Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

[CrowEpistemologist]

A revolution against a would be US tyrant wouldn't be a civilian vs. military conflict. It would be a civilian protesters vs. "brown-shirts" type gang the aspiring tyrant would try to use to suppress the protests and intimidate dissenters with.

If dissenters were armed, thugs showing up at their doorstep to beat them up or abduct them would not be a feasible method of silencing the opposition.

The Second Amendment is very much still a significant barrier in the path of any tyrant.

Although I can't find the quote--it might have been something said in a Q&A session or something--Ayn Rand's attitude on this was along the lines of seeing this argument as naive. As a survivor of Soviet Russia, she would have probably assumed that the work of amateurs is of no consequence against an organized government.

To put it another way, our own government forces have come up against armed-to-the-teeth opposition many, many times--perhaps on a daily basis at the height of the WOD--and generally ripped them apart like confetti.

The only effective defense against tyranny is education. A few little pop guns aren't going to slow an organized government down one bit.

[2046]

Although I can't find the quote--it might have been something said in a Q&A session or something--Ayn Rand's attitude on this was along the lines of seeing this argument as naive. As a survivor of Soviet Russia, she would have probably assumed that the work of amateurs is of no consequence against an organized government.

To put it another way, our own government forces have come up against armed-to-the-teeth opposition many, many times--perhaps on a daily basis at the height of the WOD--and generally ripped them apart like confetti.

The only effective defense against tyranny is education. A few little pop guns aren't going to slow an organized government down one bit.

My own views are more in alignment with Nicky's on this one. The point is not to analyze the situation as if it were an episode of "Deadliest Warrior" and look at the US military as a whole versus a bunch of rag-tag civilians, then conclude that the civilians would get defeated. Sure, there are many instances where there is some sort of armed uprising, and the government puts them down easily, such as the Whiskey Rebellion. But the context of and particularities of situations where this could arise is infinitely variable. In Egypt for example, the military establishment sided with the mass of the protesters against the police and executive. In Libya, key members of the officer corps defected to the rebels. And as Nicky says, we can suppose a scenario where it's not like civilians on one side and the US military on the other, but rather something more like armed street gangs where local authorities are either corrupted or unable to protect citizens. In other cases, guerrilla movements have proven themselves perfectly capable of defeating big, centralized armies, such as the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Vietnam War, or even this little country you may have heard of called Afghanistan.

Secondly, since whether or not armed resistance can defeat the government is an empirical matter, the entire point in regards an armed populace is all about the political relationship between the government and the citizen. A citizen that retains the right to bear arms (derivable from the right of self-ownership) stands in quite a different moral relationship to the government than a legally disarmed one.

Edited December 27, 2012 by 2046

[CrowEpistemologist]

I guess we can suppose lots of scenarios that are not anything at all like the scenario we have in the USA here and now today. I'm not sure why that's relevant though.

Here in the USA we have a military with the training and resources and technology that would have zero problem defending the US government in the event of an insurrection against a bunch of civilians with civilian-style guns. If Skylab decides we are all irrelevant, it won't be like Terminator and it won't have a happy ending. We need to keep the US government on the side of (approximate) freedom or we're all quite screwed.

And yes, Egypt. The military was against the government in that case--which is the only reason the rebellion made it past day one. The military by definition is not subject to gun control (or anything control). Sure, there might be the odd banana republic out there where individual citizens with small arms may be a relevant factor, but certainly not in any modern developed country, and certainly not here.

[2046]

I guess we can suppose lots of scenarios that are not anything at all like the scenario we have in the USA here and now today. I'm not sure why that's relevant though.

I think the point is that circumstances change and the future is uncertain. Contingencies develop in uncertain ways regardless of the training or technology of the military.

And also I'm not so sure "the military" (as if it is some homogeneous blob) would "no problem" crushing a citizen uprising in any imaginable circumstances, namely because we would be afraid to go home and face our families after slaughtering a bunch of Americans purely on the executive's say-so.

Edited December 27, 2012 by 2046

[softwareNerd]

... afraid to go home and face our families ...

I daresay most would not want to face themselves. People will only act so far away from their current self-concept. Even in dictatorial Egypt, Mubarak was wary of asking his army to go full-force against his people.

[CrowEpistemologist]

I think the point is that circumstances change and the future is uncertain. Contingencies develop in uncertain ways regardless of the training or technology of the military.

And also I'm not so sure "the military" (as if it is some homogeneous blob) would "no problem" crushing a citizen uprising in any imaginable circumstances, namely because we would be afraid to go home and face our families after slaughtering a bunch of Americans purely on the executive's say-so.

We're certainly conjecturing here about one of many possible scenarios... I would imagine the US military in its current form wouldn't even let things devolve to the state that everybody is worried about here. We'll lose freedom in the USA, most likely, over a long period of time and thus the military would change with it. If it doesn't change then we won't have a problem. This all sounds very circular to me...

So sure, "anything" is possible, but a scenario in which we all need our private guns to restore democracy to the USA is right up there with needing a Slim Whitman LP to ward off an alien invasion.

[moralist]

Trying to legislate away every bad thing that happens in the world is never a good idea. There will be unintended consequences. Arming fire fighters is a perfect example.

It takes no legislation to arm firefighters. In fact, public knowledge of them being armed is a deterrent in itself. Evil cowards love to prey on unarmed victims. Gun free zones exist to serve their needs.

Edited December 27, 2012 by moralist

[Plasmatic]

To be clear I said "in a strict civilian vs 1st world military" so as to differentiate particularly from a scenario where a portion of the military and police are rebelling.....

Edited December 27, 2012 by Plasmatic

[moralist]

And also I'm not so sure "the military" (as if it is some homogeneous blob) would "no problem" crushing a citizen uprising in any imaginable circumstances, namely because we would be afraid to go home and face our families after slaughtering a bunch of Americans purely on the executive's say-so.

You made an excellent point.

I served in the Military so I know by personal experience that they are generally like me. So what would determine the response is whether a citizen uprising is just or unjust.

Edited December 27, 2012 by moralist

[tadmjones]

You made an excellent point.

I served in the Military so I know by personal experience that they are generally like me. So what would determine the response is whether a citizen uprising is just or unjust.

My son is going to be a Marine next year and I have confidence that the same ethos is 'in play'. Thank You for service Moralist, a personal thanks not obligatory.

[Nicky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-mPSRJlftg

[softwareNerd]

Someone pointed me to gunpolicy.org today and it claims to have gun-related data from all over the world. It allows you to choose a metric, and a group of countries across which to see the info.

I'm not sure how reliable this web site is. Gun-related data tends to be slanted for ideological reasons. But, I thought I'd post the link if anyone is curious enough to dig deeper.

Sample chart attached.

Edited December 27, 2012 by softwareNerd

[SapereAude]

The government of course, I'm not sure why you ask that as though it should socratically reveal that I'm violating a principle of banning the initiation of force. I am claiming that there is implicitly no initiation of force going on in the regulation of force, in the same way a monopoly on the use of force is not an initiation of force. Property rights are a derivative concept of a right to life, but the derivation is made complicated when the object in question is an object used for force. That's the same way when a discussion gets into anarchy and private defense agencies. The only way to stop those is to regulate the use of force, reason being that force of all kinds must be put under objective control and law. Not control of a person's life, just control over force. Why taxation violates principles of Objectivism is totally different and off topic, since money isn't itself a tool of force...

My only point is that regulation of guns is acceptable and not a violation of any principles. Require a license in order to buy a gun, for example.

Regulation of force arleady exists.

If you use a gun in self defense you must prove the necessity of having done so. If you use a gun to commit a crime you are subject to punishment.

Banning guns however is a regulation of private property.

A gun is not force. A gun is an object.

Permits are commonly required to carry a weapon, background checks are most often required to purchase one.

What the current gun control advocates are looking to do is not this kind of regulation, they are calling for bans of weapons of different sorts, most of which they cannot even define.

And good or bad, private security forces already exist. In fact, many of the rich and famous calling for weapons grabs are protected by private security.

Edited December 27, 2012 by SapereAude

[SapereAude]

For those interested these are the gun stats for the US. It is the most unbiased source available that I know of, going primarily with known statistics from government and law enforcement

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Eiuol]

Banning guns however is a regulation of private property.

Do you or do you not agree that nukes should be banned from private ownership? If you do agree, you already concede my point. If you disagree, I think that is implicitly a rejection of all forms of government. I'll just make another thread, because people seem to respond to my posts by repeating the same point over and over without answering questions that I pose.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Eiuol

[SapereAude]

I believe "people" -plural- are ignoring the question because it is absurd and there is no obligation to respond to the absurd.

I'm not sure how much you know about guns and how much you know about how nuclear power- much less in its weaponised form- so maybe you can do a little research and see for yourself how great the difference is between my owning a .45 with a 10 round clip and you possessing the means to create and weaponise and most importantly *deliver* a nuclear bomb.

Edited December 27, 2012 by SapereAude

[CrowEpistemologist]

What is absurd about Eiuol's question? I think the point was that we have limits based on practical factors as to the offensive weapons we allow anybody except the military to possess. Yes, we don't allow people to have their own nukes, or even a mere tank. They pose a public threat that violates the rights of everybody around them. This is a contextual issue and the practical details matter. You'd don't have an absolute right to do whatever you feel like doing regardless of how it effects others. That's not how rights work.

[moralist]

My son is going to be a Marine next year and I have confidence that the same ethos is 'in play'. Thank You for service Moralist, a personal thanks not obligatory.

Thanks for your kind words, Tad.

And I agree with your assessment of ethos. Just because someone is in the military doesn't mean they abandon their moral sense of right and wrong. Guns are just amoral tools which can just as easily be used for good as for evil. No one will ever hear on the media about the many times even just brandishing a weapon has protected good people from harm.

[2046]

I don't think the spectre of private ownership of nuclear weapons is really an effective argument for government regulation of guns or "weapons of force" in the abstract. Let us not ignore previous work on the issue. Profs. Walter and Matthew Block have written a scholarly paper defending both private ownership and prohibition of nuclear, chemical, bio weapons, military-grade heavy weapons, and the like without compromising the absolute right to private property.

Toward a Universal Libertarian

Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control:

a Spatial and Geographical Analysis

WALTER BLOCK

and MATTHEW BLOCK

ABSTRACT

The debate over gun control has taken place in complete isolation from

geographical considerations. It

focuses on, for the most part, whether legalization would

bring about more or fewer accidental deaths,

and murders of innocents, than prohibition,

and in the USA on the precise meaning of the second amendment to the

Constitution. However, these deliberations, argue the authors

of the present paper, can be enriched by incorporating into them

a spatial context. When this is done, and they

are combined with the property rights philosophy

of libertarianism, some very different conclusions are drawn.

[FeatherFall]

The government doesn't have a monopoly on all force; only on retaliatory force - it should be barred from initiating force and allow for private defensive uses of force. I'd be willing to say that firearms are designed for the express purpose of using force. But one type of force is not the same as the next.

Firearms can be used to initiate force, to defend against force and to retaliate against force. Nuclear arms can only be used to initiate or to retaliate - at least, I can't think of a way they could be used defensively. I don't see mutually assured destruction as a defensive measure; if it is a defensive measure, it is only so through the threat of retaliation, which is the purview of the government. Therefore, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons can rightly be controlled exclusively by the government [edit:] but not firearms.

Edited December 28, 2012 by FeatherFall

[Nicky]

What is absurd about Eiuol's question? I think the point was that we have limits based on practical factors as to the offensive weapons we allow anybody except the military to possess. Yes, we don't allow people to have their own nukes, or even a mere tank. They pose a public threat that violates the rights of everybody around them. This is a contextual issue and the practical details matter. You'd don't have an absolute right to do whatever you feel like doing regardless of how it effects others. That's not how rights work.

Speaking of rights, how do you think they work?

[CrowEpistemologist]

Speaking of rights, how do you think they work?

"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life."

This is important to understand: that the only "out of context" right you have is the right to your own life (which I suppose even that can be abdicated, e.g. a murderer).

We have a complex set of laws and government in order to secure the right to your life and everything that is necessary to sustain it. Those implementation details are derived in the context of a society containing other individuals, and so forth. The details matter.

There's no "fundamental" right to an sort of device per se... Certainly the driver of the implementation is to allow people as many degrees of freedom as possible and practical, but that obviously has limits, and those limits may change as the context changes.

[Nicky]

"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life."

We have a complex set of laws and government in order to secure the right to your life and everything that is necessary to sustain it. Those implementation details are derived in the context of a society containing other individuals, and so forth. The details matter.

There's no "fundamental" right to an sort of device per se... Certainly the driver of the implementation is to allow people as many degrees of freedom as possible and practical, but that obviously has limits, and those limits may change as the context changes.

I divided your post up into two segments, to point out that there's no logical relationship between the two parts.

The first part is a verbatim recitation of an abstract principle that declares that man has an absolute, fundamental, inalienable right to his life.

The second part is a vague reference to a complex system of laws and government that limits rights by some unspecified standard. You never attempt to establish a logical connection between the principle you recited and the "complex system" of the second part.

Besides, my question was "HOW DO RIGHTS WORK?", not what they are. How do you implement the principle of the right to life, in a logical manner? Are you for instance aware of Ayn Rand's ideas regarding the relationship between physical force and the implementation of rights?

[FeatherFall]

Nuclear arms can only be used to initiate or to retaliate [...] Therefore, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons can rightly be controlled exclusively by the government.

This is basically how proponents of Clintonesque "assault" weapons bans feel about "assault" weapons; they can't conceive of a way to use them defensively. Obviously, since I have identified a principle, I'd be willing to discuss its application. While I think it has already been addressed, maybe playing around with the concept a little more could help us come to some agreement. So, unless interest in this avenue of discussion is dead, here's what I propose to the gun-control advocates and devil's advocates:

Name a weapon for which you can't conceive of a defensive use. I or others will try to give an example of how it could be used defensively. We can start with my example of a nuclear bomb. After a few examples, we can try to identify a method for differentiating the retaliatory weapons from the defensive weapons.

Edited December 28, 2012 by FeatherFall

[CrowEpistemologist]

I divided your post up into two segments, to point out that there's no logical relationship between the two parts.

The first part is a verbatim recitation of an abstract principle that declares that man has an absolute, fundamental, inalienable right to his life.

The second part is a vague reference to a complex system of laws and government that limits rights by some unspecified standard. You never attempt to establish a logical connection between the principle you recited and the "complex system" of the second part.

Besides, my question was "HOW DO RIGHTS WORK?", not what they are. How do you implement the principle of the right to life, in a logical manner? Are you for instance aware of Ayn Rand's ideas regarding the relationship between physical force and the implementation of rights?

I'm aware of far more of Ayn Rand's works than you will ever be.

Nicky, your posts are one personal attack after another. I'm done talking to you.