dianahsieh Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog by San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle provides an excellent demonstration of the difference between "semi-automatic" and "automatic" firearms: "The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms" &hl=en&fs=1" /> &hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"> In particular, Officer Pyle does an excellent job of showing that two guns can have nearly identical inessential cosmetic features (such as the material the stock is made of), but differ in this one essential feature (semi-automatic vs. automatic), making them fundamentally different guns. Conversely, two guns can have the same essential features (i.e., both be semi-automatic), but one can be made to look very menacing and the other very innocuous simply by changing a few inessential cosmetic features. In my experience, there are even some Objectivists who lack this basic understanding of the difference between automatic vs. semi-automatic weapons. This is a nice real-life example of the importance of good epistemology, and in particular of defining by essentials. And we can see the dangers of failing to define by essentials when policy makers talk about banning "assault weapons", which is a bogus concept created grouping together firearms based on these inessential cosmetic features, rather than the essential ones. Even now, there are some Republican Congressmen (not Democrats) who wish to reinstate the expired "Assault Weapons Ban" based on precisely this bogus concept. And given the incoming Obama Administration, this bill may become law. As a corollary, this is also a concrete example of why a proper defense of one's political freedoms depends on upholding a proper rational epistemology -- and more generally a proper objective philosophy. Fortunately, that epistemology and that broader overall philosophy is already available to us -- we just have to be willing to use it. (Video link via Howard Roerig.) Cross-posted from Metablog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_Connery Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Furthermore, what is intrinsically evil about full-auto firearms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Furthermore, what is intrinsically evil about full-auto firearms? Scott, you know the answer to that question. It is the fact that anyone possessing a fully automatic weapon is a mass murderer waiting for an incident to set him/her off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvtmorriscsa Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 The officer is wrong in one regard. It is not illegal to own fully automatic firearms as a civilian, at least from a federal point of view. They are damned hard to get, and very expense. Not to mention all the paper work, background checks, and government snooping required to obtain one. Cool video though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 In essence one must pay a $200 transfer tax. But (oddly, for a "tax") you have to beg for permission to pay it, including getting law enforcement to sign off on it, and in CA they are illegal anyway. (Possibly that is what the officer was talking about.) I also responded on the original noodlefood thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.