All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Why should law-abiding Americans be allowed to own handguns?

2 Comments
A message from Females with Firearms
A message from Females with Firearms

Here’s a news story from the Washington Free Beacon that shows what happens when law-abiding Americans are allowed to own handguns.

Excerpt:

A Florida police officer is alive and the suspect who was beating him is dead thanks to the intervention of an armed citizen on Monday.

The incident began when Deputy First Class Dean Bardes, a 12-year-veteran of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office, attempted to pull over a car. When the driver refused to stop, a high-speed chase ensued. When the suspect did finally stop, witnesses say he attacked Bardes.

“There was a lot of other lives that he was putting at risk, including mine and my daughter’s,” one witness, Nicole Ambrosini, told ABC affiliate WZVN. “I saw a car approaching me from behind at a very fast rate.”

“I saw the deputy and the suspect out of their cars with the doors both wide open and they were some type of altercation,” she continued.

The suspect appeared to gain the upper hand during the altercation.

“He just kept beating him and beating him,” a second witness, Shanta Holditch, told the news station. She said the suspect was “throwing him to the ground and punching him in all different directions.”

That is when witnesses say an armed man got out of his car and yelled at the suspect to stop hitting the officer. Holditch said the suspect “refused to get off the officer and the officer kept yelling, ‘shoot him, shoot him, shoot him.’”

Then witnesses heard three shots and saw the suspect collapse on top of the officer.

“I heard like three shots,” another witness, identified as Mr. Smith, told WZVN. “He fell down on top of the police officer. After a moment, the police officer rolled him back over, got on his mic, then rolled over back on the ground besides the guy.”

WINK News reports that the suspect may have been armed, but it is unclear if he or Bardes fired any shots during the altercation. He died after being shot by the citizen who intervened to help Bardes. That citizen holds a Concealed Weapons License, according to WINK.

Bardes was taken to Lee Memorial Hospital for treatment and has since been released.

According to this web site, Florida has some of the best gun laws for self-defense of any of the 50 states. If a policeman was attacked in a state like Illinois or New York or New Jersey, that policeman would be dead.

What would the secular leftists who oppose gun ownership say to the police officer in this situation? “Too bad” or maybe “have a nice death”. What about all the left-wing lawyers and progressive judges who have mistrust and contempt for law-abiding citizens? They’d say “let the policeman die” or “the criminal is the real victim”. It’s very fashionable in progressive circles to favor criminals over police officers. And they have no respect for a man’s traditional role to be a protector of his family and others in the community. Progressives don’t think about the real consequences of taking guns away from law abiding people. They want to feel good, and preen for others, but they don’t really aim to DO good.

Let’s go beyond feelings, though, and look at the peer-reviewed literature, so that we can have accurate beliefs about reality.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Here is a paper by Dr. Malcolm that summarizes one of the key points of her book.

Excerpt:

Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).

Upon the passage of The Firearms Act (No. 2) in 1997, British Deputy Home Secretary Alun Michael boasted: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world.” The Act was second handgun control measure passed that year, imposed a near-complete ban on private ownership of handguns, capping nearly eighty years of increasing firearms restrictions. Driven by an intense public campaign in the wake of the shooting of schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, Parliament had been so zealous to outlaw all privately owned handguns that it rejected proposals to exempt Britain’s Olympic target-shooting team and handicapped target-shooters from the ban.

And the result of the 1997 gun ban:

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.

[…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.

I think that peer-reviewed studies – from Harvard University, no less – should be useful to those of us who believe in the right of self-defense for law-abiding people. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, but both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

News

Robin Collins and atheist Peter Millican discuss the fine-tuning of the universe for life

Leave a comment
British Spitfire and German Messerschmitt Me 109 locked in a dogfight
British Spitfire and German Messerschmitt Me 109 locked in a dogfight

You might remember Peter Millican from the debate he had with William Lane Craig. I ranked that debate as one of the 3 best I have ever seen, along with the first Craig  vs Dacey debate and the second Craig vs Sinnott-Armstrong debate.

Details:

Science has revealed that the fundamental constants and forces of the cosmos appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned to allow a universe in which life can develop. Is God the best explanation of the incredibly improbable odds of the universe we live in being a life-permitting one?

Robin Collins is a Christian philosopher and a leading advocate of the argument for God from cosmic design. Peter Millican is an atheist philosopher at Oxford University. They debate the issues.

From ‘Unbelievable?’ on ‘Premier Christian Radio’, Saturday 19th March 2016.

The debate:

MP3 file is available on the Unbelievable web site.

As usual when the atheist is an expert, there is no snark or paraphrasing in the summary.

Summary

Brierley: What is the fine-tuning argument?

Collins: the fine-tuning is structure of the universe is extremely precisely set to allow the existing of conscious, embodied agents who are capable of moral behavior. There are 3 kinds of fine-tuning: 1) the laws of nature (mathematical formulas), 2) the constants of physics (numbers that are plugged into the equations), 3) the initial conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning exists not just because there are lots of possibilities, but there is something special about the actual state of affairs that we see. Every set of laws, parameters and initial conditions is equally improbable, but the vast majority of permutations do not permit life. The possible explanations: theism or the multiverse.

Brierley: How improbable are the numbers?

Collins: Once case is the cosmological constant (dark energy density), with is 1 part in (10 raised to 120th power). If larger, the universe expands too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form after the Big Bang. If smaller, the universe collapses in on itself before life could form. Another case is the initial distribution of mass energy to give us the low entropy we have that is necessary for life. The fine-tuning there is 1 part in (10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power).

Brierley: What do you think of the argument?

Millican: The argument is worth taking very seriously. I am a fan of the argument. The other arguments for God’s existence such as the ontological and cosmological arguments are very weak. But the fine-tuning argument has the right structure to deliver the conclusion that theists want. And it is different from the traditional design argument tended to focus on biological nature, which is not a strong argument. But the fine-tuning argument is strong because it precedes any sort of biological evolution. Although the design is present at the beginning of the universe, it is not visible until much later. The argument points to at least deism, and possibly theism. The argument is not based on ignorance, it is rooted in “the latest results from the frontiers of science” (his phrase).

Brierley: Is this the best argument from natural theology?

Collins: The cosmological argument makes theism viable intuitively, but there are some things that are puzzling, like the concept of the necessary being. But the fine-tuning argument is decisive.

Brierley: What’s are some objections to the fine-tuning argument?

Millican: The argument is based on recent physics, so we should be cautious because we maybe we will discover a natural explanation.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: The cosmological constant has been around since 1980. But the direction that physics is moving in is that there are more constants and quantities being discovered that need to be fine-tuned, not less. Even if you had a grand unified theory, that would have to be have the fine-tuning pushed into it.

(BREAK)

Millican: Since we have no experience of other laws and values from other universes, we don’t know whether these values can be other than they are. Psychologically, humans are prone to seeing purpose and patterns where there is none, so maybe that’s happening here.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: It is possible to determine probabilities on a single universe case, for example using multiple ways of calculating Avogadro’s number all converging on the same number makes it more probable.

Millican: Yes, I willing to accept that these constants can take on other values, (“principle of indifference”). But maybe this principle be applied if the improbability were pushed up into the theory?

Collins: Even if you had a grand theory, selecting the grand theory from others would retain the improbability.

Brierley: What about the multiverse?

Millican: What if there are many, many different universes, and we happen to be in the one that is finely-tuned, then we should not be surprised to observe fine-tuning. Maybe a multiverse theory will be discovered in the future that would allow us to have these many universes with randomized constants and quantities. “I do think that it is a little bit of a promissary note”. I don’t think physics is pointing to this right now.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: I agree it’s a promissary note. This is the strongest objection to the fine-tuning argument. But there are objections to the multiverse: 1) the fine-tuning is kicked back up to the multiverse generator has to be set just right to produce universes with different constants, 2) the multiverse is more likely to produce a small universe with Boltzmann brains that pop into existence and then out again, rather than a universe that contains conscious, embodied intelligent agents. I am working on a third response now that would show that the same constants that allow complex, embodied life ALSO allow the universe to be discoverable. This would negate the observer-selection effect required by the multiverse objection.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Millican: I don’t see why the multiverse generator has to be fine-tuned, since we don’t know what the multiverse generator is. I’m not impressed by the Boltzmann brains, but won’t discuss. We should be cautious about inferring design because maybe this is a case where we are seeing purpose and design where there is none.

Brierley: Can you negate the discoverability of the universe by saying that it might be psychological?

Collins: These things are not psychological. The selected value for the cosmic microwave background radiation is fine-tuned for life and for discoverability. It’s not merely a discoverability selection effect, it’s optimal for discoverability. If baryon-photon value were much smaller, we would have known that it was not optimal. So that judgment cannot be explained by

Millican: That’s a very interesting new twist.

Brierley: Give us your best objection.

Millican: I have two. 1) Even if you admit to the fine-tuning, this doesn’t show a being who is omnipotent and omnisicient. What the fine-tuning shows is that the designer is doing the best it can given the constraints from nature. If I were God, I would not have made the universe so big, and I wouldn’t have made it last 14 billion years, just to make one small area that supports life. An all-powerful God would have made the universe much smaller, and much younger. 2) The fine-tuning allows life to exist in other solar systems in other galaxies. What does this alien life elsewhere mean for traditional Christian theology? The existence of other alien civilizations argues against the truth of any one religion.

Brierley: Respond to those.

Collins: First objection: with a finite Creator, you run into the problem of having to push the design of that creature up one level, so you don’t really solve the fine-tuning problem. An unlimited being (non-material, not composed of parts) does not require fine-tuning. The fine-tuning is more compatible with theism than atheism. Second objection: I actually do think that it is likely that are other universes, and life in other galaxies and stars, and the doctrine of the Incarnation is easily adaptable to that, because God can take on multiple natures to appear to different alien civilizations.

Other resources (from WK)

If you liked this discussion, be sure and check out a full length lecture by Robin Collins on the fine-tuning, and a shorter lecture on his very latest work. And also this the Common Sense Atheism podcast, featuring cosmologist Luke Barnes, who answers about a dozen objections to the fine-tuning argument.

News

Worst president ever leaves Trump a looming economic crisis

1 Comment
Is Barack Obama focused on protecting the American people?
Is Barack Obama focused on protecting the American people?

Consider this article from the Wall Street Journal, which discusses the latest CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report.

Massive budget deficits:

One lesson is that the days of easy deficit reduction are over. The annual deficit in 2016 rose for the first time in three years—by $148 billion to $587 billion. That’s 3.2% of GDP, up sharply from 2.5% last year. Mr. Obama has been able to ride falling defense spending from reduced military deployments overseas, but Pentagon outlays were flat in 2016. Military spending will probably have to increase in future years, no matter who wins Tuesday, to meet the growing challenges from Russia, China and Iran.

Looming entitlement crisis:

Mr. Obama will also leave town having failed over eight years to do anything to slow the booming burden of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Outlays for those three programs grew by $75 billion last year, or about 4.2%. They now account for 10% of the entire U.S. economy, the highest level ever, and rising.

More spending on welfare programs:

The President’s main contribution has been to put Medicaid on hyperspeed by expanding its coverage through ObamaCare. CBO’s budget gnomes report that Medicaid spending has climbed by nearly 40% in a mere three years—to $368 billion in 2016. That doesn’t include what the states are obliged to chip in.

Higher taxes and more regulations (e.g. – Dodd-Frank) killed economic growth:

Another lesson is that faster economic growth is essential to a healthier fisc. One reason for the deficit rebound in 2016 is that federal revenues increased by a mere $18 billion or less than 1%. Individual income-tax receipts were flat, while corporate income taxes fell by $44 billion or 13% as business profits sagged. This is what happens when the economy sputters at about a 1% growth rate for most of a year.

Massive spending:

Growth that slow couldn’t keep up with spending that increased 4.5% or $166 billion in 2016. Federal outlays were 20.9% of the economy for the year, up from 20.4% in 2014. A Republican Congress has kept that figure down from the heights of the Obama-Nancy Pelosi stimulus, but it is now set to take off again as more Baby Boomers start collecting Social Security and Medicare. (Millennials, get ready to pay even higher taxes throughout your working life.)

Looming crisis caused by rising interest rates:

This era may be ending as a new President takes office. The Fed may raise rates in December, and bond yields have been rising. Outlays for net interest on the debt increased by $23 billion or 9% in 2016, largely due to faster inflation. But inflation is still tame. If it begins to rise, the debt-financing burden will explode with more than $14 trillion of Treasury debt outstanding, much of it short-term. In January CBO said that if interest rates are 100 basis points above their projections each year for the next decade, the Treasury will have to pay an average of more than $160 billion per year.

And it’s not just fiscal matters. Investors Business Daily adds to the list of problems that Obama will pass on to Trump.

Low wages, high unemployment:

Obama, like every Democrat running for office, claimed to be the champion of the middle class, and that instead of “trickle down” economics, he’d growth the economy from the “middle out.” Instead, middle class wages stagnated throughout Obama’s term in office, with real median household income today exactly where it was when Obama took office.

And despite Obama’s constant bragging about the “longest” stretch of private sector job growth, the 15.5 million private sector jobs added since February 2010 hasn’t even kept pace with population growth — which climbed 17.5 million over that time. As a result, more than 14 million people have dropped out of the labor force since Obama took office. In fact, without the huge decline in labor force participation under Obama, the unemployment rate would be more like 10%, rather than the official 4.9%.

Higher health care costs and more health care regulations on businesses:

ObamaCare was supposed to be Obama’s grand legacy, showing how government could be a force for good. Instead, it’s become an epic failure that will have to dealt with by the next president. The reforms Obama said would repair a “broken” health system have themselves broken it. Premiums in the newly government-run individual market are up an average 22% nationwide, and at rates of 50%, 60%, even 113% in some states — increases unheard of before ObamaCare. Insurance markets that were once vibrantly competitive are now dominated by one or two carriers. ObamaCare has made Medicaid, an already terrible health program, worse by dumping millions more into it. ObamaCare’s taxes, mandates, and regulations are suffocating businesses.

Foreign policy disasters:

A list of Obama’s foreign policy failures would fill a volume, but here are just a few: Obama in 2011 prematurely removed troops from Iraq, creating a power vacuum later filled by ISIS; he let Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program continue, starting a nuclear arms race in the Mideast; after Obama called ISIS a “jayvee team,” it grew in clout and territory as a result of Obama’s neglect; Obama’s intervention in Libya during that country’s civil war led to the country becoming a terrorist haven, with no real government; he and Hillary Clinton pushed the “reset button” with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and Russia launched hostile actions against its neighbors in Crimea and Ukraine, and threats to the Baltic states; Obama has signaled ambivalence over protecting traditional allies in Asia, leading to China arming up and bullying it neighbors. With massive defense cuts Obama put in place, it’s safe to say the U.S. hasn’t been this weak since the nadir of the Carter years.

This is not even to mention the $1.3 trillion dollar student loan bubble:

Federal student loans skyrocketed under Obama
Federal student loans skyrocketed under Obama

And yet another Democrat-caused mortgage lending crisis:

Another Democrat-caused mortgage lending crisis
Another Democrat-caused mortgage lending crisis is on the horizon

Democrats are always in favor of making it easy for people to borrow money, and leaving taxpayers on the hook to cover it. Are there enough people working to cover these debts? Has Obama been focused on helping to lower taxes and reduce regulations for job creators, so they can create new jobs? How will the millennials respond to being forced to pay for all the debt incurred by the man they voted for?