Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

Rate this topic


Kate87
 Share

Recommended Posts

Against semi-automatics? Doubtful,

I can tell you've never served in the Military. You know nothing about weapons.

and I would wonder if adults would just be carrying around guns in an elementary school.

Not in this weak feminised liberal society which created gun free zones as perfect fertile killing fields full of helpless victims for evil people to murder with impunity.

I would actually avoid bringing a gun to an elementary school in case a *child* gets hold of a gun accidentally.

That's good, because you should be the last person on earth to ever be allowed to carry a gun.

Just to be clear though, I don't have anything against concealed weapons really, provided that a person passes background checks or any regulations.

We're in agreement there. That system of checks and balances actually works very well.

Not very well, apparently.

You obviously didn't know that the murderer used his Mother's guns.

You must consider the purpose of guns in particular, which is killing.

That's the liberal view on guns. The American view is the proper use of guns is for defending innocent life.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Who gets top deice what the “purpose” of a material value is outside of the owner? If you are arguing for someone else to decide who gets to provide “purpose”, or in this case utility and disposal rights, then you are back to restricting property rights. Property serves the individual, not society, and it’s use is dictated by the individual, not the collective.

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?

The classic argument for nuclear weapons... This is both a non sequitur and a straw man. A non sequitur since a weapon of mass destruction can blow up the entire state of Rhode Island instantly, and only do that, while a gun or knife can only harm one or several people if used in one particular way for as long as the person doing so can get away with it. Also, I can shoot an armed robber while I cannot shoot a terrorist with a dirty bomb since he only has to pull the trigger once miles away. Apples and oranges.

Speaking of apples and oranges, it is also a fantastic argument cannot exist in reality. If the government is so non existent as to allow people to walk around with nukes for self-defense, you would not need a nuclear weapon to defend yourself since the government is not a threat to you or anyone (including criminals at that point so I hope you have a few automatic weapons to defend yourself). On the other hand, if you need nukes to defend yourself from criminal gangs then there is no government and you exist in some Somalia anarchy state and that renders the argument moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take about 2 hours to respond to all the replies, so I'm going to chip in intermittently.

That's the liberal view on guns. The American view is the proper use of guns is for defending innocent life.

I think this is revealing. You hold the dominant culturally American view. But don't make the mistake of thinking this is the Objectivist view. For example, the dominant American view of metaphysics is that an invisible desert god rules the universe. Clearly this is not the Objectivist view.

Americanism ≠ Objectivism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really curious on the opinion of Objectivists on this issue hence this poll: http://forum.objecti...showtopic=24476

Thank goodness you only asked about semi-automatic weapons! Just look at James Bond, all pouty because his boss won’t let him carry his trusty semi-automatic Beretta .25 caliber.

"Nice and light, in a lady's handbag. No stopping power."

Now if they went after revolvers too, like Dirty Harry’s 44 magnum, it would make every lucky punk’s day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hw3i-DS9ss

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is revealing. You hold the dominant culturally American view. But don't make the mistake of thinking this is the Objectivist view. For example, the dominant American view of metaphysics is that an invisible desert god rules the universe. Clearly this is not the Objectivist view.

Americanism ≠ Objectivism

This is just insulting, and you're insulting our intelligence. You're assuming the only reason Objectivists are supporting the right to self-defense is because it's American tradition and it's where we grew up, not because there's any actual logical argument behind it. For someone who goes on about how you have to be willing to consider divergent opinions, you certainly are unwilling to do just that, so you psychologize, instead.

Patronizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously didn't know that the murderer used his Mother's guns.

I wasn't refrering to this case specifically. I realize he took his mother's guns, so gun regulation is a moot point. I notice now my error about semi-automatics, I somehow in my mind got mixed up, but in any case, I still doubt teachers would be carrying around guns in an elementary school.

Who gets top deice what the “purpose” of a material value is outside of the owner?

Who gets to decide the purpose for a nuclear weapon? Or any government? Implicitly, with your reply about nukes, you are saying that some weapons may be regulated. My previous post was only pointing out why I believed your argument was no good. It failed to account for the fact that guns are tools of force, so your argument is at best incomplete. Tools or methods of force (i.e. private defense firms) ought to be regulated because no one has a "right" to use force as they please. Self-defense is the only time force should be permitted. Consider linking this discussion on gun control to discussions on anarchy. Why can't I just run a private defense firm? I don't think it's possible to argue for absolutely no regulation of weapons without accepting that in principle you'd be accepting anarchy.

All I'm really asking for is what principle you are using to determine that a private citizen should not own nuclear weapons, and why guns are excluded. Is it the level of potential damage, or something else?

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm really asking for is what principle you are using to determine that a private citizen should not own nuclear weapons, and why guns are excluded. Is it the level of potential damage, or something else?

My two cents would be the line between defensive weapons and offensive weapons. In this line of reasoning , fully automatic weapons, I believe are not defensive weapons.

Perhaps carrying sabres or rapiers was the point in history of truly defensive only weapons, the projection of force was literally at arm's length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is revealing. You hold the dominant culturally American view.

In reality, the feminised liberal view is the dominant approach to firearms. The majority who are hysterically screeching for more gun control are having their way.

But don't make the mistake of thinking this is the Objectivist view.

God forbid. If I was your interpretation of an Objectivist, I'd be living in Europe. ;)

For example, the dominant American view of metaphysics is that an invisible desert god rules the universe. Clearly this is not the Objectivist view.

Americanism ≠ Objectivism

I agree. Americanism is not Objectivism as you define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just insulting, and you're insulting our intelligence. You're assuming the only reason Objectivists are supporting the right to self-defense is because it's American tradition and it's where we grew up, not because there's any actual logical argument behind it. For someone who goes on about how you have to be willing to consider divergent opinions, you certainly are unwilling to do just that, so you psychologize, instead.

Patronizing.

I just want to be clear here. Kate's comments were directed to me and I'm not in the least bit offended or insulted even though I don't share her liberal views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euiol:

"Eiuol, on 17 December 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

All I'm really asking for is what principle you are using to determine that a private citizen should not own nuclear weapons, and why guns are excluded. Is it the level of potential damage, or something else?"

One cannot direct a nuke without violating non offending parties rights. Folks are hung up on "defense" in a way that is preventing them from asking ,"defense against what?". One would be glad to have a 120 rnd drum mag in a class 3 weapon if one was defending against a like initiator....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really curious on the opinion of Objectivists on this issue hence this poll: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24476

Your question is too vague for such a topic. If you count preventing the mentally ill and criminal from getting one than yes. One cannot really derive a meaningful conclusion from your poll as worded because of all the nuances like the above it leaves unknown.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents would be the line between defensive weapons and offensive weapons. In this line of reasoning , fully automatic weapons, I believe are not defensive weapons.

Perhaps carrying sabres or rapiers was the point in history of truly defensive only weapons, the projection of force was literally at arm's length.

What about automatic weapons makes them offensive, and not defensive weapons? Are you sure you know enough about firearms to come to that conclusion? For example, did you know that the US military trains it's riflemen never to use the automatic function of their assault rifles? It's because it is too uncontrollable and depletes ammo too fast to be useful in any situation. The only reasonable conclusion in this case is that the automatic function of assault rifles is completely benign. Other types of automatic weapons are less cut and dry but it's definitely wrong to say that all automatic weapons are purely offensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about automatic weapons makes them offensive, and not defensive weapons? Are you sure you know enough about firearms to come to that conclusion? For example, did you know that the US military trains it's riflemen never to use the automatic function of their assault rifles? It's because it is too uncontrollable and depletes ammo too fast to be useful in any situation. The only reasonable conclusion in this case is that the automatic function of assault rifles is completely benign. Other types of automatic weapons are less cut and dry but it's definitely wrong to say that all automatic weapons are purely offensive.

As to my knowledge of weapons , I've got like at least a masters in Discovery channel.Perhaps being an indiscriminate weapon is what disqualifies them from a defensive weapon, if by defensive we mean to protect one's self from a specific threat.

If I had a magic wand, I think limiting technology to say either flintlocks,and or blackpower weapons would kinda keep things even. I doubt you could use surprise with those types of firearm. Its not like you could pull a functioning flintlock out of your trousers and fire, I would have a chance to load too, eh? Heck like I said earlier a la magic wand , just swords.

Don't misunderstand i really like modern firearm technology, and I think ctizens should privately own them , for sport and defense. I do think however we can in a rational society decide which types of weapons appropriately fit that particular bill.

Do you have a line or threshold of weapons based on action or perhaps caliber?

I will add guns don't kill people, people who use guns to put bullets into or through other people do, if they do it right.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just fun to see grok used in a sentence:)

Heh, get a beer or two into me and who knows what’ll come out. Spaten Oktoberfest for my future biographers, or whoever else may be keeping track.

Now here’s Gunnery Sgt. Hartmann to tell you what can be done with bolt action rifle.

If you’re not sure what a bolt action rifle is, here’s a demo. Based on a true story. Gripping movie, though quite a downer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to my knowledge of weapons , I've got like at least a masters in Discovery channel.Perhaps being an indiscriminate weapon is what disqualifies them from a defensive weapon, if by defensive we mean to protect one's self from a specific threat.

If I had a magic wand, I think limiting technology to say either flintlocks,and or blackpower weapons would kinda keep things even. I doubt you could use surprise with those types of firearm. Its not like you could pull a functioning flintlock out of your trousers and fire, I would have a chance to load too, eh? Heck like I said earlier a la magic wand , just swords.

Don't misunderstand i really like modern firearm technology, and I think ctizens should privately own them , for sport and defense. I do think however we can in a rational society decide which types of weapons appropriately fit that particular bill.

Do you have a line or threshold of weapons based on action or perhaps caliber?

Automatic weapons are not necessarily indiscriminate. Police and military use sub-machine guns for operations such as hostage rescues. They use the automatic function to quickly put several rounds on targets, using short bursts of fire. They're really not much different than any semi-automatic weapon in function. One fact that will attest to that is that sub-machine guns have largely been replaced with compact assault rifles, which are used in semi-auto mode.

The reason people don't use the automatic function of assault rifles is actually the inability to discriminate. It's still possible to discriminate, but your ability is reduced, and that is always a bad thing, whether you are a criminal, a law abiding citizen or attempting mass murder. With firearms, the ability to discriminate is always desirable, because you only have limited rounds and you want to be able to discriminate between your target, and things like the ground and walls around your target. If you try using the automatic function of an assault rifle, you will probably waste rounds. It doesn't increase the effectiveness of the rifle in any scenario.

The only time automatic fire is used both effectively and indiscriminately is with true machine guns. These are weapons designed to cover large swaths of area in which there might be enemies, but you don't know exactly where the enemies are. If you knew exactly where the enemies were, you would be better off using semi-auto. The purpose of the machine gun in this scenario is to suppress the enemy's movement and ability to take aim as well as possibly hit the enemy by chance. This is not a purpose that I can see being useful in any criminal scenario short of raising a small army to fight against the government.

Overall, I think any special regulations against assault rifles is completely useless. Restricting sub-machine guns is not justified because they are not particularly dangerous, but do allow people to defend themselves slightly more effectively in certain scenarios. I could, however see regulation of machine guns being kept at current levels because they are not completely benign (when compared to semi-autos) and they don't have any real self-defensive purpose. Once you get into the realm of explosives, gas, bio-weapons, etc. regulation is justified by reasons including, their use at least posing an implicit threat to people in the area or the impossibility of using them for their intended purpose without violating rights as well as their mere storage posing an implicit threat to people in the area.

Edited by oso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Automatic weapons are not necessarily indiscriminate. Police and military use sub-machine guns for operations such as hostage rescues. They use the automatic function to quickly put several rounds on targets, using short bursts of fire. They're really not much different than any semi-automatic weapon in function. One fact that will attest to that is that sub-machine guns have largely been replaced with compact assault rifles, which are used in semi-auto mode.

The reason people don't use the automatic function of assault rifles is actually the inability to discriminate. It's still possible to discriminate, but your ability is reduced, and that is always a bad thing, whether you are a criminal, a law abiding citizen or attempting mass murder. With firearms, the ability to discriminate is always desirable, because you only have limited rounds and you want to be able to discriminate between your target, and things like the ground and walls around your target. If you try using the automatic function of an assault rifle, you will probably waste rounds. It doesn't increase the effectiveness of the rifle in any scenario.

The only time automatic fire is used both effectively and indiscriminately is with true machine guns. These are weapons designed to cover large swaths of area in which there might be enemies, but you don't know exactly where the enemies are. If you knew exactly where the enemies were, you would be better off using semi-auto. The purpose of the machine gun in this scenario is to suppress the enemy's movement and ability to take aim as well as possibly hit the enemy by chance. This is not a purpose that I can see being useful in any criminal scenario short of raising a small army to fight against the government.

Overall, I think any special regulations against assault rifles is completely useless. Restricting sub-machine guns is not justified because they are not particularly dangerous, but do allow people to defend themselves slightly more effectively in certain scenarios. I could, however see regulation of machine guns being kept at current levels because they are not completely benign (when compared to semi-autos) and they don't have any real self-defensive purpose. Once you get into the realm of explosives, gas, bio-weapons, etc. regulation is justified by reasons including, their use at least posing an implicit threat to people in the area or the impossibility of using them for their intended purpose without violating rights as well as their mere storage posing an implicit threat to people in the area.

I agree I see , maybe more now, why an Uzi would not be as dangerous as say an oil cooled machine gun of ww1 vintage. By dangerous I mean as threat it could impose to say even benign neighbors. though i doubt the OP will see the distinction or the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18264_10151190105457613_1975744218_n.jpg

I gather this photo is for real. It’s quite shocking, but thinking about it a bit, in Israel they know there are armed nut-cases nearby who want nothing more than to kill as many people, children included, as possible. Knowing they can’t change that context with the stroke of a pen, they deal with it on a more practical level.

Wait a minute, this is different from the situation in the USA how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...