May I Have An Atom Bomb?

Political Philosophy
21

Woo woo wooo, when did I ever say I was for owning nukes?

You didn’t, others did. My fault for not being more clear that this particular post started out as a general address, then changed to address something you said specifically.

Why would cops have to be routinely armed with SMG’s to a greater degree when facing full-auto weapons?

Who said anything about they “have to”? That’s not the question. They would do it not necessarily out of need, but out of a perceived “need”. Are you forgetting the nature of government? You can feel free to disagree, because I’m proposing what in my opinion would occur IN THE FUTURE based on a more proliferated instance of FA weapons in the hands of the public. I think my estimation is pretty reasonable.

First off, what stops the criminal from shooting someone twice or even three times with semi-automatic fire?

You would have to ask the criminal. I have been to many crime scenes, sometimes they pulled the trigger once, other times they pulled the trigger mulitple times. The difference would be, one could in the heat of the moment pull the trigger once and still send many bullets down range. If you can’t accept the inherent difference (mechanically speaking) between a semi-auto and a full-auto, and the resulting ease of sending multiple bullets down range, then I can’t help you with that. Regardless, if the criminal pulls the trigger one, two or three times, he’s still putting more rounds down range with the full auto than the semi-auto, thus increasing the chance of hitting/killing the intended target and / or hitting / killing other people.

Second off I am talking about the deadliness when used to purposely hit innocents.  If one wants to inflict the most casualties in the instance of the Hollywood shoot out for example. It would be far more deadly if they took well aimed single shots at their target instead of spraying and praying.

Okay, if that’s the case, why did you ask me about how it would be safer for the cops when considering SA vs FA? Why do you keep changing your “points”? :dough:

However, if their single expressed purpose was to take out civilians, you may be right. But that WASN’T their single expressed purpose. Of course, there are other general means of firing weapons between “well aimed shot” and “spraying and praying” so those are misleading (or limited) alternatives. You also have “3 round burst” and more careful “spraying and trying”.

Now if you are talking about police who are trying to stop a criminal, in my opinion semi-automatic fire would still be best, even if you are talking about CQB. In the instance of CQB a shotgun can not be beat. If you aren’t, snipers are the most effective.

I can’t tell you how many SWAT commanders and team leaders disagree with you, but maybe you know something they don’t. The use of the appropriate weapon is of course situational.

As far as legally owned FA weapons used in self-defense on your own property, I don’t think there would be that many more innocents being killed then with semi-auto fire. If I’m wrong on this I’m sure you’ll correct me.

At least this is an acknowledgement that there would be more killed, even if it wouldn’t be that many more. How many more would there be killed that would be acceptable? :slight_smile: I’m guessing you didn’t mean to phrase it that way.

Let me summarize my point in this manner, and you are certainly free to disagree. If in most common criminal situations, the criminal had a FA weapon vs. a SA weapon, I think we would see more injuries or casualties than we do.

VES

22

Check my last post, I clearified some of the confusions. I don’t think we are going to get anywhere however. So perhaps we should move it back to the topic of owning a nuclear weapon?

23

First, why should you have to prove that you have a legitimate reason to own a weapon in order to have permission to own it? The burden should be on the government to show that you intend to use the weapon to initiate force. Otherwise there is no use or threat of force, no rights violation, and no reason to restrict ownership of the weapon.

As AR stated, “a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.” As such, the govt has no “burden” to show that you only intend to use a weapon ‘defensively’. It has no burden “to show that you intend to use the weapon to initiate force.” Because it holds the monopoly on the use of physical force, it has the authority to restrict ownership of or use of that and any other weapon. Why? BECAUSE it is the possessor of the monopoly power on force. To claim otherwise is to claim that government is NOT a possessor of such monopoly power and that others PROPERLY compete with government over the power to use force.

Now, if one understands the concept and nature of govt, the question quoted above vanishes. If one does not, one ends up advocating the libertarian ‘competition’ over the use of force - ie anarchy.

24

Just a couple questions…

Doesn’t everyone have the right to use retalitory force?

Also, isn’t giving the Government a monopoly on the use of force a pragmatic idea and not a moral one?

25

I’m sorry, that was my fault. I thought you were speaking of Machine Guns in the absolute sense of the word.

I’m not playing straw man, it was a simple misunderstanding, to which I take full blame.

Okay, understood.

So I do not see how mentioning the Hollywood instance to prove that full auto weapons are more deadly proves that they are, as there are other factors which have to be taken into account in this specific instance.

As I said, the NH situation was not brought up to establish the “deadly” aspect so much as it was to counter you ZERO evidence assertion.

Furthermore over 15 people were injured however none were killed even though the Bank Robbers fired in excess of 300 rounds. Now let’s compare this to the Lee Malvo Sniper case, where two men firing semi-automatic rifles killed 5 people and one could logically conclude they fired a lot less rounds. I’ll admit this was over a longer period of time but I don not believe it changes anything.

As I clarified at the end of my last post, my summarized point refers to common criminal situations. I realize you did not know this when you posted this. However, serial killer cases are not that common. Bank robberies are more common, but still not “common”. If we wanted to establish the deadliness of weapons based on examples of serial killers, we could probably take all guns right out of the picture so I don’t accept that the Malvo case (or serial killers in general) really establishes anything. You suggest changing the time period (or in my words the context) doesn’t make a difference, but I disagree.

Then how do you explain the fact that the number of people killed per shooting did not decrease after FA weapons were restricted?

Please point me to the per capita stats you are comparing? That would be prior to 1934 vs. now. That was when the maching gun act went into affect. I’m not saying you are wrong, but you apparently have some information that I don’t have.

Ultimately, my position rests on “what if”, a slightly untenable position I know. But my experience with criminals and crimes scenes suggests to me that if common criminals were running around with MG’s in the same manner that they run around with handguns and rifles these days, we’d have a lot more deaths and problems. Yes, I could be wrong. And that I’m against banning these guns suggests that I’m willing to find out if I’m wrong or not. I don’t really see it as in my best interests as a police officer to support private ownership of MG’s, but I do see it as in my best interest overall as an individual to support gun ownership.

VES

26

As I said, the NH situation was not brought up to establish the “deadly” aspect so much as it was to counter you ZERO evidence assertion.

When I said “zero evidence” I was speaking of machine guns in the absolute strictest definition, such as the M249 or M240. Again this was said before I understood what you meant by machine gun.

As I clarified at the end of my last post, my summarized point refers to common criminal situations. I realize you did not know this when you posted this. However, serial killer cases are not that common. Bank robberies are more common, but still not “common”. If we wanted to establish the deadliness of weapons based on examples of serial killers, we could probably take all guns right out of the picture so I don’t accept that the Malvo case (or serial killers in general) really establishes anything. You suggest changing the time period (or in my words the context) doesn’t make a difference, but I disagree.

I can accept this.

Please point me to the per capita stats you are comparing? That would be prior to 1934 vs. now. That was when the maching gun act went into affect. I’m not saying you are wrong, but you apparently have some information that I don’t have.

Damn, wish you didn’t catch that (I deleted it), I was thinking of the assault weapons ban. So just ignore that idiotic statement. :dough:

I surrender, just don’t shoot me when I’m down;)

27

Ayn Rand interview on gun ownership :

Interviewer : I’d like to turn to politics. You have stated that the government ought to be the exclusive agent of the use of force under objective law and justice.

Ayn Rand : That’s right.

Interviewer : Yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crime in this country and we see more and more people applying for gun permits to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one, and number two, do you favour any form of gun control laws ?

Ayn Rand : I have given it no thought at all and off hand I would say no, the government should not control guns except in very marginal forms. I don’t think it’s very important because I don’t think it’s in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether…if the government collapses…bankrupt…then having a handgun in your pocket isn’t going to save your life. What you need is ideas and other people who share those ideas…and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.

There was also an essay written called “Philosophy for the defence of firearms ownership.” or something like that, but the link I had to it appears to be dead. I’ve still got the article in a .pdf, though, if anyone wants to read it.

28

As AR stated, “a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.”

AR also states in VOS:

"The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may only be used in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. "

She later states that:

“There is one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.”

So, does an individual right to physical self-defense actually remain intact if he surrenders that right to the government but the government is not present when he/she is attacked and/or faces being killed? Or is the larger context to include that I can defend myself with a use of physical force, provided that it is subject to legal review through courts?

The government providing for my self-defense does me no good when I’m facing or about to face the point of a gun. This is what brings up the question of gun ownership. The desire to own defensive weaponry does not challenge the government’s monopoly on force, it’s a recognition that the government is simply incapable of using that force in all cases where it would be needed for self-defense. Their monopoly remains in tact in that an individual who does use defensive force remains susceptible to the consequences of applicable laws.

In short, what good is it for me to live in a civilized society if I’m still subject to the whim of the criminal and I am not allowed to defend myself?

VES

29

I surrender, just don’t shoot me when I’m down;)

After 19 years on the street without having to shoot anyone yet, I’m not about to start with a fellow forum member. :dough:

VES

30

I still don’t understand why I should not be allowed to defend myself even if the Government is available to help me?

After 19 years on the street without having to shoot anyone yet, I’m not about to start with a fellow forum member.

Thanks;)

31

Doesn’t everyone have the right to use retalitory force?

Yes - and the exercise of that right is precisely what is delegated to a proper govt.

isn’t giving the Government a monopoly on the use of force a pragmatic idea and not a moral one?

No. It is a profoundly moral one. It is the subjugation of force to reason.

So, does an individual right to physical self-defense actually remain intact if he surrenders that right to the government but the government is not present when he/she is attacked and/or faces being killed? Or is the larger context to include that I can defend myself with a use of physical force, provided that it is subject to legal review through courts?

Since the govt has the legal monopoly on the use of force, your unsanctioned use of force is most definitely subject to legal review through the courts.

Just so you know, this topic has been broached a few tiimes on the board already. If you do a search, you should find much more definitive answers to these questions - including some I made on the subject.

32

Just so you know, this topic has been broached a few tiimes on the board already.  If you do a search, you should find much more definitive answers to these questions - including some I made on the subject.

Actually, I know the definitive answer. If the time comes, I will defend myself from an assault. When I have to deal with legal issues after that, so be it. If anyone else chooses to stand by and be assaulted or killed as they wait for the government to provide for their self-defense, then that is their choice.

If this means I can’t be an Objectivist, I guess I’ll have to live with that. But at least I’ll have the opportunity to live.

VES

33

Actually, I know the definitive answer.  If the time comes, I will defend myself from an assault.  When I have to deal with legal issues after that, so be it.  If anyone else chooses to stand by and be assaulted or killed as they wait for the government to provide for their self-defense, then that is their choice.

If this means I can’t be an Objectivist, I guess I’ll have to live with that.  But at least I’ll have the opportunity to live.

VES

Hmm - you say you know the definitive answer, but then you imply that this answer may be in opposition to Objectivism. Since the question related to the objectivist position, it does not appear that your ‘definitive answer’ provides an answer in the context it was asked.

34

Making nuclear weapons or any WMDs illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a terrorist is gonna come to the US and see that nukes are illegal and say:

“Damn, i dont want to brake anti-nuke laws so I guess i cant nuke L.A. now”.

I think the solution to this problem is to still actively look for these weapons but not necessarily make them illegal.

Treat them like you would treat a man who puts a gun at peoples heads but doesnt pull the trigger(except this is on a mass scale), hes not violating anyones rights but he is a possible threat and people have the right to consider him a threat and act accordingly. Idont think anyone would say it would be wrong for the cops to put him in jail.

35

Making nuclear weapons or any WMDs illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a terrorist is gonna come to the US and see that nukes are illegal and say:

“Damn, i dont want to brake anti-nuke laws so I guess i cant nuke L.A. now”.

According to this ‘logic’ nothing should therefore be illegal.

"Making murder illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a murderer is gonna come to the US and see that murder is illegal and say:

“Damn, i dont want to brake anti-murder laws so I guess i cant murder anybody now”."

or

"Making rape illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a rapist is gonna come to the US and see that rape is illegal and say:

“Damn, i dont want to brake anti-rape laws so I guess i cant rape anybody now”."

or

"Making theft illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a thief is gonna come to the US and see that theft is illegal and say:

“Damn, i dont want to brake anti-theft laws so I guess i cant steal from anybody now”."

In other words, you REALLY need to check the premises you hold. Because they lead to absurdity.

36

Hmm - you say you know the definitive answer, but then you imply that this answer may be in opposition to Objectivism.  Since the question related to the objectivist position, it does not appear that your ‘definitive answer’ provides an answer in the context it was asked.

Only to the questions you quoted, not to the question I ended that particular post with which was not addressed. It is quite in keeping with that question.

That one should delegate ALL right to physical self-defense to the government actually seems to benefit the collective more than the individual. This seems to be the theme for many totalitarian governments throughout history, particularly with guns and/or weapon ownership in mind.

There is no true monopoly on the use of force if but one person is willing not to yield to that concept. And the facts of reality strongly suggest that not merely one person, but many will refuse to relinquish that power to the government. Since no true monopoly of that power can really exist, and since the government cannot protect all people in all places all the time, one MUST be able retain some ability to defend themselves from the initiation of physical force when their life is threatened.

I can honestly say the times in my life when I have had to use defensive physical force outside of my employment are very minimal. However, in my employment, I have extensive experience in the use of force coupled with the concept “minimal force necessary to stop the threat and/or affect the arrest”. This is a concept that I carry over into personal self-defense. I understand many of the legal issues relating to the use of force and how to document the chain of events which describes the escalation of minimum necessary force. In short, I am very confident with the idea that if I have to use force to defend myself, I can justify it in a rational manner before an objective third party, such as a judge or jury. Feel free to doubt that if you wish.

So I have two questions:

  1. Does my ‘definitive answer’ appear to you to be in opposition of Objectivism?

  2. If faced with the real threat of physical force which could result in your death, would you defend yourself with the use of physical force if necessary?

VES

37

I agree intuitively, but I’m hoping to discover objectivist logic that solidly backs up the position. Objectivism is new to me, and so I want to test it against positions I hold as givens.

I’m sorry, I did not mean to imply that it is absurd to give thought to the issue, but rather that after doing so I find the position of those who would allow my neighbor a nuclear bomb, to be an absurd position. In essence, there can be no rational justification to allow my neighbor a nuclear weapon, the very existence of which represents a threat of force to the extreme. In a proper society such weapons must be under control of the government, to whom we have delegated such powers of retaliatory force. Neither should the stockpiling of weapons be allowed, nor military maneuvers as manifest by those forming a so-called militia. Any special circumstances, such as the use of extremely powerful weapons for purposes such as mamouth construction or the like, would be exceptions to be handled by some proper procedures and methods. But the notion that the right of property entitles my neighbor to harbor a nuclear weapon in his house, is an affront to and an obliteration to the distinction between rightful property and the use of force.

38

Actually, I know the definitive answer.  If the time comes, I will defend myself from an assault.  When I have to deal with legal issues after that, so be it.  If anyone else chooses to stand by and be assaulted or killed as they wait for the government to provide for their self-defense, then that is their choice.

If this means I can’t be an Objectivist, I guess I’ll have to live with that.  But at least I’ll have the opportunity to live.

First, no one on this board speaks for Objectivism, so do not necessarily judge your consistency with Objectivism by what is presented here. Note also that this issue is discussed by Leonard Peikoff in OPAR in his discussion of government, page 363.

“By its nature, government has a monopoly on the use of force. In a rational society, individuals agree to delegate their right of self-defense; they renounce the private use of physical force even in self-protection (except during those emergencies that require action at once, before the police can be summoned).”

Clearly it is entirely reasonable to defend yourself in an emergency when your life and being are being threatened and the police are not there to perform their prescribed duty. This does not negate the fact that in ordinary circumstances the right to retaliatory is put under objective control in a proper government.

39

Where do you draw the line between legally owning weapons and “stockpilling them”? It seems to me that it can not be rationally defined. Also I don’t see how stockpilling weapons would be a threat to the Government’s monopoly on the use of force. I can understand military manouvers and militia’s but certainly not stockpilling weapons.

40

First, no one on this board speaks for Objectivism, so do not necessarily judge your consistency with Objectivism by what is presented here. Note also that this issue is discussed by Leonard Peikoff in OPAR in his discussion of government, page 363.

Thanks for the straightforward response and quote Stephen. I may have been misinterpreting an earlier post (not from you) but it seemed to suggest ALL use of physical force must be relinquished, no exceptions.

VES