pageok
pageok
pageok
More International Gun News from the Independence Institute:

1. The latest bilingual issue of Les actualités aux armes (French gun news) is now available on the web. The issue presents links to articles in French about various gun issues, along with short English-language summaries of the articles.

2. In a new podcast from iVoices.org, I discuss the international gun prohibition movement, the current United Nations conference, and my recent paper on human rights violations in the disarmament campaigns in Kenya and Uganda.

RKV (mail):
Merci, David. Interessant.
7.7.2006 9:11am
Guns for all?:
I apologize for the late post, but I would appreciate a response. I don't read much of your work, but my impression is that you support liberal gun ownership to protect owners against aggressors and corrupt government.



Do you apply this argument on the international level? Do you support North Korea (and similar states) in acquiring weapons so they can protect their country against other aggressive nations and corrupt international institutions (e.g., the UN) If not, why the distinction between two similar situations? Also, if you oppose NK, are you making a value judgment about the weapons-holder that you do not make in the individual-vs-government realm? [DK: yes, I'm definitely making a value judgement. I don't want criminals to have guns, and I don't want criminal governments to have guns -- or nuclear weapons, or any other weapons. I believe that persons who have demonstrated that they are unfit to possess a firearm (e.g., persons who have committed violent felonies, especially felonies involving misuse of firearm) should be forbidden to possess firearms. Likewise, governments which have demonstrated that they are unfit to possess weapons (and, indeed, are unfit to rule) should be disarmed to the greatest extent possible, and, ideally, removed from power, by force if necessary. NK suffers from a hideously evil regime, which I hope is destroyed very soon.]
7.7.2006 5:09pm
Waldensian (mail):
I'll take a stab at your question.

I have no objection to citizens of this country arming themselves to protect themself against aggressors. I also have no objection to other nations (including North Korea) acquiring weapons to protect themselves against aggressors.

If either another U.S. citizen, or another country, decides to use such weapons to become an aggressor -- game on.

Nuclear weapons certainly up the ante considerably, but I don't see how such weapons really change this basic calculus. Assuming a country hasn't signed a treaty to the contrary (an important caveat), I see no problem with that country acquiring nuclear weapons to defend itself from aggressor countries.

However -- another important caveat -- given the nature of nuclear weapons, such countries had better handle them, and discuss their intentions with respect to them, very very carefully. If a country with nukes makes irresponsible comments about wiping other countries off the face of the earth, or suddenly launches long-range missiles that might or might not contain nukes aimed at places undisclosed, the use of defensive force is justified.

Do you disagree? If so, how?
7.7.2006 6:26pm
hjgu (mail):
7.9.2006 9:52pm