Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harry Binswanger on Gun Control

Rate this topic


CrowEpistemologist

Recommended Posts

In either case, civilian pop guns are of absolutely no consequence.

You'd be likely to rethink that statement if you had ever actually attended a gun show.

I went to one a couple of weeks ago. Arrived 2 1/2 hours early and there were easily a thousand people in front of me, many with wheeled carts and moving dollies. The line for the ammunition booth was 2 hours long. Five semi truck trailers full of ammunition were there trying to keep up with the demand. There were always at least 30 people waiting at the weapon title transfer table, the transfer agents were completely swamped.

Honestly, I've never seen anything like this in all my life.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be likely to rethink that statement if you had ever actually attended a gun show.

I went to one a couple of weeks ago. Arrived 2 1/2 hours early and there were easily a thousand people in front of me, many with wheeled carts and moving dollies. The line for the ammunition booth was 2 hours long. Five semi truck trailers full of ammunition were there trying to keep up with the demand. There were always at least 30 people waiting at the weapon title transfer table, the transfer agents were completely swamped.

Honestly, I've never seen anything like this in all my life.

There's no shortage of morons in the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol, thanks for being patient.

I was indeed treating both self-defense and retaliation as first-order subconcepts of force. You think retaliation is the first-order subconcept, and self-defense is a second-order subconcept (by way of being a first-order subconcept of retaliation). You may be correct, and I'm interested in being convinced. But I don't see how that will help us resolve the discussion. It seems to me that self-defense would still be distinguishable from a different second-order subconcept of force for which I don't have a word. That word would denote the type of force the government uses to prosecute criminals; the type that re-establishes force after a force-based emergency event has resolved.

I agree with this. An individual's behavior/history are part of the context that define how that individual may exercise his right to self-defense.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TixVdN0SI.

Outstanding video, and he's saying exactly what I've been saying here, including:

* That there is a technically-defined line between properly legal civilian weapons and military weapons, and nobody has a right to military weapons except the military.

* That the notion that you have a right to own guns just in case our government "goes rogue" is retarded.

* That the 2nd Amendment is, in it's exact form, an anachronism.

He also makes the point that whereas you have a right to self-defense you do not have a right to self-offense. I would take this to mean that an objective demonstration of the need for self-defense is justification for owning a weapon (modulo other factors) but owning mass killing instruments for fun and profit is not supportable.

I don't think his speech of a few minutes covers everything we've been talking about here (i.e. what sort of principles should govern the regulation of weapons), but I think he's on the right track. He makes it clear--in apparent opposition to HB--that guns absolutely should be regulated by a proper government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, the points you expressed in this thread are not the same as Brook's. For instance, Brook didn't mention that statistics trump individual rights. In fact, he said this whole discussion is defined by individual rights - specifically the right to self-defense.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to talk about the right to self-defense (or the 2nd amendment) in terms of the right to overthrow a government. I (or even Brook) might have different reasons than you, but I'm not interested in talking about that for one very important reason: Gun control in the modern day is not about banning military-style tools of destruction or preventing internal threats to the military. Even you indicated that you think banning cheap handguns might be a good idea.

Edit: By the way, I have to say this again - you've misread Binswanger (or maybe Brook). Please take a moment to find a quote from Binswanger's article that contradicts a statement of Brook's.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, the points you expressed in this thread are not the same as Brook's. For instance, Brook didn't mention that statistics trump individual rights. In fact, he said this whole discussion is defined by individual rights - specifically the right to self-defense. On the heart of the issue he disagrees with you while he agrees with Binswanger.

I didn't say "statistics trump individual rights" either. Straw man much?

Yaron agrees that there is a some line at which regulation begins with weapons. He explicitly said that he didn't want to get into where that line was, and didn't address the issue altogether. HB said that all regulation of guns is wrong, which is sloppy at best.

I further stated that the technical line should be defined by the sum of our knowledge, some of which may include aggregate facts, aka statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be likely to rethink that statement if you had ever actually attended a gun show.

I went to one a couple of weeks ago. Arrived 2 1/2 hours early and there were easily a thousand people in front of me, many with wheeled carts and moving dollies. The line for the ammunition booth was 2 hours long. Five semi truck trailers full of ammunition were there trying to keep up with the demand. There were always at least 30 people waiting at the weapon title transfer table, the transfer agents were completely swamped.

Honestly, I've never seen anything like this in all my life.

There's no shortage of morons in the world...

Actually, a better quote to here would be: "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawman, none. You've indicated that it would be ok to ban handguns if a statistical analysis of them showed they were more likely to be used in a crime than for self-defense. That is to say, you would victimize me because statistics tell you that most people aren't as responsible as I am.

The strawman on this thread seems to be in your corner. You've completely misread Binswanger. Find a quote from his article that contradicts Brook, and show it to me, please.

Edited by FeatherFall
spelling, typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say "statistics trump individual rights" either. Straw man much?

Yaron agrees that there is a some line at which regulation begins with weapons. He explicitly said that he didn't want to get into where that line was, and didn't address the issue altogether. HB said that all regulation of guns is wrong, which is sloppy at best.

I further stated that the technical line should be defined by the sum of our knowledge, some of which may include aggregate facts, aka statistics.

He doesn't define the line in practical terms, in terms of specific weapons, but he draws a crystal clear philosophical line between defensive and offensive weapons. The right to self-defense is an individual right that must be recognized by the government. There is no room here for trying to reduce shootings or gun deaths by banning specific weapons that are commonly used in such crimes. You look at the weapon, determine whether it is a viable weapon for self-defense or not, and then you're done. No 'banning this gun would reduce gun violence by X' or 'well, these guns are mostly used in a bad way.' It's either a fundamentally offensive weapon, and banned, or it's not, and you can have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawman, none. You've indicated that it would be ok to ban handguns if a statistical analysis of them showed they were more likely to be used in a crime than for self-defense. That is to say, you would victimize me because statistics tell you that most people aren't as responsible as I am.

The strawman on this thread seems to be in your corner. You've completely misread Binswanger. Find a quote from his article that contradicts Brook, and show it to me, please.

No, I said that given that a) we should use the entire context of our knowledge at the given point of time in order to make laws that represent a non-exact trade-off; B) that aggregated facts--statistics, if you will--is a perfectly valid form a knowledge; c) therefore using aggregated facts is perfectly valid in making a judgement about said laws.

Yaron said nothing about statistics. I never said he did. Only you said that I said he did. He didn't. I didn't.

But to be sure, I find HB's war on aggregated facts bizarre, and absolutely false...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't define the line in practical terms, in terms of specific weapons, but he draws a crystal clear philosophical line between defensive and offensive weapons. The right to self-defense is an individual right that must be recognized by the government. There is no room here for trying to reduce shootings or gun deaths by banning specific weapons that are commonly used in such crimes. You look at the weapon, determine whether it is a viable weapon for self-defense or not, and then you're done. No 'banning this gun would reduce gun violence by X' or 'well, these guns are mostly used in a bad way.' It's either a fundamentally offensive weapon, and banned, or it's not, and you can have one.

You can use a nuclear weapon in self-defense in certain boundary situations. Seems like every Bruce Willis movie involves him defending himself with a flamethrower or shoulder-fired rocket. Any number of scenarios could be concocted. Based on the logic above, then, all of these weapons should be legal, and yes, HB's blanket statement that, "all guns should be legal" certainly holds.

But it is different than what Yaron said, wherein he made it clear that regulation of weapons in certain contexts is proper...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaron said nothing about statistics. I never said he did. Only you said that I said he did. He didn't. I didn't.

What I was responding to was your assertion that Brook was,

"saying exactly what I've been saying here, including[...]"

I didn't call out the difference to play, "gotcha," over the fact that you've made assertions about statistics that Brook didn't. I'm used to your hyperbole and I know that when you use superlatives like, "exactly," you almost never mean it. I called it out to show that Brook and Binswanger are in intellectual lockstep with regards to subordinating weapons control legislation to the principle of individual rights. If you think *any* of Binswanger's statements contradict Brooks, please correct my misunderstanding by providing the relevant quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was responding to was your assertion that Brook was,

I didn't call out the difference to play, "gotcha," over the fact that you've made assertions about statistics that Brook didn't. I'm used to your hyperbole and I know that when you use superlatives like, "exactly," you almost never mean it. I called it out to show that Brook and Binswanger are in intellectual lockstep with regards to subordinating weapons control legislation to the principle of individual rights. If you think *any* of Binswanger's statements contradict Brooks, please correct my misunderstanding by providing the relevant quotes.

HB wrote: "Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished."

Yaron said that weapons of a non-defensive nature should regulated since they have no support from the standpoint of individual rights. He said, in effect, you don't get to collect military-style offensive weapons just for fun.

So there you go.

(Nobody means "a word for word match" when they say, "so and so says exactly what I was saying". Pedantic much?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this will help clear up some confusion:

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished across the board.

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.

The first meaning is what you are attributing to Binswanger. The second is what he said.

Edit: "Pedantic much? "

Dude, you come to this place looking for conflict. I just got done explaining to you I that I knew you didn't mean a word-for-word match. But even an approximate use of the word, "exact," was wrong because Brook and Binswanger agree with each other, so if you disagree with Binswanger you don't agree with Brook. Perhaps if you approached the Binswanger article without the same chip you put on your shoulder when you watch FOX news, you'd realize that you agree with him. Or maybe you disagree with both of them. Either way, they agree with each other.

Edited by FeatherFall
spelling, clarity, addendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask everyone who thinks Binswanger advocated abolishing all weapons-laws to please re-read the article. I can see how the quote Crow provided could be interpreted differently. The delivery is kind of sloppy. This could be a good case study in effective communication, so I am very interested to know which interpretation is more common. If you think you have a good argument for the second first interpretation after re-reading, please try to convince me. I'd be happy to distance myself from those statements if they don't mean what I thought.

Before re-reading, please consider both meanings I offered in my last post for the following sentence:

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.

One meaning cries out for the abolition of any restrictions on weapons. The other meaning directs gun laws to discriminate between people who use guns for defensive purposes and people who "fly into a rage and shoot [...] in anger." Think about which one is consistent with the entirety of the piece, specifically the introductory paragraphs.

Edited by FeatherFall
Clarity, spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this will help clear up some confusion:

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished across the board.

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.

The first meaning is what you are attributing to Binswanger. The second is what he said.

Well yes, that is confusing, especially when you consider that in the USA there are no laws that regulate guns "across the board" (which I would take to mean an absolute nationwide ban on all firearms), nor is any lawmaker talking about any such thing.

So in that case, I agree with both Yaron and HB insofar as they both advocate gun regulation in principle, as it is necessary to protect individual rights.

Edit: "Pedantic much? "

Dude, you come to this place looking for conflict. I just got done explaining to you I that I knew you didn't mean a word-for-word match. But even an approximate use of the word, "exact," was wrong because Brook and Binswanger agree with each other, so if you disagree with Binswanger you don't agree with Brook. Perhaps if you approached the Binswanger article without the same chip you put on your shoulder when you watch FOX news, you'd realize that you agree with him. Or maybe you disagree with both of them. Either way, they agree with each other.

Looking for a conflict? It was you who got caught up on my word choice-- a "figure of speech" in this case. That comment was apropos of nothing, and served to confuse the thread further.

All that said, what is wrong with a discussion? Do we all have to agree with every single thing every single time? Calm down. Don't take things so personally. We're all on the same team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with a calm discussion, Crow. One of those would go well with my coffee.

As far as Binswanger's statement is concerned, I think, "across the board," means accross the demographic board. In other words, not banning guns across the board, but creating a patchwork of bans on guns for all people. Contrast this with the kind of laws Eiuol mentioned in the "tragic and self-explanatory" thread, which recognize that certain weaponry combine with certain people to set the appropriate context.

Now that we know Brook and Binswanger agree on the basics, where do you stand with regards to the recent host of regulations proposed after the Sandy Hook event? Do you think they would effectively guarantee the right to self-defense while banning purely offensive weapons, or do such regulations violate the right to self-defense by over-defining "offensive" weapons? I think some have more merit than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can use a nuclear weapon in self-defense in certain boundary situations. Seems like every Bruce Willis movie involves him defending himself with a flamethrower or shoulder-fired rocket. Any number of scenarios could be concocted. Based on the logic above, then, all of these weapons should be legal, and yes, HB's blanket statement that, "all guns should be legal" certainly holds.

But it is different than what Yaron said, wherein he made it clear that regulation of weapons in certain contexts is proper...

However, Brook doesn't allow these scenarios, because he further specifies the context of his statements: immediate self-defense against criminals, in a country with a legitimate government and a functional military that will defend you against anything bigger. In that context, your provision of your own self-defense does not require nuclear weapons, biological weapons, any of that. If that context doesn't apply; for example, if you're in a revolt (to use the case Brook discussed) then things might be different. However, when we're talking about the case of gun control measures being enacted in today's America, Brook's assumed context applies, and any number of weapons can be disqualified from legitimate self-defensive use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, Brook doesn't allow these scenarios, because he further specifies the context of his statements: immediate self-defense against criminals, in a country with a legitimate government and a functional military that will defend you against anything bigger. In that context, your provision of your own self-defense does not require nuclear weapons, biological weapons, any of that. If that context doesn't apply; for example, if you're in a revolt (to use the case Brook discussed) then things might be different. However, when we're talking about the case of gun control measures being enacted in today's America, Brook's assumed context applies, and any number of weapons can be disqualified from legitimate self-defensive use.

I get everything you wrote here except for the word, "however". I agree with Yaron and with what you said above...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with a calm discussion, Crow. One of those would go well with my coffee.

As far as Binswanger's statement is concerned, I think, "across the board," means accross the demographic board. In other words, not banning guns across the board, but creating a patchwork of bans on guns for all people. Contrast this with the kind of laws Eiuol mentioned in the "tragic and self-explanatory" thread, which recognize that certain weaponry combine with certain people to set the appropriate context.

Now that we know Brook and Binswanger agree on the basics, where do you stand with regards to the recent host of regulations proposed after the Sandy Hook event? Do you think they would effectively guarantee the right to self-defense while banning purely offensive weapons, or do such regulations violate the right to self-defense by over-defining "offensive" weapons? I think some have more merit than others.

My understanding is that the primary push right now is for uniform registration of guns, and for uniform waiting periods. The idea being that when these laws are localized, they are not very effective. I don't think this is a problem, and I don't think licensing guns is a big deal, and I think it's a win/win. If you are a law-abiding citizens, you have nothing to hide, and a registered gun will help the police solve crimes.

As for anything beyond that, those of us who include statistics as part of the sum of our knowledge understand that while assault weapons are occasionally used for horrible crimes, you are most likely to be gunned down by a cheap small caliber handgun--something like 98% of crimes in NYC involving a gun are committed using handguns. So while I think we can make a case in terms of individual rights against some of these weapons, banning them won't really do much, and it might very well be the case that the enforcement of such a ban will consume more resources of the police than will be worth it. (This is an example of how you use statistics to determine policy).

On the other hand, anything to help NYC and places like it to reduce gun crimes (viz. background checks, registration, etc.) is certainly valid insofar as it doesn't interfere significantly with people's right to self-defense. (And I don't think registering your gun, allowing the government to track it, etc. is a significant violation of anybody's right to self-defense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All gun registration systems immediately recast wielding a gun from a right to a permission, so they are significant inteference to the right to self defense.

How? Does a registered gun fire differently? Are thugs less afraid of registered guns?

Insofar was the registration process does not materially effect one's right to self-defense, and it in turn has benefits for the securing of individual rights elsewhere (e.g. helping law enforcement catch and prevent criminals), then this is a no-brainer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, some of what you said in #94 is the type of stuff I could be convinced of; registration and licensing I react poorly to, but I'm open to an argument that they don't infringe on my rights. Your second paragraph, however, again threatens to engage in the error of subordinating rights to statistics. I'd prefer to put this issue to rest before moving on.

To clarify my point, take a look at the sentence I changed to bold:

As for anything beyond that, those of us who include statistics as part of the sum of our knowledge understand that while assault weapons are occasionally used for horrible crimes, you are most likely to be gunned down by a cheap small caliber handgun--something like 98% of crimes in NYC involving a gun are committed using handguns. So while I think we can make a case in terms of individual rights against some of these weapons, banning them won't really do much, and it might very well be the case that the enforcement of such a ban will consume more resources of the police than will be worth it. (This is an example of how you use statistics to determine policy).

This sentence makes me think that you're treating the issue of individual rights as somehow equivalent to public safety statistics. The issue I have with this is that public safety statistics aren't appropriate in this case; they have no business being here as a parallel argument. They might be appropriate to use in supporting arguments, but only to convince people who don't think about this issue from the (correct) perspective of individual rights. I could be satisfied if you simply came out and said that public safety statistics can be used only if they are subordinated to individual rights. In other words you could say that even if public safety stats show a particular gun ban may reduce injury or death, such a ban should not be used if it violates individual rights. Another way you could put it would be that public safety does not define issues of individual rights.

Edited by FeatherFall
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You understand that innocent people who are robbed and killed by thugs using handguns are... having their individual rights violated, right? It is our governments job to protect the rights of citizens as well as possible. This may involve trade-offs. This entire discussion is about protecting individual rights, so I guess you could call that "subordinate".

Individual rights don't exist in a cloud in outer space. If we live in a dangerous society, then we physically don't have them, and in practicality an enormous part of the population is effected by gun violence (as in, they change their behavior because of the fear of it, we spend billions on home and business defense, etc.) and meanwhile things like gun registration would be virtually (although not completely) inert for the innocent.

It seems like you are searching for a perfect government run by God which will magically protect everybody's rights 100% of the time. It doesn't exist and never will. The government should try as hard as it can, and it should use all available knowledge to make the best trade-off, but there's a trade-off no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already addressed that point here. Admission of fallibility in government is not a license for government to intentionally violate rights. That's what you're advocating. You may think it's right, but it's certainly not consistent with Brooks statements, or Binswanger's statements, or with Objectivism:

"Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another." -From the entry on "Individual Rights" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, eighth selection.

Look, I'm not interested in doing this again. I'd really like to talk about the other interesting parts of this issue some more. But I'm only interested in a discussion that treats individual rights as inviolable, not one that engages in the perverse moral calculus of using public safety statistics to "justify" sacrificing one person's rights to another's. If you ever change your mind on the subject, we can talk. Until then, best premises.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already addressed that point here. Admission of fallibility in government is not a license for government to intentionally violate rights. That's what you're advocating. You may think it's right, but it's certainly not consistent with Brooks statements, or Binswanger's statements, or with Objectivism:

Look, I'm not interested in doing this again. I'd really like to talk about the other interesting parts of this issue some more. But I'm only interested in a discussion that treats individual rights as inviolable, not one that engages in the perverse moral calculus of using public safety statistics to "justify" sacrificing one person's rights to another's. If you ever change your mind on the subject, we can talk. Until then, best premises.

That's pure rationalism. How do rights exist in reality here on Earth in a society with lots and lots of people without a government to protect them?

Every man by his nature has rights--the same rights. Nobody is arguing with that. Stop building straw men. Just because you are entitled to have rights does not magically make them happen to you 100% of the time every place on Earth. There's this thing called "crime", for starters. Governments are not made by God and thus are fallible and

It is the government's job to protect those rights. It is not always successful in doing so, no matter what. It is rational, therefore, that we has mortal men seek to minimize the violations of rights which occur, which may, paradoxically, mean occasionally, technically violating those rights in minute ways e.g. making people register their weapons, precluding them from own military weapons, and so forth.

Pretending that there's a special place in the clouds where there is no crime and rights are never violated is not compatible with Objectivism or logic.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...