Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

[Justin Benner]

This is a tricky topic, especially since most are incapable of maintaining rationality while speaking about it. In that sense, it reminds me of the abortion debate.

Generally speaking, gun control is totally ineffective. There is some evidence that it helps to reduce violent crime, but when you actually take a look at those studies, it is apparent that they haven't accounted for the other crime-conductive factors, such as poverty, mental health factors, education level, and even factors as banal as the temperature outside or population density (statistics demonstrate that violence increases the hotter, and more crowded, it gets).

There is also a pretty compelling moral case to be made against gun control: (1) as a human being, I have the right to defend myself against aggression, and that aggression frequently comes in the form of a gun; (2) applying punitive measures against people not convicted of a crime is immoral, and infringes greatly upon the vast majority of law-abiding citizens; (3) agents of state authority are allowed to carry guns, and yet state authority is the record holder for human rights abuses by far.

However, I have heard one compelling argument for gun control, and it is, interestingly enough, pretty utilitarian. Selective gun control in areas that have high gang activity works, not because it reduces the likelihood of violence, not because it decreases tensions, because it provides a pretext for removing particular elements from the street. In other words, certain boroughs of Chicago or New York or wherever would be declared "gun free zones," and police would focus on known or suspected gang members. This sort of policing has actually proven to reduce violent crime (I can source this by the way, although I haven't found an online source yet, so take it or leave it)... and yet I can't help but wonder how many innocent people have been targeted as a result, and how many of them are unable to improve their lives due to a criminal record. The moral implications of this policy are huge, and frankly, I am unwiling to trust the State with such authority outside a very narrow set of circumstances, and I'm not even sure what those circumstances are.

[Eiuol]

Is it? All US laws are published. Quote the one that bans tanks.

There is no reason to pass a law if it's military policy to disarm anything no longer being used. De facto means in practice. De jure means by law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

Anyone who does statistics defines their terms to make sure the categorizations are done properly and accurately. You can't always just open up a dictionary for statistics, because if we want accuracy, even things like unemployment require specific definitions. Indeed, you described a rifle. The FBI may use a more precise definition.

[Kate87]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20923201 - more shooting deaths in Colorado today.

[moralist]

John Galt and the rest of the gang smoked cigarettes too. They thought that was a great thing to do. Gold was no more a critical pillar of AS than cigarettes.

One has nothing to do with the other. One is a cultural fad... while the other is the essential monetary equity of Capitalism.

[CrowEpistemologist]

One has nothing to do with the other. One is a cultural fad... while the other is the essential monetary equity of Capitalism.

Gold is no such thing. The US government should be out of the business of minting money entirely. If gold stopped existing (or for instance it was discovered in vast quantities making it worthless) then there'd still be capitalism--it would get along just fine (and does today as well).

[aleph_1]

However, I have heard one compelling argument for gun control, and it is, interestingly enough, pretty utilitarian. Selective gun control in areas that have high gang activity works, not because it reduces the likelihood of violence, not because it decreases tensions, because it provides a pretext for removing particular elements from the street. In other words, certain boroughs of Chicago or New York or wherever would be declared "gun free zones," and police would focus on known or suspected gang members. This sort of policing has actually proven to reduce violent crime (I can source this by the way, although I haven't found an online source yet, so take it or leave it)... and yet I can't help but wonder how many innocent people have been targeted as a result, and how many of them are unable to improve their lives due to a criminal record. The moral implications of this policy are huge, and frankly, I am unwiling to trust the State with such authority outside a very narrow set of circumstances, and I'm not even sure what those circumstances are.

Even if the statistics you claim are true, laws that apply to some and not to others is a classic violation of a principle called the Rule of Law. The lack of the rule of law in America is a modern de-evolution of our system of government. Most people cannot even distinguish between Law and Order and the Rule of Law since our civics classes are in such a shabby state.

What is more, every regulation involves the pointing of a gun (or in GB the pointing of a billy club.) Since the unique power of government is the lawful weilding of force against the populace, laws necessarily involve the use of force. With every tax or ban (drugs, alcohol, guns, cigarettes), organized crime grows stronger because only those willing to meet force with force gain by these laws. What we need is freedom and a discovery of true morality.

[Spiral Architect]

Gold represented a store of value in the book because it has been traditionally a store of value in real life. The Government got out of the gold business not because of real market issue with gold but because gold at the time prevented them from dealing with self-inflicted market issues. Gold would be a reasonable standard again, as would be any real value that serves as a real store of value. Gold is obvious sense it is already accepted as a value by people. If something fantastic happened then obviously there would be a need to switch over another real store of value.

Either way, the opposite is also true. A culture that preaches giving up values as an ethical standard and one that wants fiat money so it can reduce its value for the same reason is no coincidence.

[Nicky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20923201 - more shooting deaths in Colorado today.

http://libertyandsuch.com/10-cases-of-firearms-used-for-self-defense-in-11-days/

[SapereAude]

we defer to the government the right to "retaliatory force" but is self defense really "retaliatory"

Yes, self-defense is retaliatory, because force is either defense/retaliation, or initiation.

Now I see a major flaw here. You have an incorrect understanding of "defense" and "retaliation"

Retaliation is defined as paying kind for kind, seeking revenge, or to repay for a thing done.

If a man is in the process of assaulting me and I shoot him I am doing none of the above. I am taking an action against a real physical attack against my right to life that is in progress. That is what makes defense different from retaliation.

Retaliation would be if I seek out someone who assaulted me in the past and shot him. Or even if I shot him in the back as he was fleeing from an attempt to assault me.

You could say that if someone attacks me with violence and I respond with violence I am repaying kind for kind but this would still be inaccurate.. there is a vast real, moral and legal difference between the initiation of force (breaking into my house and assaulting me) and my use of force to counter that force (me refusing to be assaulted, using what tools I have at hand).

There is a world of difference in the meanings of these words.

Edited January 10, 2013 by SapereAude

[Eiuol]

Now I see a major flaw here. You have an incorrect understanding of "defense" and "retaliation"

My response to you and FeatherFall here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24598&st=50#entry303457

Edited January 10, 2013 by Eiuol

[Nicky]

There is no reason to pass a law if it's military policy to disarm anything no longer being used. De facto means in practice. De jure means by law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

In practice, American courts act based on laws, and all government action is subject to judicial overview. If there's no law against it, then it's not banned "in practice". What happens, in practice, is that the American government and American courts follow the laws.

Whenever they act outside the law, they are subject to judicial rebuke. Not in theory, in practice.

Anyone who does statistics defines their terms to make sure the categorizations are done properly and accurately. You can't always just open up a dictionary for statistics, because if we want accuracy, even things like unemployment require specific definitions. Indeed, you described a rifle. The FBI may use a more precise definition.

Yes, that's the same claim you made before (although before, you left out the word "may", and were very sure of yourself). My position remains the same, of course. I dare you to name such an FBI standard if you really know about it and aren't just posting made up stuff because you feel like it.

I'm pretty sure that you are. I really doubt the FBI has an official definition for what a rifle is. I bet they're busy doing something a little more worthwhile than stating the obvious. I can't imagine a single situation in which any cop could ever be confused about whether the weapon they hold in their hands is a rifle or not.

[FeatherFall]

Okay, so I re-read the Kellermann gun study to see if my initial concerns were justified. I didn't understand it as well as I would have liked. Specifically, I got to the point where I was going to have to spend too much time learning about methodology to satisfy myself. So instead of spending hours reading about the advantages and flaws of case-control studies and how that jives with the Kellermann paper, I sought out a more qualified critic. Much of the criticism mirrored my own. I strongly suggest reading it.

[Nicky]

 This is from Roger Ebert, looking back at an interview after Columbine. The only thing that changed is the agenda. The propaganda tactics stayed the same. 

 

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

[tadmjones]

Now I'm confused, so is it good or bad that a non insignificant segment of the current culture thinks Jon Stewart is a 'newsguy'?

Edited February 15, 2013 by tadmjones

[oso]

In practice, American courts act based on laws, and all government action is subject to judicial overview. If there's no law against it, then it's not banned "in practice". What happens, in practice, is that the American government and American courts follow the laws.

Whenever they act outside the law, they are subject to judicial rebuke. Not in theory, in practice.

Yes, that's the same claim you made before (although before, you left out the word "may", and were very sure of yourself). My position remains the same, of course. I dare you to name such an FBI standard if you really know about it and aren't just posting made up stuff because you feel like it.

I'm pretty sure that you are. I really doubt the FBI has an official definition for what a rifle is. I bet they're busy doing something a little more worthwhile than stating the obvious. I can't imagine a single situation in which any cop could ever be confused about whether the weapon they hold in their hands is a rifle or not.

 

The barrel length of rifles is regulated differently than the barrel length of pistols so it is actually necessary for the government to have precise definitions of what constitutes a rifle and what constitutes a pistol. As I understand it, if a firearm has a stock or a fore-grip and a rifled barrel, it is considered a rifle and it therefore must have a barrel length of at least 16 inches. Also, once a firearm is manufactured into a rifle, it is always a rifle. This means you can't cut the stock off of a rifle then shorten the barrel.

 

Under these definitions the first of the firearms pictured below would be considered a pistol while the second one would be considered a short barrelled rifle and therefore potentially illegal without the proper paper work. I don't know if the FBI uses these legal definitions in their statistics but an officer trying to enforce firearms laws would need to know the government definitions.

Edited February 15, 2013 by oso

[FeatherFall]

For a fun exercise in stupid law, try searching Google images for "Glock stock." Most of the images on Google are essentially the same handgun pictured in OSO's post, but are now in an entirely different regulatory category. They are more tightly regulated than the AR-15... Because you can brace them against your shoulder.

Edited February 15, 2013 by FeatherFall