There is a difference between being protected from all harm, ever, and simply not actively condonding, or even paying for being physically hurt and/or killed, or for others to enjoy that privilege.
Unless we're in a "no, but the real issue is" dick waving contest, in which case I would like to bring up the heat death of the universe, the ultimate futility of all materalistic undertakings, and stoicism if not love being the only answer to that. Your turn :)
Your first sentence honestly makes no sense to me.
Here is why I say that. We all have the ability to drive, and are in fact licensed to do so by the government, yet far more people die by automobile then by firearms. More people die by falling down stairs then by firearms. More people participate in hunting in this country then any other activity, and it has the lowest number of injuries.
That being said it appears to me that you are seeking to deny people the ability to bare arms for the illusion of safety when there are many other things out there that are far more dangerous.
Oh, I don't know, maybe something along the lines of this:
The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed. -- Colonel James G. Burton
And yes, it's about buying weapons, not selling them (though of course, someone has to sell them to the Pentagon when they're buying). But do you really think there's not plenty of profitable looking the other way going on with the selling, too? Was Bill Hicks too simplicistic when he talked about arming the world, then starting wars because the world's so dangerous... ?
The elephant in the room, to me, is the squeamishness about random, senseless murder on a small scale, and the numbness to planned, profitable murder on a big scale.
> Approximately $11.7 billion worth of guns are sold in the United States and there are 30,000+ deaths in America each year tied to gun violence.
That first number is a more important than the second by more than an order of magnitude. Keep in mind George Will's statistic that the US spends more than $2 billion on Easter candy each year.
The numbers and analysis are interesting, but the article seems to me to have some anti-NRA, pro-gun/arms control bias. I think they're usually fairly neutral.
I predict we'll see another re-hashing of the gun control / second amendment debate here in the comments.
There have been a few submissions lately that make me wonder if Hacker News is headed in the direction of Reddit. I don't mean to pick on yours particularly, the timing was just convenient.
Yeah, I agree it wasn't the best priceonomics blog post. I'd be fine with a really strong/insightful analysis of the firearms or weapons industry (the way all their other posts have been in the past), but this one looks mostly political.
Interesting "priceonomics-worthy" aspects of the global arms trade would be:
1) Longevity of weapons -- I mean, I saw maxim guns in Afghanistan.
2) The weird market in EUCs, embargoes, etc.
3) Stuff like Brown Moses/CJ Chivers where they analyze the weird origins of weapons used in current conflicts (e.g. Syria and Libya) -- weird low-volume US prototypes found in Libya, and Croatian knockoffs of other designs as part of some "elimination of stocks" by post-Balkan countries.
The NRA/domestic politics parts are the least interesting. Outside of small arms, the NRA has basically no relationship to the munitions industry, either.
The whole first half of the post is kind of off-target, IMO, because it is dollar weighted, vs. type of weapon weighted.
The US predominately sells two things: big "weapons systems" (radars, aircraft, etc.) to middle tier countries, and a comprehensive range of small arms both domestically and to allied countries.
The weapons which primarily affect individuals and civilians in conflict are small arms, landmines, and certain ISR and ground attack resources. As a percentage of the total, it's about 1%. It doesn't hurt the life of a guy in Jordan that his neighbors have F-16s with top-end avionics. It does matter to a guy in the Congo that a box of cheap AK-47s has arrived.
Within the US, arms are both an economic issue (LockMart, etc. are huge employers, and wisely spread production/employment across congressional districts), and a civil rights issue (for small arms; no one really cares about F-16s for private ownership). Either issue is more than enough to keep the industry safe.
Russia, etc. are the same.
What I'd really like to see is a great analysis of the domestic small arms market -- who makes primers, who makes powder, brass, rifles, importation permits for foreign mil surplus, foreign current manufacture, etc. That is vastly more relevant to the 2A issues than who makes radars.
I think you're right - the post fails to address how big of a necessary / not necessarily negative component of our foreign policy/diplomacy is centered around arms trade. I'm no expert on the subject, but have worked with people with experience in this area. One thing I remember is hearing that the US has the distinction/disadvantage in the business of refusing to work with bribes.
My question to you - if you thought the article was off-target, why submit it? Seems pretty disingenuous to me.
The foreign policy aspects are just that we give financial aid to countries who then are only allowed to buy our weapons -- in some cases we give aid to our enemies (Pakistan, Egypt) to turn them into dependent friends, or to "sterilize" our air to our actual allies (e.g. Israel). Outside of our top end weapons systems (many of which, like the F-22, we refuse to sell), no one is clamoring for US small arms or other weapons; if we weren't giving them money, they'd be just as happy with Russian or Chinese arms.
They addressed the issue in the second half. But, this is the world of TL;DR.
21 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 59.9 ms ] threadThe elephant in the room is the feminization of our nation where everyone believes they need to be protected.
Unless we're in a "no, but the real issue is" dick waving contest, in which case I would like to bring up the heat death of the universe, the ultimate futility of all materalistic undertakings, and stoicism if not love being the only answer to that. Your turn :)
Here is why I say that. We all have the ability to drive, and are in fact licensed to do so by the government, yet far more people die by automobile then by firearms. More people die by falling down stairs then by firearms. More people participate in hunting in this country then any other activity, and it has the lowest number of injuries. That being said it appears to me that you are seeking to deny people the ability to bare arms for the illusion of safety when there are many other things out there that are far more dangerous.
The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed. -- Colonel James G. Burton
And yes, it's about buying weapons, not selling them (though of course, someone has to sell them to the Pentagon when they're buying). But do you really think there's not plenty of profitable looking the other way going on with the selling, too? Was Bill Hicks too simplicistic when he talked about arming the world, then starting wars because the world's so dangerous... ?
The elephant in the room, to me, is the squeamishness about random, senseless murder on a small scale, and the numbness to planned, profitable murder on a big scale.
That first number is a more important than the second by more than an order of magnitude. Keep in mind George Will's statistic that the US spends more than $2 billion on Easter candy each year.
Actual total for 2011 is 8583.
I predict we'll see another re-hashing of the gun control / second amendment debate here in the comments.
There have been a few submissions lately that make me wonder if Hacker News is headed in the direction of Reddit. I don't mean to pick on yours particularly, the timing was just convenient.
Interesting "priceonomics-worthy" aspects of the global arms trade would be:
1) Longevity of weapons -- I mean, I saw maxim guns in Afghanistan. 2) The weird market in EUCs, embargoes, etc. 3) Stuff like Brown Moses/CJ Chivers where they analyze the weird origins of weapons used in current conflicts (e.g. Syria and Libya) -- weird low-volume US prototypes found in Libya, and Croatian knockoffs of other designs as part of some "elimination of stocks" by post-Balkan countries.
The NRA/domestic politics parts are the least interesting. Outside of small arms, the NRA has basically no relationship to the munitions industry, either.
The US predominately sells two things: big "weapons systems" (radars, aircraft, etc.) to middle tier countries, and a comprehensive range of small arms both domestically and to allied countries.
The weapons which primarily affect individuals and civilians in conflict are small arms, landmines, and certain ISR and ground attack resources. As a percentage of the total, it's about 1%. It doesn't hurt the life of a guy in Jordan that his neighbors have F-16s with top-end avionics. It does matter to a guy in the Congo that a box of cheap AK-47s has arrived.
Within the US, arms are both an economic issue (LockMart, etc. are huge employers, and wisely spread production/employment across congressional districts), and a civil rights issue (for small arms; no one really cares about F-16s for private ownership). Either issue is more than enough to keep the industry safe.
Russia, etc. are the same.
What I'd really like to see is a great analysis of the domestic small arms market -- who makes primers, who makes powder, brass, rifles, importation permits for foreign mil surplus, foreign current manufacture, etc. That is vastly more relevant to the 2A issues than who makes radars.
My question to you - if you thought the article was off-target, why submit it? Seems pretty disingenuous to me.
They addressed the issue in the second half. But, this is the world of TL;DR.
http://www.economist.com/news/world-week/21576445-kals-carto...