Art_Frane

How is it possible that an online community devoted to Objectivism does not allow members to remove themselves and their information from the forum database? I want my account deleted, abolished, and in all ways removed. Do it.

In the case of gun ownership I wouldn't consider myself threatened unless someone did so explicitly ( i.e. by pointing it at me or just verbally). One thing I've noted throughout this thread is a back-and-forth over the issue of whether simply possessing a gun connotes a threat of force. Some posters have implied or expressly stated the view that a gun alone is not a threat-inducing object. To wit, the "paper weight" argument. I think there is something crucial being missed by those who hold the view that a gun, by itself, is not a threat or that it is simply an inert item absent an active individual with malicious intent. The paper weight argument holds no water when you examine the intent behind the construction of the item in the first place. While it is true that any tool is a weapon if you hold it right (i.e., have intent to exercise force), certain tools have been developed and produced with the express purpose of helping people in their efforts to exercise force, whether that force is justified or not. The nature of a hand held firearm is the same whether it is held by a lawful and rational citizen or by a criminal. DavidOdden pegged it with the quote from Rand: "Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim." It isn't that I mean to argue simply possessing a gun imbues a person with the privilege to kill at whim. That would require a corollary mindset that allows for indiscriminate killing, and as such the possession of a firearm could well be seen as superfluous. The main point I take away from this discussion is that Objectivism does not, by default, stand opposed to gun ownership. But I don't see anything compelling me to accept gun ownership as a necessary privilege in American (or any other) society. We have the inalienable right to secure ourselves against harm by others who are exercising force against us. We have the right to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure we are so secured, up to an including arming ourselves with weapons for defensive purposes as these are products that men have designed and produced. Fair trade for these products is allowable. However, where the line is drawn remains an unsettled issue. I am more of the mind that hand held bladed weapons are acceptable tools of defense (much preferable to firearms) as these require, perhaps loosely, that the wielder be possessed of not only the weapon itself but also the requisite skill to use it defensively. While offensive use of a sword or knife is still possible, it is infinitely less likely than indiscriminate and offensive use of a firearm. If we take the argument to include skills to use weapons, and as those skills may be considered products of man's ingenuity, then prohibition of firearms among the general populace is more readily argued. Any fool can point a gun and squeeze a trigger. Killing at whim becomes laughably simple. A lunatic with a sword might do considerable damage, but would be readily stopped by any law enforcement officer with a firearm, and any potential victims of this person would need only move beyond the reach of the blade to remain safe. Not so easily managed where projectile weapons are concerned.