Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

[Nicky]

Riight. Maybe this wouldn't have happened if all those kindergarteners were allowed to carry guns to school.

Might as well teach them how to use guns as early as possible:

Pretty sure he meant the security guards carrying guns, the principal having a gun in a safe in his office, and teachers being allowed to carry if they choose to and prove to be responsible about it.

[Kate87]

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 All gun-control laws including those gun-free school zones must be repealed before more children die.

Look you believe this because of cultural reasons. I get that. But anyone who predicts that gun control and proper enforcement of gun control laws would lead to an increase in gun deaths I think is letting their cultural biases delude them.

The TRUE SOURCE of RANDOM & MASS SHOOTINGS and VIOLENCE (original capitalization)

A laughable source.

It is each individual American's Constitutional duty to be their own well armed militia.

Exactly, this is the main cultural reason for your belief. Ayn Rand's view is different:

It's a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. 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.

But it's too late for vagueness, since we already know that what she's talking about is gun control. And she's talking about it on the day two mass murders occurred in schools: one by gun and one without the use of guns.

It's nonsense. Here, have some more facts about gun control:

http://www.reasonorf...statistics.html

Now is the time to have a discussion on gun control. If not now when? This is a frequent tactic used to shut down debate. - https://twitter.com/...hetime&src=hash People want this discussion and it is entirely appropriate to have it on the day of the tragedy. Clearly people in public office may wait a couple days since everyone's emotions are raw, I get that and wouldn't criticise them for it. But now is the time.

The graphs on that blog have no source mentioned for the data. Here is a more credible source (Harvard Injury Control Research Center) which has the opposite conclusion.

I would concede that gun control laws would be less effective within an overall culture of gun ownership. For example if one US state, or one highschool has a no gun policy, then this is not going to have the desired effect since it would be an island in a sea of guns. I could even find it plausable that gun deaths could go up in such a scenario. I am bending over backwards trying to accommodate your viewpoint here, and I can see some reason and logic in it.

If the USA were to outlaw gun ownership, and strictly enforce such laws. If it were to outlaw gun shops, shooting ranges, hunting rifles etc. If it were to end the war on drugs thereby reducing gun demand by criminals. If it were to have a proper border with Mexico with strict border checkpoints and reduce the border weak spots. If it were to punish severely anyone possessing a gun. If the culture was to change so that people who like guns were viewed as weirdos by society. Gun deaths would drop if all of the above were enacted. Do you agree or disagree? If you can't agree with me at this point then me bending over backwards has been in vain and you are truly rapped in your culture.

You may argue that such government controls is like instituting fascism. Yet you don't have to do these things to lower gun deaths. Simply select a judicious few policies. Regulate guns like you regulate cars. Don't kill your culture - like I said I get it.

In Germany there is no speed limit on many stretches of highway. You can legally drive at 100 mph on these autobahns. Culturally, Germany likes its cars and is good at making fast ones, and reasons that it is safer to have no speed limit on these stretches. Yet that doesn't stop it from enacting seat belt laws, or car safety standards. Embrace your culture and your constitution, but don't accept these regular massacres. Bring in federal stricter gun legislation that makes it as difficult to buy a gun as to adopt a child or to drive a car.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Kate87

[Ninth Doctor]

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

Well played. Having experienced arguing with Kate87 over the appropriateness of voting for Romney I had an expectation that her view of what is “self explanatory” and the “elephant in the room” on the Lanza case would be some kind of stereotypical left-wing viewpoint. Turns out I was right. I was looking at another Randland site this morning, and found another point of view, one I personally find hilarious, here it is:

“I think that if this geeky guy (1) had a decent job, (2) played a lot of competitive sports, and (3) had a lot of sex -- at least, with semi-sympathetic prostitutes -- there's almost no way in hell he would have perpetrated this atrocity. Almost all jihadi mass-murderers could also be prevented thus. A capitalist economy and libertarian society would cure or contain almost all of the psychos.”

http://www.solopassi...#comment-117171

There’s sure a lot of ways of skinning this cat!

I'm saying that drugs (psychotropics for example) frequently make things worse.

How frequently? How do you come to the conclusion that they don’t make things better more frequently than not?

Look you believe this because of cultural reasons. I get that. But anyone who predicts that gun control and proper enforcement of gun control laws would lead to an increase in gun deaths I think is letting their cultural biases delude them.

Rank psychologizing. For shame. Are you here for discussion, to find out what other people think, or to preach and wag your fingers?

[Craig24]

Exactly, this is the main cultural reason for your belief. Ayn Rand's view is different:

This looks like an argument from authority. What is Ayn Rand's view and why is it the correct one?

[Eiuol]

I'm saying that drugs (psychotropics for example) frequently make things worse. Immoral people love it when their evil behavior is declared a physical or mental ailment which needs to be treated with drugs, because it absolves them of taking any personal responsibility for their own behavior. Once set free from moral accountability, they can now express the evil inside of them...

I'm sure you meant this, but I think you meant to say they believe it absolves them of personal responsibility. But as far as I know, the people who take medication usually take it as a matter of personal responsibility because they are able to think better, alongside seeing a psychologist. Indeed, some psychiatrists fail as doctors, and just give any med that seems to treat the symptoms, which is bad medical practice! You don't have any evidence that psychotropics *frequently* make things worse. I'm really surprised Grames posted that video, because the source is terrible.

[Nicky]

If the USA were to outlaw gun ownership, and strictly enforce such laws. If it were to outlaw gun shops, shooting ranges, hunting rifles etc. If it were to end the war on drugs thereby reducing gun demand by criminals. If it were to have a proper border with Mexico with strict border checkpoints and reduce the border weak spots. If it were to punish severely anyone possessing a gun. If the culture was to change so that people who like guns were viewed as weirdos by society. Gun deaths would drop if all of the above were enacted. Do you agree or disagree? If you can't agree with me at this point then me bending over backwards has been in vain and you are truly rapped in your culture.

I'm gonna do one better than disagree. I'm gonna put you on ignore, because I finally realized that you're incapable of understanding logic.

[tadmjones]

How would gun control have helped this situation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[FeatherFall]

Kate, when gun control increases, gun deaths go down. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for someone else to admit as much. But that doesn't mean all deaths go down, or that violent deaths go down, or that violence as such goes down, or that people are more secure. Did you ever follow that link to the other Harvard study I presented to you in the other thread?

[moralist]

Exactly, this is the main cultural reason for your belief. Ayn Rand's view is different:

(shrug) There's no law which states I must agree with your interpretation of what your feelings tell you Ayn Rand's view is. It's differences which make life interesting, not similarities.

Now is the time to have a discussion on gun control. If not now when?

Of course. Never let a calamity go to waste.

Do you realize that those who share your foolish view of blaming inanimate objects instead of evil people have had their way for many years. You have had your way in creating the fertile slaughter grounds of gun free zones, where evil people can freely murder with impunity. You and your kind have had your way in creating a weak immoral feminised society which produces emasculated angry males instead of American men.

So just what did you expect would happen?

Edited December 16, 2012 by moralist

[FeatherFall]

How would gun control have helped this situation?

Well, it did say that he used a Winchester to detonate the bombs in his car... But I'm sure that advocates of gun control would just say that explosives should also be strictly controlled, so I don't know if your point hit the mark. A better example would have been something like this, even although it is by far the best example - I'd find a better one, but I'm pressed for time.

[softwareNerd]

This looks like an argument from authority. What is Ayn Rand's view and why is it the correct one?

Essentially, Rand did not say very much about gun control. (I suppose that itself tells you something about her view, not much but something.)

Replying to some Q&A, she indicated a few things:

• firstly, that she did not have a detailed view on the topic
  
• secondly, that she understood the argument for self-defense,
  
• thirdly, she also understood that there may be legitimate laws about their purchase and ownership
  

If you want a more accurate cite, I can find it for you... or someone else might oblige.

Edited December 16, 2012 by softwareNerd

[Ninth Doctor]

(shrug) There's no law which states I must agree with your interpretation of what your feelings tell you Ayn Rand's view is.

You've ascribed a quote to me that is not in the linked post, and which is not by me, but Kate87.

[tadmjones]

My point was to show that evil exists, man has freewill and some men will be evil. Killing is killing, in the case of murder, the means killers use are not intrinsically evil.

I chose that example purely because it invovled the murder of children at a school. And it was pre-"violent video games" or wide spread use of psychotropic drugs ect, all the excuses that are sure to be bandied about as to the 'causes' of the murders of children in Newtown.

The cause was an evil person(.)

Edited December 16, 2012 by tadmjones

[Kate87]

Rank psychologizing. For shame. Are you here for discussion, to find out what other people think, or to preach and wag your fingers?

On this particular topic I am here to advance the truth that this is clearly a cultural issue. I agree with Ayn Rand's sentiment that it's a complex issue, I clearly come down hard on one side of the issue based on my cultural biases and you the other. The difference between some on here and me however, is that I have the ability to sympathise and understand a viewpoint that is different than my own.

People are allowed their own cultural biases but not their own facts. For this reason for me to go further debating this issue with anyone, first that person must admit that instituting fascist levels of regulation to control guns would reduce gun deaths. If you are so far removed from reality, and so far enraptured by your personal culture that you cannot admit this, then reason has truly no hold on you.

This looks like an argument from authority. What is Ayn Rand's view and why is it the correct one?

I quoted Ayn Rand above. I think her view is closer to the truth than some of the ridiculous things I've heard on here, so I thought it was worth posting because Rand's views are respected on this forum. Here it is again:

It's a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. 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.

Kate, when gun control increases, gun deaths go down. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for someone else to admit as much. But that doesn't mean all deaths go down, or that violent deaths go down, or that violence as such goes down, or that people are more secure. Did you ever follow that link to the other Harvard study I presented to you in the other thread?

I can't remember, can you post the link here please? By the way truly thanks for conceding the point, its infuriating when a debate gets locked down on such basics by intransient irrationality. So very refreshing to see that we can advance from here. I am absolutely willing to accept that other forms of violence could increase as a result of gun control as long as there is evidence to show it.

[tadmjones]

Look you believe this because of cultural reasons. I get that. But anyone who predicts that gun control and proper enforcement of gun control laws would lead to an increase in gun deaths I think is letting their cultural biases delude them.

A laughable source.

Exactly, this is the main cultural reason for your belief. Ayn Rand's view is different:

Now is the time to have a discussion on gun control. If not now when? This is a frequent tactic used to shut down debate. - https://twitter.com/...hetime&src=hash People want this discussion and it is entirely appropriate to have it on the day of the tragedy. Clearly people in public office may wait a couple days since everyone's emotions are raw, I get that and wouldn't criticise them for it. But now is the time.

The graphs on that blog have no source mentioned for the data. Here is a more credible source (Harvard Injury Control Research Center) which has the opposite conclusion.

I would concede that gun control laws would be less effective within an overall culture of gun ownership. For example if one US state, or one highschool has a no gun policy, then this is not going to have the desired effect since it would be an island in a sea of guns. I could even find it plausable that gun deaths could go up in such a scenario. I am bending over backwards trying to accommodate your viewpoint here, and I can see some reason and logic in it.

If the USA were to outlaw gun ownership, and strictly enforce such laws. If it were to outlaw gun shops, shooting ranges, hunting rifles etc. If it were to end the war on drugs thereby reducing gun demand by criminals. If it were to have a proper border with Mexico with strict border checkpoints and reduce the border weak spots. If it were to punish severely anyone possessing a gun. If the culture was to change so that people who like guns were viewed as weirdos by society. Gun deaths would drop if all of the above were enacted. Do you agree or disagree? If you can't agree with me at this point then me bending over backwards has been in vain and you are truly rapped in your culture.

You may argue that such government controls is like instituting fascism. Yet you don't have to do these things to lower gun deaths. Simply select a judicious few policies. Regulate guns like you regulate cars. Don't kill your culture - like I said I get it.

In Germany there is no speed limit on many stretches of highway. You can legally drive at 100 mph on these autobahns. Culturally, Germany likes its cars and is good at making fast ones, and reasons that it is safer to have no speed limit on these stretches. Yet that doesn't stop it from enacting seat belt laws, or car safety standards. Embrace your culture and your constitution, but don't accept these regular massacres. Bring in federal stricter gun legislation that makes it as difficult to buy a gun as to adopt a child or to drive a car.

Who would be allowed to own firearms and which types? i assume in this scenario some men would be granted more freedom in acquiring guns, who would or should they be?

[moralist]

You've ascribed a quote to me that is not in the linked post, and which is not by me, but Kate87.

Sorry for the misattribution. It's beyond editing now.

[moralist]

I'm sure you meant this, but I think you meant to say they believe it absolves them of personal responsibility.

I did say what I meant... that society in declaring evil behavior a disease to be treated with drugs absolves evil people of taking personal responsibility for their own immoral behavior.

[moralist]

On this particular topic I am here to advance the truth that this is clearly a cultural issue.

It is a moral issue.

[Ninth Doctor]

If you are so far removed from reality, and so far enraptured by your personal culture that you cannot admit this, then reason has truly no hold on you.

Yeah sure, you got me, fact is I’m only capable of using Bourgeouis Logic. I also can only understand Jewish Physics. I'm simply not capable of understanding anything you say.

[Eiuol]

I did say what I meant... that society in declaring evil behavior a disease to be treated with drugs absolves evil people of taking personal responsibility for their own immoral behavior.

Fine, but you haven't backed up your assertions or answered several questions addressed at your posts.

[moralist]

Such as...?

Scizophrenia caused by the immorality of drug use. Paranoia caused by an immorally violated Conscience. Depression caused by the immoral failure to control irrational anger.

[moralist]

Fine, but you haven't backed up your assertions or answered several questions addressed at your posts.

What I said is either confirmed or dismissed by your own personal observation of the world. That's your final arbitor. It's everyone's own free choice to agree or disagree with the popular social collective consensus of the narcoculture.

Edited December 16, 2012 by moralist

[Kate87]

Yeah sure, you got me, fact is I’m only capable of using Bourgeouis Logic. I also can only understand Jewish Physics. I'm simply not capable of understanding anything you say.

There is only one logic. But we are not automatons. We are raised in a culture. For example, if you are raised in the middle east in Saudi Arabia there is a strong chance you will think that logic dictates that Islam is true.

If you are raised in rural United States there is a strong chance you will think logic dictates that people should be free to own semi-automatic rifles. So I am saying try to look beyond the culture into which you were born and see what reason and logic actually dictate.

[moralist]

There is only one logic. But we are not automatons. We are raised in a culture. For example, if you are raised in the middle east in Saudi Arabia there is a strong chance you will think that logic dictates that Islam is true.

Of course there are cultures which are based upon believing in lies. One glaring flaw in our culture is irrational belief in the lie that inanimate objects cause evil... when the simple truth is that only people can cause evil.

Edited December 16, 2012 by moralist

[Kate87]

Of course there are cultures which are based upon believing in lies. One glaring flaw in our culture is irrational belief in the lie that inanimate objects cause evil... when the simple truth is that only people can cause evil.

What are you talking about? Of course only people can cause evil. No one is arguing otherwise. I'm wondering whether it's even worth typing this, because you are clearly making no attempt at looking beyond the culture in which you were raised. Or even to engage with Ayn Rand's words which you supposedly at least respect.