By Ryan Lau | United States

Allegedly firm supporters of gun rights in the conservative camp use an interesting argument. In reality, they often do indeed support some limitations on the right to bear arms. However, for the sake of argument, allow me to table this point and deal only with those who truly support full gun rights. One of their arguments goes like this:

Many politicians advocate that we create gun-free zones in places such as schools and public places, with the goal of combating gun violence. People willing to commit murder are willing to break the law (as murder, usually , is illegal). Gun-free zones come in the form of other, less serious laws. If someone will break a felony law such as murder, then another, less serious law will not deter them from still killing. Therefore, regardless of morals, creating gun-free zones are not an effective way to combat gun violence.

In order for this argument to hold true, it must be both valid and sound. For it to be valid, the conclusion, point 5, must be undeniably true, if we assume that the premises, points 1-4, are also true. For it to be sound, points 1-4 must actually be true, therefore proving point 5 the same.

A Valid and Sound Argument

First of all, let’s examine whether the argument is logically valid. Point 1, of course, establishes what the action is doing: creating gun-free zones. It also makes the goal clear: combating gun violence. Points 2 and 4 explain that someone willing to break a law, murder, will do so again. As point 3 explains, a gun-free zone is a law. If we assume true that murderers do not follow laws and gun-free zones are laws, then it logically follows that murderers will not follow gun-free zones. If the gun-free zones do not reduce the murder rate, then they cannot be an effective means of combating gun violence. So, the argument is valid.

Similarly, the argument turns out to be sound, for all four of the premises are true. Gun-free zones, of course, cannot exist in the public sphere without a law creating them. Certainly, their only meaning is to deter gun violence. Therefore, points 1 and 3 are correct.

Point 2 is also correct. Barring instances such as military and police killings, taking the life of another human being is illegal. The government, though, does not consider these cases murders at all. In fact, they define murder as unlawful killing. Thus, every murder involves breaking a law, proving point 2 true.

As for point 4, one merely needs to look at the sentencing for various crimes. For a mass shooting, the punishment is either life in prison without parole or death. So, there is simply no way that an additional sentence would make this worse; an added fine or lengthened sentence mean little to someone who will never be free. This points to the fact that there is no reason for a murderer to follow the laws pertaining to gun-free zones. As a result, it is clear that point 4 is true, making the argument valid and sound.

The Constitution Comparison

Surely, the above argument holds true, provided that it is both valid and sound. Then, of course, the same reasoning must hold itself to be true in other, similar circumstances. If I can substitute the subject and object, but the logical premises remain the same, then the argument is also still valid and sound. Let’s see what happens when placing this analysis in the scope of abiding by the Constitution.

Many politicians advocate that we create a Constitution to restrain government, with the goal of combating a growing, tyrannical state. People willing to authorize killing are willing to break the law (as murder, usually , is illegal). The United States Constitution comes in the form of United States law. If someone will authorize killing, then words on paper will not deter them from still authorizing killing. Therefore, regardless of morals, creating a Constitution is not an effective way to combat government growth.

Why is it, then, that so many people see the first one to be true, but not the second? Assuming the premises to be true, the conclusion is necessarily also true. Moreover, just like above, the premises themselves were true. The Constitution, thus, is no more effective than gun-free zones. Anyone who uses this argument against gun-free zones should also recognize its futility in other areas, especially that of the Constitution. The size of government has increased continually, and no sign or words on paper can stop it.

So, the Constitution, designed to prevent the growth of government, does not do so. Now what? Admittedly, this is a bold claim; the document’s futility undermines nearly 250 years of status quo. Without the Constitution, many traditional aspects of our society fall apart. Voting for change becomes nil if the politicians have no reason to ignore such change. Since the dawn of America, the government has grown continuously, showing little regard for any such limitations, regardless of party.

Subversive Innovation

However, hope is not lost. Rather, it comes from an entirely different avenue: subversive innovation. In 10 years, innovators who simply ignored the will of the state have done more for the liberty of the commoners than any politician has done since the dawn of the Libertarian Party. In 2009, as a response to the government’s control and manipulation of currency, Satoshi Nakamoto responded with an online, decentralized currency: Bitcoin. Since then, transactions have become easier, and many people have grown rich off of a coin not tied to fiat.

Following suit, a few years later, Ross Ulbricht joined the stage. With his platform, The Silk Road, he allowed consumers to avoid the regulation that they disapproved of on the state. Predominantly, users bought small amounts of marijuana, years before most politicians even considered its legalization.

Not long after, Cody Wilson jumped into the fray with Defense Distributed. By 3D printing guns with his files, consumers could escape the crippling regulatory action of the government. Without hurting anyone, he won a battle for decentralization.

A Common Characteristic

What do all of these, so far, have in common? Two things jump out right away. First of all, they all had a tangible effect on common people who did not need to understand the complex workings of the system. With very basic knowledge, they could help themselves and make their own lives easier.

Moreover, none of these actions required a vote, or anything political. The innovators did not act to support or oppose the government; they acted to help the people, without consulting the government. Their actions have aided many more than the vote has, even though the latter has had far longer to take effect. While the Libertarian Party garners 2% in some Senate race, subversive innovators change the world. While Nicholas Sarwark runs a good meeting, Max Borders helps to create a future where people do not need the state because they live on floating seasteads.

The vote, a natural extension of the Constitution, is as ineffective as gun-free zones. It has, for nearly 250 years, led the country further into darkness. Why, then, does anyone expect it to lead us back to the light?

Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source