Friday, December 21, 2012


Just noticed this addendum from Jonathan:

"P.S. While there are some sophisticated arguments out there, and those are by no means included in the following caricature, I can’t help but feel that some of the cases against drones resemble the liberal case for gun control."


I hope everyone who has been laughing at Amitai Etzoni today extends the same criticisms to Bryan Caplan, Bob Murphy, and any other self-identified pacifists.

1 comment:

  1. The difference is one is protected the other is military fun.
    Militia question aside there is an explicit protection of gun ownership for citizens of the United States. Drones are just a way of preventing military solder casualties while carrying out some targeted killing leaders of the military feel must be carried out. The case could be made that drones allow deployment of more deadly force without the need to fret over harm to military personnel. It's all great for the US military but its a practice that requires more and constant scrutiny while gun ownership really doesn't require much scrutiny.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.