Gun Control through the Nassim Nicholas Taleb lens

Hypocrisy Guarantees That There Will Be No Solution To Guns

Rich people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and Nancy Pelosi want you to give up your guns, but want to keep theirs.

Why?

To use Nassim Taleb’s great phrase: They have “No Skin in the Game”.

It’s just amazing how many problems Nassim’s little phrase would solve in the real world.

Or to use my phrasing: Because they’re hypocrites and maybe a little stupid

Michael Bloomberg should set an example and publicly and visibly disarm. Or Nancy Pelosi should introduce legislation insisting that the Capital Police publicly disarm and take their chances. Leadership comes from the top.

So why won’t they?

Because it’s a dangerous world.

In the most generalized way, gun control issue is presented as either

1: Dead Children; or
2: Defending our Constitutional Rights.

And then you’re asked to take sides. You’re given two choices: Dead children or the U.S. Constitution.

The real issues, as usual, are much more nuanced and multifaceted.

Most Americans feel as if their power and rights are slowly eroding throughout their lifetimes. As corporations and government gain more control, they see that the rich and well connected live by one set of laws and rules, while everyone else lives by another set of rules.

Gun control is just another erosion of their power vis a vis the rich, powerful and well connected. The issue is not that there are too many guns, and that it’s dangerous. We all know that there are indeed too many guns and it is dangerous.

The real question is, if we restrict gun ownership, who are we restricting? Not everyone certainly: Middle Class, poor people, blue collar, lower class, and regular old Joe’s, with normal jobs, and suburban lifestyles.
Criminals will still have guns. Gangs will still have guns. The underworld will still have guns. Law enforcement will still have guns. AND THE RICH AND WELL CONNECTED WILL STILL HAVE GUNS OR AT LEAST THEIR BODYGUARDS WILL HAVE THEM, WHICH IS THE SAME THING.

So all that restricting guns accomplishes for ordinary Americans is that it makes them more vulnerable, more dependent, less able to defend themselves against criminals, law enforcement, the military, and the rich and well connected should the need arise. It is another take-away. A slow erosion of their independence in favor of the connected classes: dependence on someone else to protect and sustain them.

When we say we need to give up guns it has to be everyone or no one. Michael Bloomberg can’t decry the insanity of gun violence in America, lobby for “sane” gun laws, and then have his bodyguards carrying guns. If ordinary Americans have to give up their guns, then everyone has to give them up. “Well”, Bloomberg might say, “I am a target. I am a political person. I receive hate mail every day. I am vulnerable to assassination. I’m in a different position. I need to be protected with guns.” In other words, Michael Bloomberg would feel vulnerable without armed protection.

Exactly.

Welcome to the real world Michael. Spend a weekend in East L.A., incognito, without your bodyguards and then tell us how safe you feel without your bodyguards and guns.

Give up your guns, and we’ll give up ours. Not so easy now is it? You say, your bodyguards need to have guns because the mafia and criminals will still have guns.

Welcome to how people outside the beltway feel.

Law enforcement has to give up their guns too. They need to be like Britain’s Bobbies of the 19th century. Patrolling, on foot, (or bicycle) with a billy club and a whistle.

We all have to be in the same boat.

Now you say, well, it still leaves the criminals with guns.

Precisely.

That is the problem we all have. Nobody wants to be vulnerable to a criminal with a gun. So we get rid of all of the guns. Nobody has guns, no criminals, no rich people, no politicians, no private detectives, no private security, no exceptions.

We keep well-armed militias, made up of members of the community, in place and in their barracks, with the guns locked up.

If we need them because the Chinese have just landed on our shores, or our government gets completely out of control, we’ll have to call them.

No one allowed to have guns. No one, not one person. Then you can have a real discussion about gun control.

Gun control advocates want their own guns protected, in whatever form, be it their bodyguards or attentive police, but they don’t want anyone else to have any. And do you think people can trust the police not to misuse their firearms?

Bill Gates could employ an army of Kung Fu Fighters that could easily take care of any intruders. He would still be protected. So why can’t Bill Gates give up his guns? Ergo Michael Bloomberg.
So there we have what is at the heart of the real debate:

Hypocrisy.

A last thought:

If you asked a southern redneck, or me, if he (or I) would be willing to give up his guns to live on a South Pacific Island where no one had a gun, where, in fact, there were no guns at all on the Island, I believe he would agree instantly. The primary reason everybody wants their guns is because everyone else has them.