Wednesday, October 28, 2015

"Economics of the AK-47."

More along the lines of blaming the "evil gun."


Chiu ChunLing said...

Fundamentally, it is not the availability of weapons which causes them to be used for violent crime, but the illegality of those weapons.

A legally owned weapon can reasonably be used for self-defense. In defensive weapon uses, the person with the weapon does not control the timing or circumstances of the event, and therefore must be able to have the weapon immediately available at all times. The lack of control over the timing and location of a defensive use also makes it much harder to hide the involvement of the weapon and the user from authorities.

For these reasons, outlawing private ownership and use of weapons can eliminate most defensive uses of weapons, deterring people from having a weapon immediately available at all times and from waiting for a threat to become imminent and undeniable before employing a weapon.

On the other hand, offensive (or 'pre-emptive') weapon uses are not easily deterred. Because the aggressor controls the timing and location of such an event, it is much easier to hide the weapon and identity of the user in an offensive weapon use from authorities. It is also only necessary to have the weapon available for a limited time corresponding with the actual planned use of the weapon, dramatically reducing the chances of being caught possessing it.

It is obvious that, when weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will use them. But beyond ensuring that only outlaws have weapons, criminalizing possession or use of a weapon changes the incentives for those who still have them. A good man with a strong sense of justice and honor may become an outlaw when the laws are unjust. But he cannot effectively use his weapons for defense.

If he is to use them at all, he must use them offensively.

The same is true of bad men. A bad man may own guns whether they are outlawed or not. But when they aren't outlawed, he has the option of using them defensively, of waiting until a threat is so imminent as to justify the personal risk to himself of engaging in a potentially deadly confrontation. For all the tactical advantages of offense, they don't overcome the strategic downside of potentially engaging in lethal conflict which could have been avoided...particularly if it is readily possible for potential targets to be armed.

It isn't just about whether there will be good guys with guns to counter bad guys with guns. It is about whether it makes any sense to use guns for defense rather than offense. Bans on possession and use of guns disproportionately affect the defensive use of guns, making offensive uses dramatically more attractive.

Whether or not the outlaws using them are 'good' or 'bad'.

Woodcanoe said...

Weapons don't CAUSE wars......politicians, dictators, tyrants and other similar vermin cause the wars, the weapons are only the tools used to prosecute the wars. In fact, human nature being what it is, including all it's well known failings, there is plenty of evidence around to demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the better armed one is, individual or nation, the less chance there is that somebody is going to try and hurt you!

The AK family (many variants) has been the fighting mans favored tool throughout my lifetime, being born the same year I was (1947). The article talks about the weapon being manufactured in Russia only. Fact is the AK, in numerous forms has been manufactured all over the world.It is a crude, reliable and simple to maintain weapon that, in typical Ruskie fashion, lends itself to being manufactured with a limited amount of resources and tooling.

The good book "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers (available on Amazon) is a great read as it is a good history of the AK and it's use in wars all over the world. Author Chivers states that, based on the numbers of deaths at the barrel end of an AK, make it the single greatest "weapon of mass destruction" in the history of the world. Look at pictures of some of the African "wars" and you can see boys no more than 12 carrying an AK. Chivers says that over 100 million of them have been manufactured, in every hell hole in the world, and that that number is likely low as NOBODY knows just how many have been made for sure! No other light infantry weapon, in the history of the world, has been made in such numbers, not even close.

The AK is our chosen "self defense" tool. My sons and I build and modify them and have for years. The only truly critical measurement in one is the headspace and I have seen a lot of them so loose that one would shake his head,but they still function well.

I have one built from parts and pieces, mainly from an AMD 65, the short barreled Hungarian tankers weapon with side folding stock. Mine is built into a pistol and can be carried at my side, barrel down, with a sling over my shoulder. Wearing a knee length coat such as a duster conceals it well. The slit in the side allows one to keep his right hand around the receiver so that, if needed, the barrel can be grabbed by the left hand, raised to level position, and is ready for business in a nano-second. Even a 40 rd mag can be concealed under such a coat.

If one needs to walk into a hornets nest, one has more firepower in his hot little hands then three Glocks or 1911's. 40 rounds of rifle caliber ammo in a package not much bigger than a loaf of bread in a paper bag, gives a man a formidable voice in the proceedings for sure.

If you practice firing from the hip it will amaze you just how good you can shoot with a bit of work. Don't need to aim too good when trying to clear a room of some very bad guys. Point and shoot was the old gunman's creed.

The AK, in all it's numerous variants, has got to be one of the greatest inventions in the history of man. More important than than anything is that it has given a relatively poor man an easily available, and affordable, weapon to defend himself and his cause with.

The "little guys" of this world owe a great debt to Mr Kalishnakov!

This screed is just another "liberal wet dream" of the gun banners!


Anonymous said...

Speaking of blaming the weapon, now that a woman used a car for a mass killing... I'm wondering who will be the first politician to call for banning "assault" automobiles...

bondmen said...

Why do urnalists never point to sin filled men with murderous hearts, doing what's wrong as the big problem?

Because they do not realize they too are sin filled men.

Ignorance isn't bliss, ignorance is deadly dangerous.

Josh said...

"The AK-47 alone isn’t to blame. Cuba, for example, utilizes the weapon for its military, but does not suffer from internal instability. The correlation appears to exist between poor governance, the availability of cheap weapons, the resource trap, and proximity to neighboring conflicts."

Really? The murderous marxist Cuban government is stable?

Gee I wonder why?

Maybe because only the government has ak47s and tyranises its disarmed populace?

Anonymous said...

Chiu -
False premise right out of the gate.
Arms cannot BE illegal. We have a right to each and every one of them. One that shall not be infringed. Pssst - making a gun "illegal", making possession "illegal' is itself and infringement.

What can be illegal is actions taken with them - so long as those actions are outside use in defense of self, kin and property. It is pure foolishness to say "you used an illegal weapon to exercise your right to defend yourself! Off to jail with you!" That is mindless idiocy, to be kind.

A funny thing happens when false premise is exposed - the arguments based upon them fall apart as the meaningless drivel, utter waste of time, that they are.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Well...legality is a flexible concept in a lot of ways. But while the Second Amendment has status as law in the U.S., a lot of what we're discussing here is firearms in third-world countries.

In natural law, there is an absolute right to self-defense. But the exact means of self-defense is not specified in natural law, and if it were the right to associate together with a community and make common standards of behavior would supercede the right to possess tools of a particular form deemed a hazard to others in principle. I know that seems hard to accept, it's one of the reasons I don't ever lean too heavily on natural law, because human nature embeds social cooperation as a higher value than tool use as a measure of 'humanity'.

Simply put, I cannot reasonably make the claim that those who attempt to ostracize and exclude anyone who uses a particular tool they dislike are somehow betraying 'humanity' or 'human nature' on which claims of natural law have to rest. On the other hand, I don't accept as reasonable the converse claim that those who choose to use a particular tool that others dislike are being 'inhuman' or violating natural law...but I could. The fact is that, in some cases, it is difficult to reasonably separate the tool itself from the effects of using it for anti-human purposes. It is never impossible, I've contemplated the power to annihilate the universe itself and determined that, if wielded properly, it doesn't have to be a bad thing. But I can see how I could fail to accept the idea that such a power could ever be anything but evil in principle.

So I'm not in favor of pitting the natural rights of people to defend themselves by choosing to associate only with others who share their standards of behavior. That natural right of self-defense unambiguously leads to the right of a people to craft what we call legislation, a formalized statement of the standards of behavior demanded and the socially imposed consequences of violating them. I think a community that chooses to defend themselves by outlawing guns must have that right derived from human nature...I just think that they're wrong because in actual fact that's not as effective a means of defense as owning guns is.

In cybernetic law, the demonstrable fact that firearms are a better means of self-defense means that the right to use firearms for that purpose supercedes the right to use legislation for self-defense. Unfortunately, in cybernetic law there is no fundamental 'right' to self-defense in the first is a highly contingent 'right' when it is a 'right' at all (simply put, machines don't necessarily have the right to defend themselves...even more simply put, they don't have 'rights' at all). So while cybernetic law can be applied to humans, it is generally less trouble not to tell them that's what I'm doing.

I just argue from natural law, based on the actual nature of humans. Because (under cybernetic law) that's usually a more effective way to reason with humans. And, right or wrong, the human instinct to attempt to secure their safety by making rules for their neighbors is deeper than their instinct to make tools for themselves.

Fortunately, the instinct to withdraw from association with a community that doesn't have your best interests at heart is at least coeval with the instinct to make rules for the community. So you do have a natural law right to become an outlaw if the laws don't protect your inalienable rights. That doesn't negate the right of others to remain part of a community you have left, if they so choose. And it subjects you to their use of the natural right to treat you as an outlaw, which can kinda suck.

I mean, I like a lot of things about being an outlaw...just not everything.