measures that only affect law abiding citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My modest proposal, then, is to replace the current background check system with one that uses only a “no buy” list. By saying a person with a criminal record cannot legally buy a gun, we are in effect giving that person a sort of extended probation. (The method by which that should be declared is beyond the scope of this article.)

That's a proposal to have law enforcement waste their time and the gun industry's resources, and violate law abiding citizens' rights by assuming they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. And it won't even do anything.

 

Anti-gun laws don't make cops' job easier. Committing a crime is an act that usually leaves witnesses, trace evidence, and in general upsets people enough that they alert the cops and are willing to help them when they get to the scene. All those things help cops catch criminals. Meanwhile, someone buying an illicit gun, or illicit drugs, or illicit anything else, does none of those things.

 

Having cops chase around illicit gun deals, instead of focusing on actual criminal activity, is just a waste of limited resources.

 

For example: Chicago's homicide clearance rate was 26% last year. If, instead of chasing illegal guns and jailing people who have or trade them, the city would've focused all its efforts on solving murders and putting murderers away, perhaps next year the murder rate would drop. Instead of 74% of murderers still being free to continue killing, perhaps another 10 or 20 percent would be behind bars. A 10 to 20 percent drop in Chicago murders would be a small miracle and 50 to 100 lives saved. And, over several years, the effects would be even more dramatic. 

 

Blaming guns instead of people results in targeting guns instead of people, which in turn results in murderers staying free for longer. And, guess what: anti-gun laws or no anti gun-laws, a murderer will figure out a way to continue killing, for as long as he's free. Killing people isn't hard enough for such a naive approach to prevent it.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't accurate to characterize Armstrong's blog post as blaming guns. Gun prohibition can be a valid tool for the criminal justice system, like driving prohibition, or restraining orders.

 

That's what I said above: "If we had a system to put people whom authorities suspect, using objective standards, might be a danger to others on a 'do not buy' list for guns...". I didn't think my suggestion was controversial (except to gun nuts like Nicky of course). It's just sensible law enforcement. I actually don't see why we're in disagreement, or why I'm in disagreement with that quote from a long-ago blog post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we're on the same page. You realize that your earlier posts were critical of Armstrong, right?

Edit: Just to clear up any possible confusion, "might be a danger," and "is an objective threat" are two different things... I assumed you meant the latter, which is in full agreement with Armstrong. But I needed to make sure, which is why I explained the difference in post 10. You seem to agree with Armstrong's views on gun control (on some level), despite your criticism of him for writing a piece in opposition to gun-control statism. Why you criticized him for that is still beyond me.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we're on the same page. You realize that your earlier posts were critical of Armstrong, right?

Edit: Just to clear up any possible confusion, "might be a danger," and "is an objective threat" are two different things... I assumed you meant the latter, which is in full agreement with Armstrong. But I needed to make sure, which is why I explained the difference in post 10. You seem to agree with Armstrong's views on gun control (on some level), despite your criticism of him for writing a piece in opposition to gun-control statism. Why you criticized him for that is still beyond me.

 

I meant them as a the same thing, yes. As in, identified, through due-process, as a danger to society who should be precluded from having a gun. Somebody pointed out that probation already does exactly this.

 

A better argument from this author would have been:

 

"The root cause of this tragedy is a failure of law enforcement. Had law enforcement done its job better, this person would have been in jail, and/or would not have been allowed to get a military ID, and/or would not have been allowed to purchase the shotgun he bought only two days before".

 

Instead he left the last part off any ridiculed the very idea of bringing up gun control in this context, which would serve to discredit the last point bolded above, which agrees with a point he apparently made a while back. Maybe it's just sloppy, or maybe its a sell-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the controversy is here.  The article was spot on in saying the Government botched it's roll on this by focusing on the wrong priorities and will continue to botch it's roll since it is more interested in regulating property than protecting rights.  Or to put it succinctly it wants to criminalize what people own instead of what they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the controversy is here.  The article was spot on in saying the Government botched it's roll on this by focusing on the wrong priorities and will continue to botch it's roll since it is more interested in regulating property than protecting rights.  Or to put it succinctly it wants to criminalize what people own instead of what they do. 

 

It's a narrow point of form, certainly. I'm not sure "the government" is going to do anything with respect to guns based on this event, given the current political mix. Not even Jon Stewart is calling for more gun control other than the way this writer suggested (from before). Left, Right and Center, gun control is a dead issue in a defacto way. It sells newspapers and it sure as hell sells Guns N' Ammo to scare monger over the idea--and maybe the occasional Objectivist will cow-tow to gun-nut Christian social security recipients in a futile attempt to make them change their life views based on their positive support of their favorite hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, the last part of your last paragraph was intelligible only as an expression of contempt for conservatives. What was your point? Is it that Armstrong is kowtowing? Please explain.

You write, "not even Jon Stewart," as if nobody is calling for more gun control in the wake of this incident, which is a patently absurd suggestion. The latest rights-violating gun control laws were passed after the latest high-profile mass shooting (Aurora). To say gun control is a dead issue is to express a stunning level of ignorance.

 

Edit: The fact that you would even reference Jon Stewart is indicative of the way you discuss issues like this. You seem very interested in firing spiteful zingers at christian conservatives, and that is causing you to imagine some weird transgression on Armstrong's part. I still don't understand what that transgression is.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You write, "not even Jon Stewart," as if nobody is calling for more gun control in the wake of this incident, which is a patently absurd suggestion. The latest rights-violating gun control laws were passed after the latest high-profile mass shooting (Aurora). To say gun control is a dead issue is to express a stunning level of ignorance.

 

Okay, educate me. What are the bill(s) in Congress on the verge of being passed (numbers, please)? How about a bill that's made it past committee? How about anything that looks like it has a snowball's chance of being a law someday?

 

Sure, there will be people flapping their gums, but will it amount to anything? It's a great big world out there and studies find that a "lot" of people think the world is flat. So what. It's 3%, and millions of people, but they don't mean anything, and they are not worth worrying about.

 

So are we really on the verge of draconian new federal gun control laws being passed? I don't see it, but certainly I can be proven wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S. 150

 

And you know damn well that federal laws aren't the only ways for politicians to violate rights. These are just the others I found in the first minute. 
 

Executive Order

California

Maryland

 

If you know anything about the man you're criticizing, you would know he is politically active in Colorado, where recent gun legislation has lead to the recall of two state legislators. Just because a bill is not in committee doesn't mean gun control isn't an issue in the state. Do you think Democrats won't try to repeal concealed and open carry in Wisconsin if they took back control of the state? There is no issue more alive in America than gun control. So again, it is monumentally ignorant to call it a dead issue.

My conclusion at this point is that you've criticized Armstrong for demanding that any action taken by the government not violate rights. Your critique of him can only come from a drive to make fun of christian conservatives with whom you've mistakenly grouped him. I suggest you find some way to keep your hackles down when you think you smell conservative, because you're embarrassing yourself.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This was from nine months ago, and it hasn't gotten out of committee. It's bluster and and nothing else. It came well before this incident so it was not a reaction to it. I said federal above since that's what I knew about. Certainly you have a point at the State level insofar as those have been introduced in the last few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bills aren't written in response to crises, crises are leveraged to pass bills. Even if a bill hasn't been proposed before a crisis, you can bet that some hack is sitting on one that's already written, biding his time for the right moment to propose it. The same with a committee; they aren't going to pass a bill until the right political climate for a vote. Such a climate could consist of a congress willing to pass it (admittedly a long shot for this one; one website gives the bill a 20% chance of passing). The climate could also consist of a populace ready to punish politicians for refusing to pass such a bill; in other words, it can be used as a wedge issue in the next election. Piece's like Armstrong's can be valuable tools in reducing the effectiveness of such wedge bills, or in taking that 20% down to 15%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...