FeatherFall

Crow, some of what you said in #94 is the type of stuff I could be convinced of; registration and licensing I react poorly to, but I'm open to an argument that they don't infringe on my rights. Your second paragraph, however, again threatens to engage in the error of subordinating rights to statistics. I'd prefer to put this issue to rest before moving on. To clarify my point, take a look at the sentence I changed to bold: This sentence makes me think that you're treating the issue of individual rights as somehow equivalent to public safety statistics. The issue I have with this is that public safety statistics aren't appropriate in this case; they have no business being here as a parallel argument. They might be appropriate to use in supporting arguments, but only to convince people who don't think about this issue from the (correct) perspective of individual rights. I could be satisfied if you simply came out and said that public safety statistics can be used only if they are subordinated to individual rights. In other words you could say that even if public safety stats show a particular gun ban may reduce injury or death, such a ban should not be used if it violates individual rights. Another way you could put it would be that public safety does not define issues of individual rights.

There is nothing wrong with a calm discussion, Crow. One of those would go well with my coffee. As far as Binswanger's statement is concerned, I think, "across the board," means accross the demographic board. In other words, not banning guns across the board, but creating a patchwork of bans on guns for all people. Contrast this with the kind of laws Eiuol mentioned in the "tragic and self-explanatory" thread, which recognize that certain weaponry combine with certain people to set the appropriate context. Now that we know Brook and Binswanger agree on the basics, where do you stand with regards to the recent host of regulations proposed after the Sandy Hook event? Do you think they would effectively guarantee the right to self-defense while banning purely offensive weapons, or do such regulations violate the right to self-defense by over-defining "offensive" weapons? I think some have more merit than others.

I'd like to ask everyone who thinks Binswanger advocated abolishing all weapons-laws to please re-read the article. I can see how the quote Crow provided could be interpreted differently. The delivery is kind of sloppy. This could be a good case study in effective communication, so I am very interested to know which interpretation is more common. If you think you have a good argument for the second first interpretation after re-reading, please try to convince me. I'd be happy to distance myself from those statements if they don't mean what I thought. Before re-reading, please consider both meanings I offered in my last post for the following sentence: One meaning cries out for the abolition of any restrictions on weapons. The other meaning directs gun laws to discriminate between people who use guns for defensive purposes and people who "fly into a rage and shoot [...] in anger." Think about which one is consistent with the entirety of the piece, specifically the introductory paragraphs.

Maybe this will help clear up some confusion: Laws prohibiting or regulating guns represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished across the board. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished. The first meaning is what you are attributing to Binswanger. The second is what he said. Edit: "Pedantic much? " Dude, you come to this place looking for conflict. I just got done explaining to you I that I knew you didn't mean a word-for-word match. But even an approximate use of the word, "exact," was wrong because Brook and Binswanger agree with each other, so if you disagree with Binswanger you don't agree with Brook. Perhaps if you approached the Binswanger article without the same chip you put on your shoulder when you watch FOX news, you'd realize that you agree with him. Or maybe you disagree with both of them. Either way, they agree with each other.

What I was responding to was your assertion that Brook was, I didn't call out the difference to play, "gotcha," over the fact that you've made assertions about statistics that Brook didn't. I'm used to your hyperbole and I know that when you use superlatives like, "exactly," you almost never mean it. I called it out to show that Brook and Binswanger are in intellectual lockstep with regards to subordinating weapons control legislation to the principle of individual rights. If you think *any* of Binswanger's statements contradict Brooks, please correct my misunderstanding by providing the relevant quotes.

Strawman, none. You've indicated that it would be ok to ban handguns if a statistical analysis of them showed they were more likely to be used in a crime than for self-defense. That is to say, you would victimize me because statistics tell you that most people aren't as responsible as I am. The strawman on this thread seems to be in your corner. You've completely misread Binswanger. Find a quote from his article that contradicts Brook, and show it to me, please.

Crow, the points you expressed in this thread are not the same as Brook's. For instance, Brook didn't mention that statistics trump individual rights. In fact, he said this whole discussion is defined by individual rights - specifically the right to self-defense. I agree that it doesn't make sense to talk about the right to self-defense (or the 2nd amendment) in terms of the right to overthrow a government. I (or even Brook) might have different reasons than you, but I'm not interested in talking about that for one very important reason: Gun control in the modern day is not about banning military-style tools of destruction or preventing internal threats to the military. Even you indicated that you think banning cheap handguns might be a good idea. Edit: By the way, I have to say this again - you've misread Binswanger (or maybe Brook). Please take a moment to find a quote from Binswanger's article that contradicts a statement of Brook's.

Eiuol, thanks for being patient. I was indeed treating both self-defense and retaliation as first-order subconcepts of force. You think retaliation is the first-order subconcept, and self-defense is a second-order subconcept (by way of being a first-order subconcept of retaliation). You may be correct, and I'm interested in being convinced. But I don't see how that will help us resolve the discussion. It seems to me that self-defense would still be distinguishable from a different second-order subconcept of force for which I don't have a word. That word would denote the type of force the government uses to prosecute criminals; the type that re-establishes force after a force-based emergency event has resolved. I agree with this. An individual's behavior/history are part of the context that define how that individual may exercise his right to self-defense. Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TixVdN0SI.

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.

Interest in respectful discussion of Objectivism and its implications or its applications are enough to make this forum a good fit for people of any religious persuasion. You were presented with someone who disagreed with you and with the choice to either convince him that you are right or to attempt to run him off of the forum. Do you think you made a good decision?

I still don't understand. Are you saying that he's starting with a moral position then justifying it? Is "moralizer" a portmanteau of moral and rationalizer? Edit: I have to be honest, I don't know how this discussion is productive. If you think he's wrong about something, just come out and say it. But it's best for all involved if you're willing to back it up with a friendly argument.

AbA, I don't understand the distinction.

Rand learned English in Europe, where gendered language is more common. Also, today's rejection of gendered language is largely due to mid-20th century feminism, which Rand rejected.

EIuol, your post was one of those I was putting off until I had enough time to respond properly. There's a little reminder link on the top of my browser with your name on it. I've actually attempted a response twice already, but could never finish due to higher-priority interruptions. Speaking of interruptions, I have the pleasure of dealing with a particularly cute 2 year old interruption right now. I'll be back soon.

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.

I suspect it'd be cathartic to sit in a crowd of like minded trolls and laugh at an object of mutual contempt. It might even be worth $25. Comradery, humor, bias confirmation, hatred of the good, a two-drink minimum... What more could a troll ask for?

I don't think the difference is semantic. Rights violations are always going to happen - probably even by the government; but to admit this is not to concede that the government should violate rights by design. If I don't have a right to a nuclear weapon, it isn't a violation of my rights to bar me from owning one. I suggested in another thread that there is currently no context in which my use of a nuclear weapon could be defensive. I also suggested that the context could change - there could be a weird scenario where defensive use is possible. But I don't see how the context could be set by anything other than defensive use. A comprehensive investigation of the application of defensive force could be it's own field of study, so there's no way we're going to come to all of the proper conclusions on this message board. The conversation could still be interesting and enlightening. I'd be interested in pursuing that discussion, but I feel like I've been neglectful of a few other threads, so I'm not going to continue with this one until I've responded to those.

Saturday night special is a slang term for a cheap handgun. If you mean something else by it, I didn't understand. And please clarify what you mean by "almost always used for a crime." Do you mean to say that almost all crimes use such weapons? That almost all guns used in crimes are such weapons? Something else? I don't have access to any data, but my own experience with firearms retail suggests to me that many such guns are sold every day. A thousand a day would not surprise me. My point is that the implications of your statement are huge, so I'd appreciate a little more clarity. I also noticed that you only mentioned hunters and hobbyists as people who might have a legitimate interest in owning a gun. Considering that self-defense is the most common reason to own a gun, I expect the issue not to be so casually dismissed. Choosing who to violate is a depraved moral calculus; I suggest being extra sensitive to the stated motivations of your intended victims if you want them to sanction their own victimhood. Better yet, treat a conflict of rights as the dead end that it is and bring the discussion back to identifying the contexts that define the right to possess a weapon.

Crow, if your sole point was that the government is fallible, then I'd agree. But you go on to say that because of this, a broad statistical analysis can justify bringing government force down on innocent people. But those stats don't tell you how to make your judgment call. Principles do. In the "Tragic and Self Explanatory" thread I offered a substitute for that type of mixed-context injustice. I proposed a way to bring objectivity back to the discussion by framing it in terms of retaliatory versus defensive force. I thought it would be a good idea to examine how different weapons could be used defensively, so we could get a clearer picture of which regulations and bans are appropriate. I ended up having a conversation with myself. I don't want to appear like I've got a mouthful of sour grapes, because I'm really not hurt by the lack of interest. But I think it strange that the gun control proponents would pass on the opportunity to convince me that we should restrict some guns. In light of this last bit about where statistics enter the picture, I think it would be even more useful to do what I suggested - so we don't feel like our only resort is to make a judgment call about which innocent people to put beneath the hammer of the state.

Welcome. Why the aversion to ideology?

Kate, when we get drunk in my home, we do it on purpose. The situation you describe is the result of a series of inappropriate behaviors that my family and friends do not engage in. As for the study, I did not analyze their methods with regard to control group selection, so I can't approve or disapprove of their findings. However, the study seems to gather info from proxies they deem to be comparable to homes that have murders. I'm confident that my home would not engage in the behaviors that would make us suitable proxies; alcoholism, illicit drug use, domestic violence, etc. Also, the study gives no data about burglary, sexual assault and the like - only homicides. When I talk about keeping my family safe, I mean to keep us safe from everything, not just murder. Edit: I'm currently re-reading the study to see if I missed something. If anyone thinks they've missed my point because of the confusion a mistake of mine may have caused, please give the word and I'll clarify. Crow, this gold discussion is incredibly off-topic. So the last I'll say is of course commodities can be mis-valued, but if you think gold-as-currency is less stable than what moralist called, "fiat currency," you're out of your mind. Because I'm more prone to think of you as chippy rather than insane, I get the impression that you're arguing this point for the sake of argument.

Crow, you're drawing his "borderline" statement out of the context of individual behavior and into the context of demographics/statistics. I consider this to be a pretty eggregious error, considering that the whole point of his article was to explain the difference. The type of borderline case Binswanger was talking about was how to identify whether one individual's behavior with a weapon constitutes a threat. It was not to say that there are some borderline cases where violating individual rights is ok. Here's a short sampling of the continuum he was alluding to: Obviously threatening: I yell, "D'Artagnan, Mother %U*#($," and start waiving my loaded gun at a line of children waiting to see Santa. Borderline: I take out my gun to clean it while admonishing someone for inappropriate behavior with my daughter. Not threatening: I keep my loaded pistol concealed inside a waistband holster while I enjoy a movie.

I didn't. In fact, people in my home are safer because I own guns. As a child, I was safer because my father owned guns.

Crow, in your comments about gold prices you talk past the rest of us. Gold is relatively (supremely?) stable as a form of currency. The reason being that devaluing gold or any other precious metal requires lowering its utility (fat chance) or rapidly mining remaining reserves (a costly enterprise). Devaluing a given contemporary currency is much easier.

It depends a little bit on how you define, "regulated," but the short answer is no. Handguns are more regulated. Automatic weapons have been effectively banned for your average person since the National Firearms Act of 1934. This includes "real" assault (selective fire) weapons, machine guns, submachine guns (machine pistols), etc. A person can receive special permission to own a machine gun from the US Treasury Department (<-- If you can figure out why that makes sense, please tell me). But the average person is SOL when it comes to getting such permission. The federal government requires a NICS background check for conventional firearms. Blackpowder firearms, including relatively high caliber cap and ball revolvers, aren't even considered firearms and can therefore be shipped directly to your home. Conventional firearms are divided into two types; long guns and handguns. Anything that uses larger than .50 caliber cartridges is considered a "destructive device" and is not legal for sale or ownership. Long guns are basically rifles and shotguns. Depending on what you're looking at, the minimum barrel length is 16" or 18", with a total overall length of somewhere around 24" (I'm working from memory). Modifying the barrel or stock to reduce overall length below these benchmarks is illegal. Long guns can be purchased by passing a NICS background check. The process shouldn't take more than 15 minutes. Hand guns include revolvers, derringers, and semi-automatic pistols. They can theoretically have any barrel length, but that would kind of defeat the purpose. Some of these weapons, like the Taurus Judge or the Magnum Research BFR can fire .410 gauge shotgun shells. The only federal regulation that makes these guns harder to get is the 48 hour waiting period. A federally licensed dealer typically notifies the NICS people on behalf of the buyer, the buyer waits 48 hours, comes back to the dealer who calls NICS again. If everything checks out, the buyer has one or more new handguns. State regulations complicate the issue. California, for example, has its own Clintonesque "assault" weapons ban that, among other things, limits magazine capacity to ten rounds. They also have more stringent requirements on removable rifle magazines, and a ten day waiting period for a handgun. Some states require licenses for the purchase of a handgun. The biggest host of regulations seem to govern concealed carry, which ranges from "constitution carry" states that allow any law abiding adult to carry a concealed weapon, to more strict states that require training and the whimsical approval of local authorities before a license is given. Regulations on removable magazines and the barrel/overall lengths of long guns might lead someone to believe they are more regulated, but if the relevant context is access, then handguns are harder to get. This NICS stuff goes out the window when you buy from an individual whose main source of income is not arms dealing. Lots of these guys set up booths at gun shows, and you can legally get a gun from them without a background check.