Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid
I recently watched "The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid" a 1972 Western about the James-Younger Gang. Cliff Roberston, playing Cole Younger, is casing the town for a bank robbery (in 1876). The townspeople take him to a baseball game and tell him that it is the "new national pastime." Younger replies, "Nonsense. The national pastime is shooting. Always has been, always will be."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Just One Question?
John Lott asks "one question" ("I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.") Joe Huffman asks a slightly different one ("Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"). A few comments about these two "Just One Question"s.
Playing the Devil's Advocate -- as to Lott's question -- is it just murders that we wish to reduce by firearms control, or are we trying to lower the death rate by all causes which could be caused by firearms (murder, manslaughter, suicide, accidents, etc)?
And as to Joe's question, -- how do you define "safer?"
Gun Controllers should be asked "what is the goal of your proposal?" I suspect that for most, the true goal is to not have guns around and if that means an increase in the actual death rate (by other causes - knives, pills, baseball bats, etc) then that is acceptable. We don't like "guns," but we're actually OK with violence as long as it's not caused by guns.
In order to solve a problem the goal needs to be accurately understood. Jerry Pournelle provided a classic example of this recently. The WWII Battle of the North Atlantic. Initially the tactics of the Allies were chosen to optimize the chances of sinking German submarines. Then the strategists looked at the problem and decided that this wasn't the criterion at all: what was really wanted was for more cargo to get to England. Instead of using tactics designed to optimize the chances of sinking German subs, they switched to tactics designed to break up the submarine wolf packs, keep them submerged, and thus prevent them from attacking convoys. The new tactics didn't sink as many German subs, but greatly increased the amount of cargo getting through.
Back to gun control - civil rights restrictionists need to be questioned very firmly about the goal of their latest proposal. Why should society give up a civil right for a proposal that has very little chance of succeeding in its goal?
Playing the Devil's Advocate -- as to Lott's question -- is it just murders that we wish to reduce by firearms control, or are we trying to lower the death rate by all causes which could be caused by firearms (murder, manslaughter, suicide, accidents, etc)?
And as to Joe's question, -- how do you define "safer?"
Gun Controllers should be asked "what is the goal of your proposal?" I suspect that for most, the true goal is to not have guns around and if that means an increase in the actual death rate (by other causes - knives, pills, baseball bats, etc) then that is acceptable. We don't like "guns," but we're actually OK with violence as long as it's not caused by guns.
In order to solve a problem the goal needs to be accurately understood. Jerry Pournelle provided a classic example of this recently. The WWII Battle of the North Atlantic. Initially the tactics of the Allies were chosen to optimize the chances of sinking German submarines. Then the strategists looked at the problem and decided that this wasn't the criterion at all: what was really wanted was for more cargo to get to England. Instead of using tactics designed to optimize the chances of sinking German subs, they switched to tactics designed to break up the submarine wolf packs, keep them submerged, and thus prevent them from attacking convoys. The new tactics didn't sink as many German subs, but greatly increased the amount of cargo getting through.
Back to gun control - civil rights restrictionists need to be questioned very firmly about the goal of their latest proposal. Why should society give up a civil right for a proposal that has very little chance of succeeding in its goal?
Kennedy's Seat
From the Republican point of view another serendipitous outcome of Brown's election will be the dispersal and/or departure of Kennedy's formidable staff.
Rutan on Climate
Burt Rutan, designer/builder of Voyager, the first plane to fly around the world without stopping or refueling, has some very interesting and convincing comments on Climate Change.
What is Truth?
My wife and I have had a discussion along these lines. When our son was about five he was confused and mistaken about something. Dispite our efforts to show him his misunderstanding he refused to agree with us.
My wife got a bit upset and started to tell him he was lying. I defended him and said, no, he wasn’t lying, he was wrong. My wife’s opinion was that since what he was saying was not “true” it was a lie.
As an example she said those who deny Christ are liars. I think things are a bit more nuanced. Denying something which you know, in your heart, to be true is lying, while making an honest mistake is not.
Conversely, telling a non-truth, which does not benefit you and objectively benefits another (No, Mr. Gestapo, there are no Jews in our attic.) is also not lying.
Entry Jobs
The job everyone looks down on is "burger flipping" -- working in a fast food restaurant. But, as Theodore Dalrymple once said "There is nothing dishonourable or dishonest about stacking shelves. On the contrary, it is a socially useful thing to do."
There a many useful things a young person learns in such a job -- being on time, following directions, being neat and presentable, respecting customers and your coworkers, etc. Many have gotten their starts in work life in these types of jobs.
It does our society no good to denigrate any work, no matter how seemingly menial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)