Before I get down to business, I want to make sure all of you saw that my group at IBM recently publicized that the US has (unofficially) reclaimed the title of world’s fastest supercomputer. A portion of BlueGene/L successfully surpassed Japan’s Earth Simulator on the Linpack benchmark, which is essentially a bunch of linear algebra problems. BG/L managed to sustain 36 trillion floating point operations per second, which means in layman’s terms that it’s really, really fast. So, congrats to my co-workers, and woot for me, because now I can say that I was part of the team that made the fastest computer in the world.
In his latest entry, Colin presented his opinion on three important issues; my response follows. His comments were made in the context of the recent attempts by Congress to restrict the constitutional issues on which the Supreme Court can rule. As Colin correctly pointed out, this action was grossly in excess of the powers of Congress. I will talk about them in the same order: flag burning, gun control, and the “War on Drugs”.
I agree entirely with Colin’s sentiments. This is a stupid issue. Of course, people can burn the flag if they want to. It is protected political speech, which hurts no one and… you know what? Colin said all this, and I don’t have anything insightful to add.
Colin and I diverge somewhat on the subject of guns. His opinion is as follows.
The 2nd amendment, contrary to popular belief, is not an antiquated policy. It gives every U.S. citizen the right to protect themselves and their family. And there is no reason that any law-abiding and responsible citizen should [not] be allowed to own a firearm.
I added the “not” because I think that’s what he meant to say, in which case I agree. While the amendment itself is not antiquated, I want to emphasize something very important: the letter of the law is superceded by the spirit of it. That is, we must consider the intent of the amendment in order to interpret it. The way I understand it, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give citizens the ability to protect themselves, their family, and their property. Specifically, this was geared toward allowing citizens to set up militias. Power to the people.
The right to “bear arms” is a rather vague statement, without reference to this intent. After all, by the letter of the law, one might argue that I have a right to own nuclear arms or assault rifles. Did some of you cringe when I put them both in the same sentence? My point is that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is served without giving citizens access to such powerful and dangerous weapons. A handgun, rifle, or shotgun is sufficient. Colin goes off the old sanity cliff right about… here:
To take it one step further, would you feel more comfortable and safer if you were allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Even better, if you were a mugger, or rapist, or robber, wouldn’t you be less likely to commit a crime if you believed everyone was carrying concealed weapons?
I think letting Joe American walk around with a concealed weapon is a terrible idea. First of all, I simply don’t trust most people with guns. Arguments get out of hand, tempers rise, impulses take over; having a gun on hand provides an outlet that neither of us want people to use. The next time some lunatic cuts you off and you just want to run him off the road and stomp on his mangled corpse, ask yourself what you might have done if you had a gun in the glove compartment. When it’s in your home, locked in a closet, there is an inherent cool-down time before a confrontation escalates.
Furthermore, as a robber/rapist, if I expected my target to be carrying a gun, I would not be discouraged from committing the crime. I would shoot the person before they had a chance to see me. I would hit them from behind and rob them with their own gun. I would not give up crime; on the contrary! I would have easy access to a weapon no matter where I was. There was a fantastic comedy skit, which Colin may remember us watching in Hotel Pennsylvania years ago. The comedian suggested that everyone should carry a gun, loaded and cocked, and pointed at other people, at all times. He joked that everyone would be super-careful and polite, something like mutual assured destruction for the suburban world. But it was a joke. Everyone would die.
Moving on to the “War on Drugs” (as Colin so correctly placed in quotation marks). It is certainly ineffective. I also agree that sentencing for drug crimes is inexplicably disproportionate to other offenses. I think a compelling argument could be made for the legalization of pot. For example, consider the damage that smoking pot does, relative to the damage inflicted by, say, alcohol or nicotine cigarettes. Alcohol can make you violent, pot can’t. Nicotine is physically addictive, pot isn’t. There is currently a violent and seedy black market for pot, but this is artificial; it exists solely because pot is illegal, like “Speak-easy”s during Prohibition. If we legalized marijuana, and taxed it like we tax cigarettes, we would get a triple payoff: (1) spend less money “fighting” pot trafficking and offenses, (2) millions in tax revenue, and (3) a happy and pacified public. I can’t say I agree that the current system is unconstitutional, but it’s certainly illogical.
Rebuttal? Also: don’t forget to watch the Presidential “debate” tonight. It’s not going to be much of a debate due to the format, but Kerry is obliged to slaughter Bush regarding foreign policy, or he can kiss his chances in this election goodbye.
Entries (RSS)
September 30th, 2004 at 3:19 pm
There’s a character from Stephenson’s Snow Crash called Raven, who travelled with a thermonuclear weapon in the sidecar of his motorcycle. The device was rigged such that his death would trigger the bomb. In the book, as in life, no one wanted to fuck with the nuclear power. Tactical nuclear weapons could be very effective in protecting your property and family. Insane and dangerous, but effective.
I still disagree with your stance on concealed weapons, but I’m glad you aren’t backing down. Currently, the clinically insane are not given a firearm license. However, there’s a common criminal defense called “temporary insanity”. People sometimes do things that are completely out of character, in the heat of the moment. One way to prosecute someone making that defense is to prove premeditation or intent. The fact that the defendant brought a gun to the scene is one way to show that they intended to shoot someone. If everyone brings a gun, that would give criminals an “out”. That is, go somewhere with your gun, shoot your target, claim in court there was a heated argument in which you were convinced [insert horribly traumatizing thing here], and you were temporarily insane. Jury buys it, because bringing a gun is nothing special, and you spend a little time in a cushy institution.
Maybe temporary insanity is too obscure. How about bars? Should everyone in a bar be allowed to pack heat? Everyone’s drunk, arguments get out of hand, and someone gets shot. Maybe it’ll turn into something like drinking and driving, where carrying a firearm while drunk is illegal, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable in a bar like that.
As far as the criminal mind goes, I don’t think the fear of getting shot plays nearly as big a part in preventing crime as you seem to think. When they rob a bank, they know there may be undercover cops inside with guns, they know that police may surround them with guns, and they know that the tellers may have guns. They also know that the only *smart* thing for a robbery victim to do is to give up their money. If I was carrying a gun, and someone tried to rob me with a gun, I would be an idiot to try and pull some wild west crap and shoot the guy. I would give him the money and hope he isn’t crazy. Regardless of who has guns, the criminal will always have the upper hand: they’ve already demonstrated they have nothing to lose.
September 30th, 2004 at 3:19 pm
P.S. The “L” in BG/L stands for Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL), a primary client of the machine.
September 30th, 2004 at 4:33 pm
I’ve digressed from my original point, which was that all law-abiding Americans have the right to own a gun. My point about carrying concealed weapons was merely an illustration to get people think differently (thinking different, even) about the gun issue. I agree that there are many issues in that situation. And I think we both don’t have the data to back up much of what we’re saying; it just seems logical.
But as far as gun ownership in general goes. I think this quote from http://www.lp.org is relevant:
Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.
September 30th, 2004 at 5:50 pm
You’re right that I’m not backing up much of what I say. And I agree that thinking about the issue is different ways is a good place to start. As far as the quote, which I found interesting, I’d like to know more about where that comes from. Biased or poorly-interpreted studies can be used to argue just about anything. (As Mark Twain put it, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”)
Even if the statements about the survey are true, I don’t think his conclusion follows so casually. I’m sure there would be negative effects to widespread gun ownership as well, none of which came into this gentleman’s reasoning. For those criminals who went ahead with a crime involving an armed victim, was the victim more likely to die or suffer serious injury? Would this fear bias criminals toward more daring or desperate crimes?
I haven’t seen much compelling evidence, let alone a complete and well-referenced argument, in any of my searchings. In the mean time, I think our back-and-forth is a step in the right direction. Also, shouldn’t you be working?
September 30th, 2004 at 7:02 pm
I think regardless of its support by facts, the opinions presented are interesting, and that’s what I find compelling about the argument. I think that because many of these ideas are so different from the status quo, it’s impossible to accurately predict what would happen if it would change, evidence or not, facts or not.
Take the idea of legalizing marijuana. While I very much agree it should be done, who knows how that would actually pan out. Most likely it would parallel the alcohol prohibition/legalization situation, but it could be the opposite: pot use could become so widespread, that productivity and motivation are significantly reduced throughout the country, affecting education and the economy; and many pot smokers might migrate to other, more dangerous drugs that might lead to more violent crimes. Unlikely, but you see what I mean?
My point is, these are all based around the ideology of protecting people’s liberties. It’s impossible to judge how these reforms would actually affect society, but many people, including myself to a certain degree, believe that we would be better off in the end and the benefits would outweigh the consequences.
September 30th, 2004 at 8:06 pm
That’s the trouble with human nature. We can easily convince ourselves that things are good enough the way they are, but convincing anyone to change is an uphill battle. Perhaps that’s the way it should be. Small steps. As you said, we shouldn’t try to change things overnight.
Maybe a concealed-weapon licensing program for citizens with no criminal record, which covers a select set of weapons, and excludes certain areas (bars, daycare centers, etc.)? Maybe legalize marijuana for people over 21 in designated bars, like hash bars in other countries? I don’t know what makes sense as a first step, but a good number of concerns on both sides can be addressed by experiments like this. And I think, in the end, we both agree that our rights and liberties should take priority.
Thanks for playing!
September 30th, 2004 at 10:08 pm
Anytime, this was fun.
But I think as a first step they should legalize nuclear side-cars. Well, actually, A nuclear side-car. Mine.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:42 pm
Where I was raised, it’s rude to call your significant other a “nuclear side-car.” But, if Heather doesn’t mind, whatever.
October 2nd, 2004 at 2:36 am
this is deep.