SapereAude

The problem is that you are pretending that all this happened in a vacuum.
Several references are made in AS to human history. To the fact that The USA was the first real attempt to have a rational and moral society.
What he saw was not a people that had no opportunity to know what he knew.
He was watching them willfully destroy what was good and right. The company he walked out of was not an isolated incident.
It was made clear in the book that that was the direction the world and now the USA had taken, with the voters' tacit consent.
They made clear their allegiance to the code of looting and pillaging with their vote that night.

He did not destroy their world, they did.
He did not *steal* the other producers from the world of the looters- he gave them refuge.
He did not "create a gas chamber and lock them in"- he left the gas chamber they created and saved everyone he was sure wouldn't attempt to drag him back. Then he left them to their own creation.

If you throw yourself off a building I am not murdering you by refusing to use my body to block your fall.

It is not just off the mark, it is the *opposite* of the book. If you want to keep the metaphor, ... ... to say "I'm stepping out of this gas chamber that you are filling with gas, and in which you are trying to force me to remain" is the *opposite* of saying "I am going to build a gas chamber and force you in".

Binswanger was saying that statistical analysis is no argument against rights. He's right about that. It is a mistake to ascribe to his article those other implications. You missed the point.

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6004" title="Linn Armstrong" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/armstronglinn-300x248.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="248" />In the aftermath of the horrific murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School—while various federal and state legislators have proposed numerous bills restricting the sale and possession of guns, magazines, and ammunition—many Americans have wondered about or discussed the propriety of self-defense and of gun ownership.</p>
<p>My father, Linn Armstrong, is an expert instructor in firearms and self-defense. He is certified by the National Rifle Association as a senior training counselor in firearms instruction, allowing him to certify other gun instructors. He cofounded the Grand Valley Training Club in Grand Junction, Colorado, which has provided firearms training to thousands of people.</p>
<p>Linn has also assisted Alon Stivi of <a href="http://www.directmeasures.com/buy-ACT-LastResort.htm" target="_blank">Direct Measures International</a>, a security consulting firm, in training school administrators, teachers, hospital administrators, and law enforcement personnel in effective responses to “active shooters” in a public place. Here, Linn discusses his views on guns and self-defense. (The views he expresses here are his own, not those of any other organization.) —Ari Armstrong</p>
<p><strong>Ari Armstrong:</strong> Bystanders, including those without any weapons, have stopped the perpetrator during several mass murders, including the 2011 murders in Arizona. What are the most important things people need to know if, heaven forbid, they find themselves confronted by a mass murderer in a crowded place?</p>
<p><strong>Linn Armstrong:</strong> One needs to understand how people think. Good guys and bad guys all think the same way—in a linear fashion. In taking action, people have to observe what’s around them, orient themselves relative to the things and people around them, decide what action to take, and then follow through with the action. This has been part of law enforcement and military training since World War II.</p>
<p>It’s impossible, if an adversary has the drop on me, for me to beat him to the draw, so long as he is in the stage of decision, while I’m still in the stage of observation. Therefore, I have to put him back into the position or thinking process of observation. I can do that, for example, by blinding him with light, cutting the lights, blinding his vision by throwing something at him, or changing my position. I’m always trying to keep myself in the stage of decision, while he’s always in the stage of observation. I call this the “chess game of life.”</p>
<p>In the case of the Aurora theater murders, if the first two rows of people had thrown their purses, soda-pops, cell phones, shoes, and so on, at the perpetrator, that would have tended to restrict his vision and put him back in the stage of observation. This gives others a better opportunity to attack the adversary and take him down.</p>
<p><strong>AA:</strong> In reading about mass murders, I am struck by the accounts of people cowering in fear rather than attacking the perpetrator. Often bystanders fail to act, even when they are to the back of the perpetrator. Certainly this fear is understandable. But how do people move past that fear and take positive action?</p>
<p><strong>LA:</strong> Part of this is training. Training will change your attitude and give you confidence that you can control some aspect of your life even in these horrible situations. That attitude change is this: You refuse to be victimized by this person. You may die fighting, but at least you’ll die fighting for your life and the survival of your loved ones, rather than waiting to be executed.</p>
<p>We have gotten into this position of passivity in our society, where often we’d rather crawl under a desk and wait to die rather than attack the perpetrator. Nobody’s training, even mentally, to defend themselves.</p>
<p>Somewhere our society forgot that it is right to protect ourselves from violence. Too often we read about the victim of a bully who is thrown out of school because he stood up and refused to be a victim. We should not tolerate those who initiate violence against others.</p>
<p>With just a little bit of training, so that they feel competent, in many circumstances bystanders can take down down the perpetrator.</p>
<p>We don’t have to go out and look for such situations, but when have an opportunity to do something like stop a mass murderer, I think there’s a moral dimension to doing so. But people need to gain the knowledge, skills, and attitude enabling them to do that.</p>
<p><strong>AA:</strong> In 2011, more than twice as many people were killed in automobile crashes as were killed in homicides. Despite the relatively low risk of criminal attack, you have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Why is that important do you?</p>
<p><strong>LA:</strong> I am an avid supporter of wearing seatbelts (although I don’t believe they should be government mandated). I don&#8217;t put my seatbelt on only when I think I may have an accident or after the crash. I feel the same way about a handgun. How could I explain to those I love deeply that I could have prevented their daughters or grandchildren from being murdered or assaulted but I just didn&#8217;t feel like taking the effort to carry?</p>
<p><strong>AA:</strong> Do you think it would improve the safety of school children for school administrators, teachers, and perhaps other responsible adults to carry concealed handguns in schools?</p>
<p><strong>LA:</strong> I see no problem with this idea, but training and especially training that teaches firearm use in tight confines with lots of people would be helpful.</p>
<p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a><strong>AA:</strong> In recent weeks, gun sales have shot through the roof. If someone new to guns is considering becoming a gun owner, what are the main things that person needs to consider in buying a gun and acquiring the necessary training to use it safely and appropriately?</p>
<p><strong>LA:</strong> In buying a gun, my number one consideration, after reliability, is fit. You would not buy shoes too big or too small, or a bicycle too tall or too short. One must purchase a firearm that fits his or her hand. Watch what gun store owners say, as some of them may try to sell you the special on hand. Although the quality of training varies from class to class, all NRA classes at least have good, standardized content, and they teach about different types of guns.</p>
<p>You should be able to reach all of the gun’s controls without shifting your hand around. Many semi-automatics are too large to fit the hands of many women. Therefore, sometimes I recommend a revolver, even though other things equal I prefer a semi-automatic. (A semi-automatic can carry more rounds, and often they are better for “point” or “instinctive” shooting, as used by Israelis for many years, often suitable to emergency situations.)</p>
<p>NRA classes are designed to teach the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for safe gun handling. The NRA has been doing this training for a long time and is good at it.</p>
<p>I would make sure an instructor is NRA certified and also a good teacher. Look for thorough classes with plenty of time on the range. Some classes deal only with shooting paper targets, whereas the classes we developed in Grand Junction focus on self-defense, especially inside the home.</p>
<p>Then go to the range and practice your skills.</p>
<p><strong>AA:</strong> Do you have any closing thoughts?</p>
<p><strong>LA:</strong> In reading about the history of Russia and Germany, I’ve asked myself how people in a society allow their family members and neighbors to be taken away, shot, or sent to a gulag, without taking a stand and stopping such things from occurring.</p>
<p>Self-defense training gives people the ability, mentally and physically, to confront evil.</p>
<p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Related:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/" target="_blank">Thoughts on the Aurora Murders and Armed Citizens</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp" target="_blank">“No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism</a></li>
</ul>
<p style="font-size: 10px;">Image of Linn Armstrong: Ari Armstrong</p>


Link to Original

I am not deliberately ignoring you but am hoping you will look a bit deeper into the topic and its particulars so we aren't going back and forth in a tit-for-tat about the deatails of weapons, what regulations already exist, how they are used, and likely scenarios involving different kinds of weapons.

Lest it be unclear, my statement was not intended with disrepect, but your statement is rather like saying:
"if I have a right to a can of Raid (an air propelled poison intended to kill- ostensibly insects- but can be fatal to humans) why don't I have a right to release a cloud of poison gas over the entire greater Chicagoland areas?"

So I'd be willing to engage in the conversation if you back up to the particulars of things:
what is a gun
what is a nuclear weapon
how are they used
how do they function
what is the right to live and how does self defense work into that
we defer to the government the right to "retaliatory force" but is self defense really "retaliatory"
does "defer" mean to "give up all together"?

My own views are more in alignment with Nicky's on this one. The point is not to analyze the situation as if it were an episode of "Deadliest Warrior" and look at the US military as a whole versus a bunch of rag-tag civilians, then conclude that the civilians would get defeated. Sure, there are many instances where there is some sort of armed uprising, and the government puts them down easily, such as the Whiskey Rebellion. But the context of and particularities of situations where this could arise is infinitely variable. In Egypt for example, the military establishment sided with the mass of the protesters against the police and executive. In Libya, key members of the officer corps defected to the rebels. And as Nicky says, we can suppose a scenario where it's not like civilians on one side and the US military on the other, but rather something more like armed street gangs where local authorities are either corrupted or unable to protect citizens. In other cases, guerrilla movements have proven themselves perfectly capable of defeating big, centralized armies, such as the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Vietnam War, or even this little country you may have heard of called Afghanistan.
Secondly, since whether or not armed resistance can defeat the government is an empirical matter, the entire point in regards an armed populace is all about the political relationship between the government and the citizen. A citizen that retains the right to bear arms (derivable from the right of self-ownership) stands in quite a different moral relationship to the government than a legally disarmed one.

I said you're a liar. I never said you're the only one.

BTW, would anyone object to banning Catholic nun's habits?



Oh wait, there's a difference, nuns choose to become nuns. Sure, some (all?) are brainwashed, but, um, it's different mmmkay? And then if they don't like it, they can leave, it's always easy to leave, get a regular job and so on, no one's ever felt trapped I'm sure. People are usually born to Mormonism or Islam, so maybe we ought to forcibly stop that. No? Ok ok, substitute a soothing euphemism for 'forcibly stop', now are you onboard?

I'm afraid that where the phrase "forcible domination by the will of another" is being used above, we ought to substitute "a hungry man is not free". Doesn't it amount to the same thing? Living in the US, if you want to leave a situation where you're being "forced" (or "strongly encouraged", at the risk of being euphemistic) to wear particular clothing, you can do it, but you might lose your meal ticket. Hell, that could happen in a hippie commune, if you're the lone wolf who won't wear Birkenstocks. That's it, I've got the solution, it's been staring us in the face all the time: uniforms! Like in a lot of private schools, and even some public ones, everyone gets a uniform, and that's all anyone's allowed to wear.

NRA's Wayne LaPierre said it best:

"Only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun."

Notice that the guns are amoral inanimate objects... and only men can be bad or good by their deeds.

You're making the same exact argument minimum wage advocates are making: the government knows better what's good for the "slaves" who would agree to work in inhumane conditions than they themselves know.

If fact, the definition of slavery is someone being held AGAINST their will. A slave is someone who wants to be free but can't. What you are describing (people who don't know enough to want what's good for them, and therefor the state should do their thinking for them) is a myth used by statists to justify rights violations.

Such people don't really exist. Mind control (brainwashing) is an urban legend, not a scientific fact. (except for Sgt. Brody in Homeland: he's totally the real deal, and don't anyone dare ruin the premise of that show for me)


And I think that allowing the government to engage in rights violating behavior would in fact achieve the opposite of securing fundamental liberty: it would secure fundamental bondage for everyone.

Our rejection of English common sense is precisely why our sovereignty was won. No need to remind us of that nasty colonial business.

I fully appreciate drunken posts; they bring us all together.

Maybe someone here can help me understand this. So one of the legislative proposals being tossed around by gun control advocates is the idea of banning high-capacity clips (e.g. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/273813-sensing-political-shift-pelosi-dems-call-for-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-clips). And it seems that the magic number that defines a high-capacity clip is... 10?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the sidearm most commonly used by police officers was a Glock 22, which comes standard with a 15-round clip. So this would mean, that if I wanted to carry a handgun, and went through all the certification to get a license and a concealed carry permit and everything, I wouldn't be able to choose the go-to weapon of the police? The magazine would be too large by 50%?

I get the rationale behind trying to ban large-capacity clips; advocates typically argue that really the only purpose for such a clip is to kill large numbers of people. However, when you set the cutoff at 10 bullets, this means you're now saying that police sidearms are equipped with clips whose only purpose would be to 'kill large numbers of people'?

Police officers clearly carry their sidearm to protect themselves and others in the case of a shootout, so (even granting the argument for gun control) how can gun-control advocates possibly say that a 15-round clip is an unreasonable thing for a private citizen to want?

He's an Asian American professor best known for his arguments against the Japanese internments during WW2 and the Korematsu v US decision of the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, there are generally adults present at elementary schools.

I agree. All gun-control laws including those gun-free school zones must be repealed before more children die.

An example of religious totalitarianism is Iran, or the Dark Ages. Calling Romney a religious fascist is much greater hyperbole than even calling the Tea Party socialists. Romney wants religiously motivated government control in a couple of areas (all of which can easily be circumvented by simply traveling out of the state, not even the country - since even the very unlikely overturning of Roe v. Wade would only result in a few states limiting abortion), while Obama wants near-full control of all Americans' work, more than half of all their earnings, full control over their health care, etc. , and he's proven that there's no escape from him anywhere on this planet (by enforcing his fascism all the way into Switzerland).

But, I'm sure, logic will fall on deaf ears, and Kate will continue proving the evil ways of everyone but the political Left with her endless stream of fallacious arguments and plain arbitrary assertions, and consider herself the smartest, most modern and open minded person on here, for doing it. She's every freshly brainwashed, liberal college graduate I've ever met.

Neither you, nor any government you might choose to elect have any business forcing people into therapy.

Let's take an example from my own life. I'm gay.
At a position I held about 12 years ago the owner found out I was gay (and by found out I mean that I am not "obvious" nor do I scream it from the mountaintops) and started behaving in a terrible manner towards me.
No need to go into details. It lasted about two weeks and I assume he was trying to get me to quit and evenetually would have fired me had I not walked out in the middle of one of his sessions of bullshit.

I chose not to file suit against him as I could have for harassment and hostile workplace because such should not be the domain of government.
It is irrelevent that not being wealthy I needed to always be employed. It is *my* responsibility to make myself a desirable enough employee that I am always hirable.
Obviously he was a jackass and should be shunned by decent people.

But end of the day, he was the victim, not I.

I was hired to save his failing business, and up until the day I walked out it was working.
He was unable to get anyone else of my skill level willing to work for what he was offering.
He was closed within 6 months, bankrupt and facing several lawsuits and an IRS investigation.

No government interference desired or required.
He was brought down by his own bigotry, whereas the project I began after walking out gained me even more notoriety in my field than I enjoyed before.

So you see, I have been the victim of so called "bigotry" and still I must call bullshit. He had every right as a "Christian" man to not want anything to do with me.
Frankly, it would have been better for all involved if he hadn't been too cowardly to just fire me.

Note to add- I purpose in telling this personal story Kate86 is that you seem to be taking an emotional approach to this issue, not an objective rational one. You are focusing on what you perceive to be the plight of victims. This story is merely to demonstrate in a very concrete way that assumptions of the results of victimhood aren't always accurate. What matters is the rights of individuals to associate voluntarily with whomever they please.

The reason an employer is allowed to create a job is not to provide opportunity to the collective, it is because he has a right to the pursuit of happiness. The role of government is not to ensure equality of opportunity, which is just as corrupt as any other form of egaltaranism, it is to protect individual rights. Equal opportunity still demands the violation of rights in order to force people into distributing the opportunity they create equally and in order to bring down anybody with above average opportunity. It still requires bashing the brains of any genius child in order to equalize his opportunity with any moron child. Gay people, or any other individual or group of people have no claim on the opportunities created by another human being. Those opportunities are his to distribute however he chooses, regardless of whether he happens to make unjust and immoral choices because it's his pusuit of happiness, not the government dictated path to happiness. If you are allowed to violate his rights, you're not just forcing him into not putting up homophobic adverts and forcing him into not being rude, you're also blasting the entire concept of individual rights, which, in fact, are the very source of all opportunity.
Maybe you're right that unchecked rudeness can have dire consequences. The point at which an objective government would put a check on it is when the rudeness turns to force.

I think it would be nice if people put down their state in addition to their vote. I'm in Florida, so I feel I have to vote Romney, even though I've voted Libertarian for decades. Someone in NY or California who votes for Johnson gets a thumbs up from me, but in Florida or Ohio, well, I'm not generally one to wag a finger at people over their voting choices but...

You are still making a choice for others that you have no business making.

a) You would rather be raped than murdered.
b ) I want neither for myself
c) You would rather I be raped than you be murdered
d) I would rather you be murdered than me be raped.

The question is- why does your desire trump mine?

Meh, I'll just stick with Hershel. He has a farm, a hot daughter, and knows how to stitch up a gunshot wound.

I don't think this is a fair statement at all.

A salient point that doesn't seem to have been addressed here, and I think is necessary to the discussion

There is a difference between (A)theist and (Anti)theist and I believe that many people who claim to be atheist are actually behaving as antitheists. I don't believe that is productive. I don't necessarily mean people here... I mean people in general. The kind of people who can't allow a cross to exist in a military cemetary, the kind who can't allow the existence of religious imagery... I think they protest too much. They expect tolerance for their atheism while wanting to strip others of their rights to belief. I think this kind of rabid anti-theism fuels some of the more irrational behaviors in the neo-Christian movement.

Also, much has been made of tax money being wasted on religious displays. Because these are generally local I'm sure that it is done differently all over. But most of the ones I've known of and have heard about are privately funded.

Now, this is not to be an apologist for Christians. Simply put, I just don't believe that being an atheist automatically makes one more rational than if one is Christian. Most of the atheists I know outside of the Objectivist community are socialists and anarchists.

Rand was quoted multiple times as saying that religion had a valid function as an early and primitive form of philosophy. That Christianity is not entirely rational does not automatically make the person that rejects it rational- they can just as soon pick up something else equally irrational. We must define ourselves by positives, not negatives.

@FeatherFall & Nicky

On second reading, my post was a little premature. It was not a direct response to either of your posts as much as it was an attempt to prevent the direction I thought the thread was taking (and has since taken with Kate's posts and responses to her).

My point is that the principled (and only meaningful or relevant) argument against gun control is that it violates rights. Discussing what-ifs and alternatives is fine, but cannot stand as an argument for or against gun control. When gun rights advocates argue at the statistical, anecdotal, or practical level, they concede to gun control advocates that there is no principled reason to protect 2nd amendment rights, and thereby make it an unfortunately typical pragmatic contest of who has the best statistics or the most shocking real-life story.

An analog would be arguing about taxation by showing that it negatively impacts the unemployment rate, economic growth, etc. It doesn't matter. Such an investigation is a great way to remind oneself that there is no theory-practice dichotomy, but the principle is that compulsory taxes violate the right to property - 'nough said.

There weren't even enough people there to warrant what we would consider a government. Its like having three guys in the woods trying to survive and attempting to form a government for the purpose of law and order. Simple use of self defense and ostracism is enough and anything more is impractical. Frontiersmen in super-low populated areas used voluntary modes of dispute resolution in the old west. I read something about cattle farmers who joined clubs that helped figure out who owned what and such. It seemed to work while there was only five people every fourty square miles.

Population is extremely important when looking at what a society can and can not do. If we don't have enough people, then there is less of a division of labor, which means society needs to return to more affordable means of living.