Disarmament as Public Policy?

Mr. Obama was recently in Prague and gave a speech in which he advocated nuclear disarmament.



In case you don't want to listen to the whole thing, there is a transcript available from Stephen Rose. What caught my eye was this:

The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.

Now let's look at an excerpt from the Urban Policy portion of the Obama Administration Agenda:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: ... Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

And in case you don't remember what he means by "Respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners", from his Nomination Acceptance Speech:

The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

So where does that get us? Well, let's blend these concepts and see what we get as a more fundamental position:

• If we disarm our nuclear forces as a first step, other nuclear countries will feel better about doing the same.
• If there is organized nuclear disarmament, then rogue players will be discouraged from developing their own weapons.
• If there is an agreement, then nuclear countries will be unlikely to share their nuclear technology with non-nuclear countries.
• If we disarm Americans, then there will be less gun violence.

Sounds nice, but there is one teeny flaw in the logic: Antisocial persons. They don't care about laws and agreements.

Diagnostic criteria

Three or more of the following are required:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as
   indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning
   others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
   assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
   consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
   having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

This is the nature of many of the people who commit the mass murders as we have seen. These are the people who concern those of us who own guns for self-protection.

We also realize that expecting someone who doesn't abide by laws against murder, assault, rape and robbery to suddenly follow a law about weapons posession is unrealistic.

Sociopaths, who comprise only 3-4% of the male population and less than 1% of the female population, are thought to account for approximately 20% of the United States' prison population and between 33% and 80% of the population of chronic criminal offenders.

Furthermore, whereas the "typical" U.S. burglar is estimated to have committed a median five crimes per year before being apprehended, chronic offenders - those most likely to be sociopaths - report committing upward of fifty crimes per annum and sometimes as many as two or three hundred. Collectively, these individuals are thought to account for over 50% of all crimes in the U.S.

Mealey, L., "The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model," Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 523-541, 1995.

So where does this leave us? Well, I fear that there is an assumption that disarmament, whether nuclear by the country or by individuals, will lead to better behavior on the part of those who mean us harm.

And since the poilice are not obligated to provide protection to individuals (see Castle Rock v Gonzales), we need a way to protect ourselves.