Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

Rate this topic


Kate87
 Share

Recommended Posts

Your constitution is flawed. Get over it and get it amended! Solving government tyranny which has a modern Army behind it, with civilian gun ownership is extremely impractical to say the least.

So the practical solution is to knuckle under to tyranny, to what end?

As far as I understand the British have no constitution(in the sense of a constitution being the foundation of the government), and have allowed personal protection to be deemed beyond the individual's choice in the realm of firearms.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the practical solution is to knuckle under to tyranny, to what end?

As far as I understand the British have no constitution(in the sense of a constitution being the foundation of the government), and have allowed personal protection to be deemed beyond the individual's choice in the realm of firearms.

The UK has an "unwritten constitution" although much of the constitution is written such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus etc. But if Parliament wants to do something, then it cannot be deemed unconstitutional. So I would probably agree that the UK's "constitution" isn't really one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK has an "unwritten constitution" although much of the constitution is written such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus etc. But if Parliament wants to do something, then it cannot be deemed unconstitutional. So I would probably agree that the UK's "constitution" isn't really one.

Ok as to constitution and rational foundations for government, what about the idea that in one society is seems the individuals are comfortable being 'told' what to do?

There are certainly those in this country that would point out that the impressions one gleans about America from our own media is somewhat slanted I wonder what kind of impression those 'abroad' get from viewing our own media and how their media may slant the picture, as it were.

I am sure, thought not to bring the specific issue up for debate in this thread, you are aware of the contentious nature of the debate as it concerns healthcare reform. It is not because as Americans we are against 'health' the issues invovled are more profound then that, do you have a sense of that? The same passions are reflected in our ideas of what constitutes rational personal protection.

Our own poloticians deride a segment of population as being motivated by their connections to their 'guns and Bibles' , as an atheist and an American I would like to think I would come to those peoples' aid if either their guns or Bibles were to be threatened to be taken from them.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can do the same with weapons. Weapons are tools, and tools are distinguished based upon their purpose. I can use a hammer as a drumstick, but hammers are made in order to put nails into objects. Indeed, whoever owns the property can choose a number of ways to use a tool besides the purpose it was designed for, but objectively, there is still a purpose. I can even say hammers can be used to kill people, but that's not the purpose of a hammer. Weapons are a kind of tool intended to kill or maim. Weapons can be divided up based on what a weapon is used to kill: humans, and nonhumans. Guns certainly fall under a tool used to kill people, even though you can use a gun for hunting. As far as I know, guns were invented in order to kill people. The purpose in your circumstances for a gun may vary, but there is also the intended purpose of a gun.

Your reasoning doesn't quite hold. Most weapons developed as multipurpose tools- that is- hunting for food, defense against predators and defense/offense against other people. Which only makes sense because it follows that what will kill an animal for food will kill a predator will kill a person. Clubs, slings, spears, bows, crossbows, guns all developed as multipurpose tools.

Now- you could say the use of *gun powder* was originally invented as a tool of conflict- but it was originally used in fireworks which were celebratory (7th century China) so that doesn't hold either.

The first gun-like weapon in war definitely predates guns use in hunting- the first gun like weapon was the "firestick" in 9th century China, but it doesn't resemble a gun really so much- it is more a tube that is a combination flamethrower that also can blast some shrapnel out.

Of course, any of this only matters if you believe that the original intent behind the invention of a tool is a legitimate reason for a government to infringe on an individual's right to possess it.

By the time we get to anything resembling what we would know as "guns" (hand cannons) used in war even then they were used to kill only rarely and incidentally as they were difficult to use and were very innaccurate. They were used more than anything to cause confusion and scare the horses. (1200s) Just noisemakers really.

By the time guns had been developed in a way that would be used to aim and fire with intent to kill- matchlocks (1400s) they developed as hunting weapons and weapons of battle concurrently.

Edited by SapereAude
edited to add explanation of relevency
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest in a strict civilian vs 1st world military conflict, it pretty much is a no contest. My main concern is with mass rioting and post Katrina type scenarios where marauding groups of thugs drove around in the back of pickups with AK's looking for loot. (True story, one of my clients witnessed this). My wife personally deterred her own demise by greeting a car thief with an HK USP to the head when he leaned in to open the door!

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest in a strict civilian vs 1st world military conflict, it pretty much is a no contest.

Yes, but .... There have been various "Million Man March"es upon Washington D.C. called by various protest groups. Now stretch your mind a bit and imagine someone calling for a "Million Rifle March" on Washington.

That would be a huge problem for law enforcement and very dangerous for all involved, and I hope I never see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but .... There have been various "Million Man March"es upon Washington D.C. called by various protest groups. Now stretch your mind a bit and imagine someone calling for a "Million Rifle March" on Washington.

That would be a huge problem for law enforcement and very dangerous for all involved, and I hope I never see it.

Is 'Washington DC' so sacrosanct ?

I too hope to not see anything anyting like that come to pass, but it could be warranted. Not currently but not an impossibility.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, any of this only matters if you believe that the original intent behind the invention of a tool is a legitimate reason for a government to infringe on an individual's right to possess it.

No, I don't think why guns were invented matters as much as the fact that guns are weapons of force mainly used to kill/harm people. I only said that as "oh, this is an aside, but as far as I know, guns were even invented in order to kill people, but I might be wrong". Here in the year 2012, many guns are explicitly for harming/killing people, although some people will use guns for hunting. I could even buy a gun to stir soup with, but that's really quite silly. If I bought a gun, I would only do so to protect myself from violent people, or related threats. Fine, a gun is multipurpose, but my epistemological point is that there are essential purposes to all tools, despite multiple possible purposes.

(For the record, I'm not against gun ownership, I'm just for some gun controls/regulations.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another ridiculous shooting: http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20838925 Another ridiculous solution: arm all firefighters!

There is no better solution than good people with arms. The only reason they were ambushed is because evil people knew they would be unarmed. This is why gun free zones make such fertile killing fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that the NRA is advocating armed guards in school. This would probably lead to a reduction in massacre deaths in the context of today's America which is awash with guns. A much better solution however would be to work to destroy the gun culture in the first place so that armed guards are not needed.

Armed guards aren't needed now either. American children are safer in school than they are at home. They are also as safe or safer than any children, anywhere, in the history of the human race. School violence is a bigger problem in the UK than it is in suburban US schools (and it's as big a problem in the UK as it is in urban US schools). The "problem" isn't that children are in danger, the problem is that people like you allow themselves to be taken in by the disproportionate, hysterical, agenda driven media coverage of an isolated incident.

That is the problem the NRA is seeking to address, by drawing the attention of the herds of zombies away from the media's intended target, to whatever distraction they can throw at them. Armed guards at schools, violence in the media, video games, mental illness, whatever will divert the hysteria from achieving what it's intended to achieve by the propagandists behind the media coverage.

In the long term, once the hysterical idiots tire themselves out, the NRA will be back to arguing for gun rights on principle, and relying exclusively on the support of people who believe in that right. But, for right now, the propaganda needs to be countered through any means necessary, to prevent any quick laws from getting sneaked through Congress. Suggesting this alternative should create enough confusion to slow down any attempt at gun grabbing. It should give politicians who rely on NRA support the ammo they need to sabotage such measures with silly amendments like "let's put a cop in every school".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest in a strict civilian vs 1st world military conflict, it pretty much is a no contest.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is far fetched. Gun-rights advocates harm their cause when they assert falsehoods like this.

I completely agree.

It's bad enough that the pro-property control crowd wants to act as if random objects impose motive and action on people, but now the defenders of property rights (like the NRA) seem to want to concede the premise to them (blame video games!).

Then again, conservative have been doing the same thing with drugs for years so I guess that ship has sailed. Rationalists will think prohibition will work with their pet cause this time out since they are doing it for a “good cause”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It struck me that hierarchy and essentials are the issue going on with those who want gun prohibition in some form. Gun homicide is a species of homicide which is noted simply because of the murder weapon. The murder weapon is noted in proper criminal cases as building a case against the one that caused the crime, because the crime is punished, the action, not what random object he used to do it. Whether it is a gun or a candlestick makes no difference outside of linking the criminal to the act. Somehow we have gotten to the point that we have placed the murder weapon as an essential aspect of homicide instead of the tool used to do the crime and only noted for investigative purposes to prove who did the crime.

This is not a new problem either. Hate crimes are the same issue – The elevating of motive to a position of equal importance to the crime.

There is a fundamental error here. Why do people elevate the murder weapon and motive to be equal to the act itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

moralist: The only reason they were ambushed is because evil people knew they would be unarmed.

This is far fetched. Gun-rights advocates harm their cause when they assert falsehoods like this.

It's perfectly logically true.

That piece of filth was set free on parole after 17 years in prison for beating his Grandmother to death with a hammer, when he should rightly have been executed. Then he kills his sister, sets fire to the house, leaves a note saying he wants to burn down the whole neighborhood. The coward then lies in wait for what he knows to be helpless unarmed volunteer firemen to respond to his arson, then shoots them with a weapon he illegally acquired regardless of breaking multiple meaningless gun control laws which could do nothing to stop him. Trained armed firefighters would at least have the potential of defending themselves instead of being sitting ducks.

The NRA has it right: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is far fetched. Gun-rights advocates harm their cause when they assert falsehoods like this.

I would say it is too simplistic to be completely accurate- not knowing all the facts of the given situation but neither is it "far-fetched".

People who want to do harm seek out the disarmed. Even criminals have common sense.

All the mass shootings we've had except one have been in mandated "gun free" zones.

Guns have been statistically proven to be a deterrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's perfectly logically true.

That piece of filth was set free on parole after 17 years in prison for beating his Grandmother to death with a hammer, when he should rightly have been executed. Then he kills his sister, sets fire to the house, leaves a note saying he wants to burn down the whole neighborhood. The coward then lies in wait for what he knows to be helpless unarmed volunteer firemen to respond to his arson, then shoots them with a weapon he illegally acquired regardless of breaking multiple meaningless gun control laws which could do nothing to stop him. Trained armed firefighters would at least have the potential of defending themselves instead of being sitting ducks.

The NRA has it right: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

I think it is safe to say that any and all people whose primary duty is to be first responders to dangerous situations should have a personal sidearm.

That is just common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(For the record, I'm not against gun ownership, I'm just for some gun controls/regulations.)

Think of this by objective principles-

Why is Objectivism against coercive taxation?

Because your right to your property is your right to your property. Once you say... "ok, you can take 1%" you have already stated that your right is not an absolute.

Gun control is nothing but a slow sneaky back door to confiscation.

Leaving aside principle- which I hate to do- gun control determined by whom?

By the very people we are meant to be armed against lest they devolve into tyranny?

I am unwilling to see how that plays out.

Any arm that is standard issue to a soldier or a cop by all rights must be legal for a citizen to carry.

I'll keep ALL my guns, thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. All you have to do is think through the technical details for a minute or two and you'll see what a failed idea this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it is too simplistic to be completely accurate- not knowing all the facts of the given situation but neither is it "far-fetched".
This guy shot three firefighters, taking them completely by surprise. If they had been armed, things would have been no different up to that point. The shooter then killed himself. If he had gone on to do more,one might hypothesize that he'd have been hindered; but, his weapon was total surprise. It's like the shooter who was tormenting northern Virginia a while back, taking pot shots at people. After the first couple, people were very aware. I was in Virginia at the time, and people were extra-conscious while filling gas. Filling gas while armed would hardly have changed anything.

In this case, the real issue was that a guy who had bludgeoned a relative to death with a hammer was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter and was then free, after a few years in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy shot three firefighters, taking them completely by surprise. If they had been armed, things would have been no different up to that point. The shooter then killed himself. If he had gone on to do more,one might hypothesize that he'd have been hindered; but, his weapon was total surprise.

I have to respectfully disagree. Lacking a crystal ball I cannot say things would have been better and you can't reasonably say it would not have made a difference.

While an exact timeline of the shootings themselves (that is-how long it took the shooter to fire) what *has* been released is that the reports say the two surviving firefighters we "pinned down until armoured vihicles arrived". That is- there was a period of time when the shooter was still alive, still menacing with his weapon and the unarmed were helpless to do anything but hide and wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Your comment pretty much is in agreement with the rest of the post I made, which you quoted from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside principle- which I hate to do- gun control determined by whom?

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.

I don't usually link Rand quotes except when highly relevant, I thought you'd be interested to see what she wrote, since it acknowledges the same issues I'm talking about. Just leaving guns as a property rights issue is an oversimplification. No one said so far how it's justified to ban the private ownership of atomic weapons, except the argument Spiral presented of "no rational person would own one". I dunno about that in the first place - if I feel threatened by North Korea, why can't I point a nuke? If you agree on banning nukes, you've already conceded that weapons can be regulated, it' s only a matter of degree.

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.

From http://www.noblesoul...ys/guns.html

Edited by Eiuol
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...