Why a gun ban isn't going to solve anything.

By Daryl Dominic Tan

It has been about a little more than 24 hours since I woke up to the horrific news that 20 elementary school children between 5 to 10 years old were shot dead in cold blood in what is now known as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. 6 adults, who valiantly put up a strong resistance in doing all they could to protect the children were also brutally killed. I would therefore like to state here, that my thoughts and prayers are with the victims' families as well as the survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and lastly, with the shooter's family members. It must be extremely difficult for Adam Lanza's family members to make sense of what transpired and how to live with the fact that their own blood and flesh is responsible for quite possibly the most monstrous act in American history.

I have had time to think and reflect about this tragedy, as with many other people, though most of them overwhelmed with emotion were quick to call for executive orders to enact stricter gun laws or to ban firearms completely and in the process violate the 2nd amendment, crying out in justification that "the right to bear fire arms is not more important than the right for children to grow up", which is absolutely the most ridiculous line I've come across for the death of these children is not corollary to the existence of firearms.

It might be utterly distasteful to politicize a tragedy, but it is also important to analyze important events such as this to come to a conclusion. I know my opinion here will not be received warmly, and I am prepared to face certain backlash, but I stand by my opinions and I will not sway to the opinion of the emotionally overwhelmed who are nothing but blind to see the practical realities and political repercussions if such tight gun-control laws or an all-out gun ban policy were to ever be imposed by the federal government onto the citizens of the United States. The idea of a gun-ban policy fails on practical, factual and legal grounds.

I'll start with the practical, and for the purposes of practicality, I shall assume the role of someone who supports gun-control for this one instance. Where I come from in Singapore, guns are virtually unheard of, and the only guns you will ever see are fastened tightly to the holsters of police men. The government here has done a good job (and I always give credit where credit's due) at keeping Singapore completely gun-free and as a result - safe from gun crime. It is a severe offence to be in possession of a firearm in Singapore, and if found in possession, the penalty of death will be meted out without hesitation. It is for this reason that many Singaporeans, or well, at least 99% of its population, support a total gun-ban in the United States. Now, What annoys me is the naivety and ignorance these same people portray when they call for this ban. They do not realize the practical realities of living in the United States and how different it is. Singapore is much smaller (even this is an understatement) than the United States to the point that controlling the possession/smuggling of firearms is, for obvious reasons, much more efficient in Singapore.

It must be realized though that it is a whole different ballpark in the United States. If you don't already know what the War on Drugs is, here's a little bit of insight: it is an ongoing and failed government initiative to stamp out illegal drug trade. You may be wondering at this juncture what what drugs has got to do with gun control? I will elaborate further, but meanwhilst bear with me. What the war on drugs does in reality, is that it provides drug cartels a raise in profit. The very fact that there is a strict ban on drugs and an unrealistic attempt to outlaw its trade completely is exactly what breathes life to cartels in that their black market operations amass a wider-scale market and clientele. Violence is necessary as these cartels will need gangs to carry out their operations. This very fact effectively leads to more street crime. For the past 40 years, $1 trillion spent on this fruitless war on drugs have been wasted, most of them coming from the pockets of ordinary citizens to fund this incorrigible war. Problems on the borders are being magnified, and drug use and trade is still rampant in the United States. It is much harder to control smuggling in a country as vast as the United States. If kids want something, they will get it, regardless of tough laws. a 'War on Firearms' policy is going to breed the same results. Who knows, cartels pallying it up with corrupt stevedores or custom officials will expand their market to include firearms and the same thing will carry on with far more drastic consequences, coupled with more civil liberties being eroded constantly.

People who want safety are blind to political realities and repercussions that come along with it. Americans wanted safety after 9/11, they got the 'Patriot Act', a bill which gave the government undue authority to spy on citizens via e-mails and telephone calls with no warrant whatsoever - a blatant violation of a citizen's right to privacy as well as the Constitution. Americans wanted complete safety from Terrorists, (the solution is simple; end foreign intervention, especially drone strikes), what they got in return was the NDAA (The National Defense Authorization Act) which authorizes the president to indefinitely detain any person without trial. Let me repeat that: without trial. Is this what the Rule of Law has been reduced to? Let's take another instance, the Germans who believed that the Reichstag Fire was orchestrated by Communists allowed Hitler's regime to pass the 'Enabling Act' which practically allowed Hitler to do anything he wanted, under the pretext of national security. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what followed. And yet, people wish to give up their civil liberties for the false blanket of security. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who give up liberty for a false sense of security, deserve neither." and he is completely right.

Apart from the fact that such a policy completely outlawing guns would fail, people would still be able to get their hands on guns. As I've said, we are talking about the United States of America here, a country of vast proportions, as compared to Singapore where regulation, though bad, can be more efficient. Tell me then, what happens, when a crazed lunatic gets hold of a firearm through the black market and starts going bonkers at everyone in a crowded mall, or another school for that matter? Are Americans supposed to wait for the "ever efficient" police? It is a huge possibility seeing as to how humongous cities in the United States are that the police will take a long time to arrive at the scene of a crime. What happens during this time? What if an ordinary citizen of good character, had with him, a firearm and the ability to stop this lunatic from killing more innocent people at the time of the shooting? but let's take the premise that - no, because there is a gun-ban policy, he'd be vulnerable and hopeless in such an "ideal" world, ain't that right? The trust and faith these gun-control nutters have in the government and its corrupted officials is almost laughable. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. The only way you want to outlaw firearms TOTALLY with POSSIBLE(note here that I use the word POSSIBLE) effect is to install a totalitarian regime with a secret police force, similar to that of Stalin or Mao.

Why is it a fact too, that most of these horrible tragedies that have occurred, be they fatal school shootings, or some random lunatic going off his head deciding to fire up a mall as in the case of Oregon, take place in Gun-free zones where gun control laws are at its tightest? Simply because wolves go after sheep, not rams. Mass murderers want to inflict their sick desires on vulnerable people. Is it no coincidence that in states where there are relaxed gun-control laws, such mass murders are rarely heard of? Who the hell would dare to rob a goldsmith with a pistol if he were to know that the old grey-haired fogey behind the counter has with him a long-barrel shotgun to protect himself? Also, tell me, if you were living in a remote part of the States and you had a burglar break into your house, would you rather a telephone in your hand, or a gun?

The same goes for crazed lunatics. Why is it that most of them end up blowing their own brains rather than having a standoff with the police (when they finally arrive that is)? It's because human nature dictates that mentally ill or not - one is naturally afraid of being shot by another human being. And this is exactly why most of such tragedies occur in gun-free zones, because these madmen know how vulnerable these people are, unarmed and not having the means to defend themselves. Perhaps, fate would change if these gunmen had known possibly that there were arms within the compounds for the purpose of self-defense. This is effective deterrence - not giving more authority to an increasingly inefficient government that only seeks to strip away civil liberties.

There are also legal reasons as to why a gun ban will not solve the crisis in the United States. The most important being the fact that the 2nd Amendment, that is "the right to bear arms" is in a codified bill of rights which is part of the United States Constitution. Most people will simply scoff at that statement and retort with something along the lines of it being outdated and written in 1700s, and that it's not applicable in modern day society. I beg to differ - the Constitution was drafted by forward-thinking visionaries who envisaged the strong possibility of a tyrannical government arising in the distant future and wanted every possible means to make sure that would never happen by limiting the scope of government. The second amendment is one such right. It stands as an important right today and it still is applicable. If you don't think so, please do me a favor and research past incidents such as the Wounded Knee Massacre, The My Lai Massacre, and the Ruby Ridge incident and tell me that the government is not complicit in gun crimes as well. Naivety and blind faith in the government will lead to liberties being eroded. And before you know it, it would be too late. When you hold the Founding Fathers' views in disregard, you disrespect the Constitution, when you do that, you undermine the Rule of Law, when you undermine the Rule of Law (intended - as F.A. Hayek stated many times - to create certainty within the law), you undermine justice and you would be in effect, inadvertently or not, promoting arbitrary lawmaking powers and giving the Executive absolute authority to do what it pleases.

It is for these reasons that I implore you, the emotionally charged individual, to wake up - to realize that overwhelming emotions lead to impulsive thoughts and decisions. A gun-ban, hell, even tighter gun control laws, isn't going to solve anything.

A Discourse on Natural Personality and the Theory of 'Masques'

by Daryl Dominic Tan

Do humans have ‘natural’ personalities? If so, when do we exhibit this ‘natural’ personality – with friends, family, or in solitude? What exactly is the state of nature of man’s personality? It is after all a fact that people exhibit different personalities – which I will term here as ‘masques’. People assume different forms of these masques to suit different occasions. Which, then, is our natural form? Are we predisposed to know what this natural form is?

Many will define the word ‘natural’ as being synonymous with ‘comfortable’. We exhibit our natural personality when and where we are most comfortable. Many feel most at ease – or rather, comfortable – with friends, but isn’t it a fact that being with friends, one has to portray himself or herself as likeable and compromising – efforts that are incompatible with the very notion of what ‘natural’ means, or at least what it ought to mean for ‘natural’ in its very basic form is also when we are free from all sorts of encumbrances.

What about family? Unless you're an orphan, one spends his first few years to first couple of decades of their lives with family. Is that then, the basis of form? And therefore one is truly himself and exhibits his ‘natural’ personality with his family? This argument is weak for it implies that time is a factor of this basis of form - that time builds nature, in that one who spends the most time with a particular group of people, and by way of case illustration here – family, is in a personal state of nature. So if we take this premise and look at a man imprisoned for life, does he assume a new personality based on a new nature based on his surroundings? That does not make sense, for how can nature be new, when all he would be doing is adapting to a new environment (not nature), and assuming a new persona, which is not equivalent to assuming a new natural personality for how can this be so when nature is supposed to be the basis of form – or rather the basis of all things in the first place?

What about solitude? The stronger argument of the three possible choices I’ve posited so far. That one is truly in accordance with his natural state of self when he is alone. This is plausible, but for the sake of argument, lets suppose one suffers great discomfort from being alone or isolated from the rest of society but derives great comfort from being surrounded by the people that he loves. Does the fact that he feels extremely uncomfortable – based on the notion that ‘’natural’ means ‘comfortable’ – invalidate this premise, in that he is clearly not exhibiting his natural personality for it is not compatible with his natural desire and natural emotion? Another way to challenge this premise is the very fact that in order for man to understand himself and his nature, he has to interact with society – for man is inherently a social creature. As the 18th century clergyman Richard Cecil once said, “Solitude shows what we should be; society shows us what we are”. Does man, therefore, know his nature only through interaction with other people as society shows us who we really are? If that were so, this premise falls flat of being able to tell us man’s natural personality.

Perhaps the strongest argument I can think of is that the answer of what the state of nature of man’s personality is a subjective and relativist one – that people based on their own free will, are in their ‘natural’ state of personality when they feel most natural – but that itself is difficult to define, I will however take the layman meaning here to mean, as earlier mentioned, that to be natural is to be absolutely comfortable. It is indeed clear that we all have different personalities – just as there are different animals that live in different natural habitats, so it must most certainly be that there is no one absolute nature – no objective nature, for nature differs with different people and animals and therefore it goes the same way with personalities. Just as contemporary students of the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras frequently surmise, “a spring day in Athens would be cold to a visitor from Egypt but warm to a traveler from Sweden and both would still be speaking the truth.” Therefore the true state of nature of man’s personality should depend on perspective and is therefore relative – and therefore Protagoras makes sense when he says that man is the measure of all things.

The tough question arises when you put the absolutist and relativist argument aside and ask yourself from an epistemological point of view – how do you know what is your natural habitat and what is your natural personality, which masque you put on makes you feel like you’re in synthesis with the rest of yourself and brings you peace of mind – and if that’s the case, my question will always be – how can a masque, no matter how comfortable you feel when you put it on, be a ‘natural’ personality when it is ultimately a masque and a masque, for axiomatic reasons, cannot be natural. Is the human mind really capable of discerning what our nature is? How do we know whether we belong in the ‘jungles’ or the ‘oceans’? A fish does not know that it lives in water, and to the fish water may not even exist because it lives within it.

Or perhaps, there is no need for relativism/absolutism argument here for the answer could be that ‘natural’ personality is merely made up of an amalgamation of different masques (although I’ve already mentioned earlier that a masque for axiomatic reasons cannot be natural, but for the sake of argument – we shall accept this premise here). But if so, this contradicts the form of nature – in that nature cannot be an amalgamation of different masques borne out of empirical experience for if that were so, then what precedes experience? How can nature be formed later when it has to be the basis of form? Tabula Rasa? A blank sheet? That can’t possibly be a ‘natural’ personality then for personality comprises of different characteristics, traits, and habits that are innate to oneself – hence a ‘natural’ personality. But empiricists tend to reject the idea of innateness, and will argue convincingly at the end of the day that a ‘natural’ personality will be borne out of characteristics, traits, habits and way of thought acquired through a life of experience, and therefore since life and its events are constantly changing, I come to a conclusion that there can be no ‘natural’ personality. Perhaps the word ‘natural’ itself is a misnomer, and possibly even the word ‘personality’ in this context, and that there is no one true personality of man. Therefore, man could be deceiving himself all along when he speaks about his own personality, for in reality man has no face, just a collection of different masques.