Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

[Eiuol]

Blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for obesity.

One other comment...

This comparison is bad. Spoons are made in order to eat, which by nature isn't an initiation of force. Guns are made in order to kill, which is either self-defense or initiation of force. Someone buying a gun in order to initiate force is a realistic possibility, as is the possibility of buying a gun for self-defense. Buying a spoon in order to initiate force is totally implausible. Guns make violence possible, and without a gun, a person is severely constrained. My idea here is that guns should be regulated, and semi-automatics probably should be banned except for rare circumstances. By regulation, I mean oversight of who can and cannot purchase guns to assure that person's purpose for the gun is explicitly self-defense. Guns are tools for *killing* people.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Eiuol

[Grames]

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.

No. The right of self defense is a universal right of everyone. Firearms are the great equalizer that enables everyone to defend themselves, not just the strong or the well trained in fighting. Confiscating all firearms impairs the right to self defense.

If the internet were to be abolished that would also cut down online defamations, online scams, and online copyright violations, but the losses in the ability to exercise other property rights and speech rights would make doing so a rights violation.

A laughable source.

Ad hominem. The recitation of incidents and their correlation with mind altering drugs are simply facts, facts which remain facts no matter who recites them.

Same applies to Eiuol in post #30.

[Grames]

Buying a spoon in order to initiate force is totally implausible.

Your reasoning is bad, and fails to follow the analogy. Spoons are made and purchased to enable eating. Eating is the leading of cause obesity.

[Eiuol]

Your reasoning is bad, and fails to follow the analogy. Spoons are made and purchased to enable eating. Eating is the leading of cause obesity.

Obesity isn't ever an initiation of force. Killing people can be.

[tadmjones]

Guns and the technology to manufacture them exist, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. If gun control is warranted it should be in the form of laws constraining use of such weapons. And the punishment should be severe. Automatic manditory minimum sentencing and the like, and the constaints should start with brandishing weapons, perhaps something like 6 month minimum incarceration coupled with confiscation and fine/fee to reaquire the weapon.

[moralist]

What are you talking about? Of course only people can cause evil. No one is arguing otherwise.

If you honestly believe that is true, how do you account for your irrational fixation on blaming amoral inanimate objects?

[moralist]

One other comment...

This comparison is bad.

The term "is like" means similar to not identical.

Blaming inanimate guns for violence is indeed as silly as blaming inanimate spoons for Obesity.

If only one appears irrational to you... why is the not the other?

When an animate gun is no more likely to cause violence than an equally inanimate spoon is to cause obesity. Both are merely amoral tools which can be used both for beneficial and detrimental purposes, wholly dependent upon the actions of the user.

Edited December 17, 2012 by moralist

[Eiuol]

When an animate gun is no more likely to cause violence than an equally inanimate spoon is to cause obesity. Both are merely amoral tools which can be used both for beneficial and detrimental purposes, wholly dependent upon the actions of the user.

To be clear, I'm not blaming guns per se, I'm saying regulation of guns may be justified on the premise that guns are intended to kill another person. The beneficial purpose of killing is only in self-defense, but another reasonably possible way to use a gun is to initiate force. The bottom line is that guns are tools of force, and force is actually the only type of thing that may be regulated in an Objectivist society. Government would essentially be in charge of how force may be used, and self-defense is a proper way to use force. Regulation to the extent of certification after a psychological evaluation may be proper, or whatever system is decided upon. Other weapons would be outright banned, like nuclear weapons.

[Nicky]

I noticed one other thing: it became pretty much universally accepted in so called "moderate" and liberal circles that the argument by which arming would be victims could prevent these mass shootings is no good. Anyone who dares to point out that maybe 1 armed retard vs. 5 armed teachers would produce a different result than 1 armed retard vs. school full of unarmed victims is just crazy.

And that's despite the fact that all these shootings (well, the ones with the big body counts) occur in areas where guns aren't allowed: mostly schools, the occasional movie theater, even an army base that had rules against soldiers carrying weapons. There has never been a note worthy mass shooting at a Texas rodeo, nor will there ever be one in the future.

To be clear, I'm not blaming guns per se, I'm saying regulation of guns may be justified on the premise that guns are intended to kill another person. The beneficial purpose of killing is only in self-defense, but another reasonably possible way to use a gun is to initiate force. The bottom line is that guns are tools of force, and force is actually the only type of thing that may be regulated in an Objectivist society. Government would essentially be in charge of how force may be used, and self-defense is a proper way to use force. Regulation to the extent of certification after a psychological evaluation may be proper, or whatever system is decided upon.

It would be justified, sure, but it wouldn't be very effective. Realistically, the only effective defense against violence is violence used in self defense. Trying to prevent it, be it through targeting potential future criminals or by trying to remove the tools they might use, is futile. It's like (and this is something I just came up with all by myself) trying to take spoons away from fat people.

And, like Grames pointed out, guns are the great equalized when it comes to violence. Unlike in our feudal past, when the ability to use violence effectively required training available to an elite class of oppressors and criminal gangs (which were just as much a problem for common people as the feudal thugs), guns allow everyone to use violence. And, as the statistics show, the result is that violence is in fact used less and less in a criminal way (or at least, in a criminal way that is unpopular - since it's being used plenty to tax and regulate our lives).

Obesity isn't ever an initiation of force. Killing people can be.

You're missing the point. He's not comparing obesity to killing, he's comparing two tools that are only the cause of whatever they're being used for to a (very) superficial observer, bot not to anyone with half a brain.

[moralist]

To be clear, I'm not blaming guns per se, I'm saying regulation of guns may be justified on the premise that guns are intended to kill another person.

Why ignore dealing with murderers blinded by the fixation on guns? Why strain at the gnat while swallowing the camel? That school murder spree would have been mitigated at the very least if just one adult had carried a sidearm as they should.

The beneficial purpose of killing is only in self-defense, but another reasonably possible way to use a gun is to initiate force. The bottom line is that guns are tools of force, and force is actually the only type of thing that may be regulated in an Objectivist society.

...and what will you use to protect yourself from the non-Objectivists? Don't you realize that Objectivists are a tiny splinter minority? Your utopian fantasy does not match the real world. It seems to me that Objectivists would be far better served by learning how to live in the reality of a non-Objectivist world.

Government would essentially be in charge of how force may be used, and self-defense is a proper way to use force.

And what will you use to protect yourself from those for whom self defense is not the only way to use force?

Regulation to the extent of certification after a psychological evaluation may be proper, or whatever system is decided upon.

Guns are already well regulated by background checks.

Other weapons would be outright banned, like nuclear weapons.

And what will you use to protect yourself from others who have nuclear weapons?

Edited December 17, 2012 by moralist

[oso]

Why ignore dealing with murderers blinded by the fixation on guns? Why strain at the gnat while swallowing the camel? That school murder spree would have been mitigated at the very least if just one adult had carried a sidearm as they should.

...and what will you use to protect yourself from the non-Objectivists? Don't you realize that Objectivists are a tiny splinter minority? Your utopian fantasy does not match the real world. It seems to me that Objectivists would be far better served by learning how to live in the reality of a non-Objectivist world.

And what will you use to protect yourself from those for whom self defense is not the only way to use force?

Guns are already well regulated by background checks.

And what will you use to protect yourself from others who have nuclear weapons?

I think he was referring to a society with Objectivist politics, not a society fully composed of Objectivists. Also, I think he was proposing banning nuclear weapons from civilian usage (as they obviously already are), not from the military.

[moralist]

I think he was referring to a society with Objectivist politics

Either way... neither exists.

Wouldn't an Objectivist be well equipped to live in a non-Objectivist world? I wouldn't know as I'm technically not one even though I utilize Ayn Rand's Capitalist principles in business.

not a society fully composed of Objectivists. Also, I think he was proposing banning nuclear weapons from civilian usage (as they obviously already are), not from the military.

Civilians with thermonuclear devices are also a fantasy. The only longshot might be some very well funded Islamic terrorists, and if anyone thinks that a government ban would keep them away from one is hallucinating.

Edited December 17, 2012 by moralist

[Hairnet]

Gun control can't even be implemented in the United States. We have 150 years of functional weapons just laying around in people's houses. My roomate has his grandfathers pistol. He didn't buy it, he isn't registered with any authority. My boss has a cabinet filled with inherited weapons. Most of the people I know have a firearm in their house that they didn't buy but inherited from their parents or grandparents. Stolen, and stashed weapons are all over this country in addition to the guns you can buy illiegally and legally.

A ban on certain kinds of weapons may be justified, in that you don't need a machine gun, anthrax, or nuclear bombs to defend yourself. A shotgun, rifle or pistol is adequate. However this doesn't matter in that we aren't going to be able to clean all the guns up.

[oso]

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.

Accusing someone's belief in an ideological issue of being based on culture is a baseless ad hominem. It's especially worthless when attempting to use it against people who already defy ideological norms by rejecting altruism and embracing a philosophy that prevents education through osmosis. Well, you can't even try to use it against me because I'm a Canadian, who wasn't raised around guns nor around a particularly gun friendly culture. My beliefs on gun control are entirely my own.

As for Ayn Rand's view, it's funny that you start agreeing with her when she expresses uncertainty and basically says "I don't know" and then claim that she is somehow supporting your view. As I’m sure you agree, Ayn Rand can be wrong. The right to self-defence entails a right to do what is necessary to defend yourself and sometimes that will include killing. Also, any right to self-defence implies the right to the means to self defence, just as the right to life implies a right to property. The reason this issue is so cut and dry is that any law that outlaws concealing guns can only possibly affect law abiding citizens because if you plan on concealing a gun in order to rob or murder, then you will never care about the penalty for carrying. As for how to reconcile self-defence with preventing people from killing at whim, first of all, you make killing people at whim illegal. Second, you make carrying in public require a permit, which would only be issued to people without serious criminal records or mental issues and to people who are trained in the use of handguns. It's just the same as how you reconcile productive transportation with preventing people from using cars to kill people at whim. The most important issue here though, is that people are generally good. That's why you don't hear about random hit and run murders. That's the reason why despite the millions of people in America legally carrying handguns, very few commit any crimes let alone senseless murder.

You’re right that if the United States were turned into a dictatorship, gun crime would likely go down but that alone doesn’t justify any of the measures you suggested. Reducing the amount of murders is not the standard when it comes to the justification of government action. The standard is whether a government action violates or protects individual rights. As explained in the last thread, there is no such thing as your “conflict of rights”. When a government takes an action which violates rights, it is always wrong and robbing good people of the right to self-defence is definitely violating their rights. It’s also not a guarantee that dictatorial gun laws will make significant dents in the amount of guns in the hands of criminals in which case everyone is left a soft target. Even if you do somehow manage to eliminate next to all guns (this is me bending over backwards), the people are still left defenceless against the few criminals with guns left, the government, and all crimes committed with knives or bats or fists.

As for changing the culture such that anyone who owned a gun would be looked at as a weirdo, how could you possibly justify that? You would have to make the case that it is inherently wrong to own a gun, for any reason, regardless of how safe and responsible you are. You would need to attack, not only the hobbies of hunting and target shooting, but also the virtue of taking responsibility for your own safety. You would need to attack the idea that a populace ought to be prepared for the possibility that their government will degrade into tyranny. The fact is, the only way to attack these things is by focusing on individual misconduct and it’s impossible to justify a stigma against gun ownership in general because it is possible to own guns responsibly and for good reasons. The American gun culture is rational.

Any middle ground between freedom and banning guns will do nothing at best or quite likely cause more crime. That's because anything short of dictatorial laws, such as the laws you suggested as palatable to Americans, will not do a single thing to prevent criminals from getting guns. Gun control such as automatic weapon bans, the recently expired Assault Weapons Ban, and the recently abolished gun registry in Canada, are examples of gun control that does absolutely nothing but placate liberals and violate rights. Any law that disarms good people can only do harm. The most obvious is creating so called “gun-free zones”, whether they are on the scale of a nation, or a school. All they do is disarm good people, making them soft targets for any predator that doesn’t care about a sign or the law. The massacres you’ve seen in American schools and the rise in crime rates in Australia are the price of being “gun free”. Good people with guns make society safer.

Edited December 17, 2012 by oso

[moralist]

However this doesn't matter in that we aren't going to be able to clean all the guns up.

I can't imagine a good reason why anyone would ever want to. Each individual independent responsible American should be like a "micro-nation" with their own useful industry, their own treasury, and being their own well armed militia.

Edited December 17, 2012 by moralist

[Hairnet]

I can't imagine a good reason why anyone would ever want to. Each individual independent responsible American should be like a "micro-nation" with their own useful industry, their own treasury, and being their own well armed militia.

The nation idea is a goo analogy. It is a lot like Nuclear Armaments. My point is that although someone may feel safer getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world (debatable I know) . that is entirely impossible. Just like it might be safer to have no assault rifles in the hands of people other than the military, it is impossible.

Gun control is a fantasy that will only make gangs more powerful, just like drug legistlation.

[Ninth Doctor]

So I am saying try to look beyond the culture into which you were born and see what reason and logic actually dictate.

Let’s try to get this point across more plainly: you don’t have any business telling me that I only think the way I do because of where I was raised, what my skin color is, what my chromosomes are, what economic class I belong to (or was raised in) etcetera and so on. And on an internet discussion forum you have no way of knowing these things anyway, so the fact you’re doing it marks you as quite the rube.

[Ninth Doctor]

http://reason.com/bl...ama-showcases-t

"Finally, a president who has the guts to come out against the murder of children. Not only that, but he is prepared to confront those who, for murky but clearly frivolous reasons, tolerate violence, oppose tragedy prevention, and shrink from saving innocent lives. Because "politics" cannot be allowed to obstruct the solutions that every decent, right-thinking person favors."

[Spiral Architect]

Well, this has been a fun read. It’s amazing what you miss in a couple of days!

So I should look at this logically?

OK.

• Gun rights are a species of property rights.
  
• Property rights are a necessary requirement for man so he can act to provide for his survival.
  
• Man must use his primary tool for survival, his mind, and act upon it in reality to create material values.
  
• These values, property, are his means of surviving.
  
• Control a man’s property you control his ability to not only thrive, but survive.
  
• Controlling one kind of property is a breach of property rights, which means it is an assault on man’s ability to survive.
  
• Gun Control = Property Control = Controlling Man.
  

But this isn’t surprising, since totalitarian governments that wanted to suppress the individual and central plan society started with controlling guns in addition to other property. The 20^th Century witnessed the wreckage of such cultures and the millions they butchered trying to control man.

The elephant in the room is the fact that people want to have their freedom and eat it too in the name of Security Theater, selling their capacity to live one issue at a time for the illusion of a security blanket.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Spiral Architect

[Spiral Architect]

http://reason.com/bl...ama-showcases-t

"Finally, a president who has the guts to come out against the murder of children. Not only that, but he is prepared to confront those who, for murky but clearly frivolous reasons, tolerate violence, oppose tragedy prevention, and shrink from saving innocent lives. Because "politics" cannot be allowed to obstruct the solutions that every decent, right-thinking person favors."

I usually turn on the news in the morning to get the local weather and witnessed Good Morning America going whole hog, even with crews on site with plans to cover this issue all week, news being reality TV now, with the feature labeled something to the effect “Looking for solutions”. Then I was treated to Obama cashing in on the tragedy and laying the groundwork with appeals to emotion for new government action.

This is going to be a full court press.

[Plasmatic]

So,I took a break from my immersion in building my sanctuary(my house) to find that some immoral nutbag used some very effective arms against some innocent helpless children! I'm outraged and disgusted! I've decided that my response to this event is to promptly order 10 more of the highest capacity mags I can find for every weapon I own. I ordered that semi auto bullpup shotgun I've been procrastinating on, more ammo,etc....

I was thinking that the stupid republicans would be more trustworthy to defend 2nd amendment rights than the health care crap but seeing that even some here are on the fence I'm a little more disheartend....

[FeatherFall]

semi auto bullpup shotgun

Now that's a nice home defense weapon.

[Eiuol]

That school murder spree would have been mitigated at the very least if just one adult had carried a sidearm as they should.

Against semi-automatics? Doubtful, and I would wonder if adults would just be carrying around guns in an elementary school. I would actually avoid bringing a gun to an elementary school in case a *child* gets hold of a gun accidentally. Just to be clear though, I don't have anything against concealed weapons really, provided that a person passes background checks or any regulations.

Guns are already well regulated by background checks.

Not very well, apparently.

So I should look at this logically?

Stop at premise 1 or 2. You must consider the purpose of guns in particular, which is killing. For most forms of property, the purpose isn't for killing or other actions that may be an initiation of force. The purpose of a car is transportation, despite the fact it can be used to kill. A person ought to have a right to dispose of their car in any manner, as long as it's not an initiation of force.

The issue with guns is that they are built for force, the very thing that is often a rights violation. Considering that government ought to have a monopoly on force in the name of protecting rights, along with disallowing vigilantism, guns pose a unique issue. Self-defense is proper, but on the other hand, it is not proper to wield weapons in an identical manner as other property given what weapons *are*. Different considerations must be made for the methods of using force, including guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, etc. Even considerations for private defense agencies are quite similar to the use of guns I find.

Do you agree that private citizens should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons? If so, why should government be allowed to regulate nukes, but not guns?

Edited December 17, 2012 by Eiuol

[Plasmatic]

Euiol:

"The issue with guns is that they are built for force, the very thing that is often a rights violation. Considering that government ought to have a monopoly on force in the name of protecting rights, along with disallowing vigilantism, guns pose a unique issue. Self-defense is proper, but on the other hand, it is not proper to wield weapons in an identical manner as other property given what weapons *are*. Different considerations must be made for the methods of using force, including guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, etc. Even considerations for private defense agencies are quite similar to the use of guns I find."

Most, including It seems,Ms. Rand, are not thinking of the role arms played and play in starting and maintaining a free nation.

Edit:

Euiol said:

"Against semi-automatics? Doubtful,"

Your lack of knowledge of firearms is probably the root of your position on them. Most handguns are semi automatic....

Edited December 17, 2012 by Plasmatic

[tadmjones]

Euiol:

Most, including It seems,Ms. Rand, are not thinking of the role arms played and play in starting and maintaining a free nation.

The shot heard round the world occured because the King's Troops were trying to secure a cache of powder and munitions. Well ..not because of, the cause was actually the colonists' refusal to not be free.

Edited December 17, 2012 by tadmjones