The left has an odd view of human nature. While they generally believe that individuals (or single governments in international affairs) are incompetent and need guidance to carry out even the most simple tasks, they also have boundless faith in the ability of written laws to change that behavior. In other words, they think people too incompetent to negotiate their own wages, select their own diet, or safely own a firearm will be absolutely scrupulous in following the written law. It makes little sense. For example, though they believe that CEOs of corporations are intent on paying employees substandard wages and defrauding consumers, not to mention dumping hazardous wastes wherever they can, they think these same Blofeld-like CEOs will be intimidated into obedience by a mere written law.

Let us look at gun control. It is a topic I have addressed many times, but let's go through it one more time just to be clear.

There are two approaches to gun control, the law and order argument and the incompetence argument. The first is the one most often sold to the public, as it is less insulting. It argues that gun control laws are needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Though the law targets the l;aw abiding, the purpose is to prevent sham transactions and to ensure that we can easily track firearms. The second argument, the incompetence one, is not as frequently voiced in public, though when it is, it is usually sold in terms of "those other people". The basic form is this: You listeners are good, competent people, but there are others, incompetent folks, who, if entrusted with firearms, would turn the streets into "the wild west", shooting at anyone on the slightest suspicion. So, to keep guns out of the hands of these incompetents, we need to restrict gun access for everyone. Then again, the specifics aren't really all that relevant. Basically, it is a reformulation of most arguments for interventionist measures of all types. People are incompetent, so we need to allow them to do only what is good, otherwise they will hurt themselves or others.

As I have dealt with the "wild west" argument before in my post "The Weakest Gun Control Argument", let us deal with the law and order argument.

The main problem with the law enforcement argument is the often ignored truth that criminals commit crimes. That sounds obvious, but the implications often escape those writing gun control laws. You see, if a criminal is willing to risk jail to commit crimes, then he probably will risk jail to carry a gun. In fact, unless the punishment for gun possession is excessively stiff, it likely will seem insignificant. When you consider that guns are usually used with the intent, or at least the possibility, of killing another, even a death penalty for gun possession would likely not be a great deterrent, as those carrying guns are likely to be risking a death penalty by using those guns in their criminal activities anyway.

What even the most mild penalty does do is discourage law abiding citizens form carrying guns. Even if it is just a fine, the prohibition against possessing or carrying a handgun causes law abiding citizens to refuse to carry a gun with which to defend themselves, which helps criminals greatly by ensuring them that almost everyone they see will not be capable of defending themselves.

Some will argue that the laws are not intended to discourage criminals from possessing guns, but rather to make it more difficult for criminals to come into possession of guns. And, to some small degree that is likely. If gun purchases are made more difficult, guns are a bit harder to come by, but not much. There is always the possibility of stealing guns from legal owners, or from sellers. Then there is the option of a strawman purchase. And, if all else fails, one can always manufacture a "zip gun" out of common household parts. One need only look at places with absolute bans of firearms to see that such bans still do not prevent all criminals from aquiring guns. So, while it may impede criminals a little in their efforts to obtain a gun, it benefits them far more by  ensuring that those criminals who do get guns will be facing a disarmed populace and can be certain their gun will give them a tremendous advantage over the average citizen.

What makes the "law and order" argument interesting is the way it applies to arguments for nuclear disarmament. (A topic in the news recently thanks to its revival by our current president.)

The basic premise of nuclear disarmament, at least in its modern form, is that all nations will sign treaties swearing to give up their nuclear weapons. It sounds good on paper, the idea that individual nations woud all voluntarily disarm, but it leaves a question: How would it possibly be enforced?

Just like gun control, nuclear disarmament ascribes an inordinate amount of power to paper agreements. If a nation were to break the treaty, what could be done? Especially if all other nations abide by the treaty. As the sole holder of nuclear weapons it seems the nation would be in a position to dictate terms to the others, not to be told to disarm. Just as with gun control, nuclear disarmament treaties serve the interests of the criminal state by legally disarming those who would keep the peace, making an illegally obtained nuclear weapon even more potent. Where in the past it would be offset by the huge stockpiles of more law-abiding nations, keeping the rogue state from threatening to use it, now the law-abiding states would be disarmed and the rogue state would be able to indulge in blackmail to their heart's content.

I asked before in terms of gun control, when we want to keep a bank safe do we post signs saying "Do Not Rob" or post armed men? The conclusion being armed citizens are better safeguards of the peace than laws saying criminals should not use guns. And a similar question comes to mind here. Which is more likely to keep Iran or North Korea from engaging in nuclear blackmail, a treaty saying they won't, or a nuclear armed US? It seems to me the logic is the same.

POSTSCRIPT

For those who still believe that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, I would recommend the man posts I have made on the NIE saga. In chronological order, they are "I Don't Get It", "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose", "Another Thought On Iran", "I Told You So", "Idiots or Geniuses?", "Strange Double Standards", "Double Standard", "Our Friend Iran", "Can Everyone See It Now?", "Iranian Weapons", "Wait a Minute!" and finally "Amnesia". I think they make clear the fact that the supposed "peaceful nuclear program" in Iran is anything but peaceful. But I suppose you will have to decide for yourself.