Recommended Posts

An objective, rational person would only consider judgement. Otherwise the decision of the drunk who, at a .25 BAC, decides not to drive is equal to that of the drunk who decides at a .25 to drive... and kills someone.

This is good a good point, because if judgment only matters up to the point of becoming drunk, and thus impairing one's judgment to the point that he/she is a threat to society (statistically liable to kill someone), then there should be no crime to consider after the act of getting drunk. That would be to say that getting drunk is on its own potentially lethal.

Should statistics come into play when creating laws to protect individual rights? That generalizes all human beings, and creates at least scenarios where people can legally be treated as though they have no free will.

What then constitutes a legitimate threat? Different views on what is and is not a threat will lead to different views on what is and is not rightful self-defense (use of force).

It could be said that if people are not exposed to guns, they don't really have an informed opinion as to whether or not they are a threat. Or you could say that statistics will determine what is and is not a threat--and then those statistics can of course be interpreted differently by different people.

But there has to be some level of societal agreement, which I believe is the most common reason we follow laws; that is, to believe the law is ultimately for our own protection. That protection comes from the assumption that the rules will be enforced, and therefore the more people that support a law the clearer the message--there will be consequences for breaking the law.

I think the gun control debate is pretty central to the philosophical crisis going on in America right now... If more and more people are convinced that it is in their best interest to support gun control, who knows what problems America may have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the gun control debate is pretty central to the philosophical crisis going on in America right now... If more and more people are convinced that it is in their best interest to support gun control, who knows what problems America may have.

That all depends on what is meant by "gun control" If one restricts the ownership of weapon to individuals (as opposed to active members of the armed forces) to aimable weapons suit for defense of one's person or one's home then there is no infringement of the truly basic right of self defense. Also reasonable conditions may be put upon carrying such weapons in public. A person should prove basic proficiency and practice of fire arms safety, before being allow to carry a weapon either open or concealed. And there is the matter of convicted felons. A person convicted of a violent crime should not be permitted to have fire arms legally.

The above caveats do not infringe the basic right self defense or family defense or home defense for law abiding citizens.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again self-defense depends on the validity of a threat. If assault rifles are what is necessary to keep the government/police at least somewhat honest, then that could be considered legitimate self-defense.

Keep in mind that the government has artillary, tanks, helicopters and war planes. Do you really think a civilian insurrection could stand up to this? Even if every able bodied civilian in the country (outside the government and its armed forces) had an automatic weapon with a thirty round clip, they could not with stand military force.

These are not the days of the American Revolution when ordinary folks and the regular troops were equally armed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War planes and tanks would be good if the government was trying to exterminate most of the population, but if they wanted to do something more along the lines of enslavement they'd have to do it differently, wouldn't they?

The U.S. has a population of 310,000,000. Tanks and warplanes could only kill a lot of people who were concentrated in a small area. Our government would not do to its population what Bashir Asad is doing to his in Syria, for the simple reason that our government runs on tax loot. If business is disrupted our government could not function for long.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

You do realize that the early stages of a "rebellion" would have relatively high casualties.

However, with every "rebel" killed, we would increase our numbers.

Secondly, there would be "hidden" patriots that would "allow" critical military equipment to be acquired by the rebellion.

It would be a steady bleeding of the statists assets which would eventually reach the tipping point of an assisted collapse.

At that point, the most dangerous phase of transition would be the real problem. More could go wrong in that phase than any other.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That all depends on what is meant by "gun control" If one restricts the ownership of weapon to individuals (as opposed to active members of the armed forces) to aimable weapons suit for defense of one's person or one's home then there is no infringement of the truly basic right of self defense. Also reasonable conditions may be put upon carrying such weapons in public. A person should prove basic proficiency and practice of fire arms safety, before being allow to carry a weapon either open or concealed. And there is the matter of convicted felons. A person convicted of a violent crime should not be permitted to have fire arms legally.

The above caveats do not infringe the basic right self defense or family defense or home defense for law abiding citizens.

ruveyn

But the caveats do. No conditions may exist that are reasonable in restricting gun usage, only those that a majority of policymakers feel good about. Because nobody is qualified to define "basic self defnse" or to standardize gun safety. And nobody may be a reasonable gun owner simply for passing a class.

However, defending guns from a rights perspective is wrong (improper or impertinent, unproductive maybe. I believe a better word exists but I can't think of one). An explanation should be asked of the person who would have gun ownership criminalized. It should be demanded of the least stringent opponent to the cowards like Donald Kaul. And I expect any answer to follow the lines of public welfare, we as a society nonsense.

So will mandatory gun safety classes ensure that everyone never accidentally discharges a bullet into his own foot? How do those who wouldn't have done that without certification justify the time and costs of certification to themselves? And what is basic safety? And how often is certification needed? And is everyone convicted of violent crime incapable of safely using a firearm? You're not even asking to judge felons individually, or if any of the felons should be felons at all. How about restrictions on open carry? What exactly is the motive of restricting open carry? How much violence done not in self-defense will that abate compared to that done in self-defense? How do you justify the numbers either way? Is the potential for saving the life of a stranger in California worth the life of a murdered man in Nebraska who respected open carry laws and did not carry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will mandatory gun safety classes ensure that everyone never accidentally discharges a bullet into his own foot?

No. But gun safety training may lessen the likelihood of such mishaps. There is no way to entirely prevent accidents.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will mandatory gun safety classes ensure that everyone never accidentally discharges a bullet into his own foot?

No. But gun safety training may lessen the likelihood of such mishaps. There is no way to entirely prevent accidents.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Hmm looks like a slippery slope to me...

Greece_parnassos_2w.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mandatory safety classes will only mean really crappy instruction. Mandatory classes for concealed carry aren't too bad, but if you get such a permit you increase your possible liability if you use your weapon. I think the big problem is kids playing around with guns. Take your boy to the range and let him fire off so many rounds he can't hold the gun up; go back several times. Take out all the possible romance and mystery. During these ordeals, talk to him about safety. So on and so forth. If I personally had children my household would have a whole different gun protocol than now. In Vietnam I once accidentally discharged my M-16, but I had taken the half-assed precaution of pointing the barrel in a safe direction. I also made a mistake with our 81mm mortar firing white phosphorus for range. I misjudged the distance and had the tube pointed at a large home outside the wire. The guy with me argued about the distance and I didn't believe him, but I adjusted the tube to the left. The WP landed just to the left of the hooch. No one was hurt. (The reason I was firing for range was in case we were attacked at night we'd know where our rounds would impact. It's SOP.) A case can be made the training--I had a lot of training and experience--can increase the danger just as driver education can increase the number of accidents by young drivers.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will mandatory gun safety classes ensure that ... Is the potential for saving the life of ...

Bryce, you can change the nouns to apply to any specific and thereby ultimately make the case for anarchy. Laws against robbery and burglary obviously do not stop perpetrators. These laws make it illegal for one neighbor to borrow the lawn mower of another without express written permission on file with the police. What if the cops on patrol see you coming from your neighbor's garage with his mower? In numismatics about 10 ot 12 years ago, we had what I found to be a very embarrassing case of some collectors who thought they knew more and were thus morally empowered attempting to "warn" people against the "frauds" perpetrated by a certain dealer whose grading they disliked. As all information was available in this perhaps perfect market, I felt that every choice was clearly an informed one and regardless of my opinion, the buyers were certainly happy and the seller delivered exactly what was purchased. Thus, this case reinforces your logic, that laws against fraud were troubled by unanswerable questions.

I might agree that yours are the questions that might be asked in debates in the legislature of a rational government as lawmakers carefully consider the complexities of everyday life. Short of that, though, your challenges seem to miss the wider target: we pass laws to announce social norms. Enforcement and remediation are different issues entirely.

One other point: State by state, I believe that Open Carry was always allowed in states that did not allow concealed (without a permit). Michigan and New Mexico were such two that I lived in. I do not know the specifics but decades ago a friend from Idaho was happy to be able to carry openly when he was in Wyoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will mandatory gun safety classes ensure that ... Is the potential for saving the life of ...

Bryce, you can change the nouns to apply to any specific and thereby ultimately make the case for anarchy. Laws against robbery and burglary obviously do not stop perpetrators. These laws make it illegal for one neighbor to borrow the lawn mower of another without express written permission on file with the police. What if the cops on patrol see you coming from your neighbor's garage with his mower? In numismatics about 10 ot 12 years ago, we had what I found to be a very embarrassing case of some collectors who thought they knew more and were thus morally empowered attempting to "warn" people against the "frauds" perpetrated by a certain dealer whose grading they disliked. As all information was available in this perhaps perfect market, I felt that every choice was clearly an informed one and regardless of my opinion, the buyers were certainly happy and the seller delivered exactly what was purchased. Thus, this case reinforces your logic, that laws against fraud were troubled by unanswerable questions.

I might agree that yours are the questions that might be asked in debates in the legislature of a rational government as lawmakers carefully consider the complexities of everyday life. Short of that, though, your challenges seem to miss the wider target: we pass laws to announce social norms. Enforcement and remediation are different issues entirely.

Rational governments do not exist, and technically cannot because no entity or law can be rational. My intent was to prove that no rational explanation exists to support even limited gun control (an irrational idea) and I didn't expect to receive one. And I didn't.

One other point: State by state, I believe that Open Carry was always allowed in states that did not allow concealed (without a permit). Michigan and New Mexico were such two that I lived in. I do not know the specifics but decades ago a friend from Idaho was happy to be able to carry openly when he was in Wyoming.

I botched the analogy but you got the point.

I think that [absolute] freedom requires an individual to be [absolutely] responsible for his actions. And even the least stringent law releases him from the need to be responsible. In one example we, the irrational and the power of the society, expect of a victim to use against an aggressor only a fair amount of retaliatory force. Or none, being an enlightened society. But the reality is that the victim should not be judged. Half because we don't have a right to expect anything of the victim and half because the aggressor is the aggressor. And he, in his own mind, should be prepared for any consequence, including death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that [absolute] freedom requires an individual to be [absolutely] responsible for his actions. And even the least stringent law releases him from the need to be responsible. In one example we, the irrational and the power of the society, expect of a victim to use against an aggressor only a fair amount of retaliatory force. Or none, being an enlightened society. But the reality is that the victim should not be judged. Half because we don't have a right to expect anything of the victim and half because the aggressor is the aggressor. And he, in his own mind, should be prepared for any consequence, including death.

So if someone accidentally kills someone else, would they be liable to be executed by the victims family if they so chose?

I'm assuming your answer is yes, but if not, who is capable of determining intent? If there were a lesser punishment for accidental killings, intentional murders could potentially slip through the cracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will mandatory gun safety classes ensure that ... Is the potential for saving the life of ...

Bryce, you can change the nouns to apply to any specific and thereby ultimately make the case for anarchy. Laws against robbery and burglary obviously do not stop perpetrators. These laws make it illegal for one neighbor to borrow the lawn mower of another without express written permission on file with the police. What if the cops on patrol see you coming from your neighbor's garage with his mower? In numismatics about 10 ot 12 years ago, we had what I found to be a very embarrassing case of some collectors who thought they knew more and were thus morally empowered attempting to "warn" people against the "frauds" perpetrated by a certain dealer whose grading they disliked. As all information was available in this perhaps perfect market, I felt that every choice was clearly an informed one and regardless of my opinion, the buyers were certainly happy and the seller delivered exactly what was purchased. Thus, this case reinforces your logic, that laws against fraud were troubled by unanswerable questions.

I might agree that yours are the questions that might be asked in debates in the legislature of a rational government as lawmakers carefully consider the complexities of everyday life. Short of that, though, your challenges seem to miss the wider target: we pass laws to announce social norms. Enforcement and remediation are different issues entirely.

Rational governments do not exist, and technically cannot because no entity or law can be rational. My intent was to prove that no rational explanation exists to support even limited gun control (an irrational idea) and I didn't expect to receive one. And I didn't.

One other point: State by state, I believe that Open Carry was always allowed in states that did not allow concealed (without a permit). Michigan and New Mexico were such two that I lived in. I do not know the specifics but decades ago a friend from Idaho was happy to be able to carry openly when he was in Wyoming.

I botched the analogy but you got the point.

I think that [absolute] freedom requires an individual to be [absolutely] responsible for his actions. And even the least stringent law releases him from the need to be responsible. In one example we, the irrational and the power of the society, expect of a victim to use against an aggressor only a fair amount of retaliatory force. Or none, being an enlightened society. But the reality is that the victim should not be judged. Half because we don't have a right to expect anything of the victim and half because the aggressor is the aggressor. And he, in his own mind, should be prepared for any consequence, including death.

As there is no such thing in human social existence as "absolute freedom"--ever--not now, not back then and not in the future--please restate your proposition, and its consequences, so it makes some sense.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that [absolute] freedom requires an individual to be [absolutely] responsible for his actions. And even the least stringent law releases him from the need to be responsible. In one example we, the irrational and the power of the society, expect of a victim to use against an aggressor only a fair amount of retaliatory force. Or none, being an enlightened society. But the reality is that the victim should not be judged. Half because we don't have a right to expect anything of the victim and half because the aggressor is the aggressor. And he, in his own mind, should be prepared for any consequence, including death.

As there is no such thing in human social existence as "absolute freedom"--ever--not now, not back then and not in the future--please restate your proposition and its consequences so it makes some sense.

--Brant

Most men have the will to do what they please, within reality. That's freedom. We are free to do what we will, and the limits we place are only on ourselves. And the reaction of others to that will - good or bad - is separate.

Two men who have no inclination to murder each other wouldn't draw a social contract to prohibit one from murdering the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that [absolute] freedom requires an individual to be [absolutely] responsible for his actions. And even the least stringent law releases him from the need to be responsible. In one example we, the irrational and the power of the society, expect of a victim to use against an aggressor only a fair amount of retaliatory force. Or none, being an enlightened society. But the reality is that the victim should not be judged. Half because we don't have a right to expect anything of the victim and half because the aggressor is the aggressor. And he, in his own mind, should be prepared for any consequence, including death.

As there is no such thing in human social existence as "absolute freedom"--ever--not now, not back then and not in the future--please restate your proposition and its consequences so it makes some sense.

--Brant

Most men have the will to do what they please, within reality. That's freedom. We are free to do what we will, and the limits we place are only on ourselves. And the reaction of others to that will - good or bad - is separate.

This is quite a proposition. Is this "the triumph of the will"? Regardless, what is the evidence about what "most men have" in your stated case? After all, "will" and "free will" are two different things, but there seems to be some conflation here. I'd like to know what kind, if any, government we'd get out of this.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most men have the will to do what they please, within reality. That's freedom. We are free to do what we will, and the limits we place are only on ourselves. And the reaction of others to that will - good or bad - is separate.

Two men who have no inclination to murder each other wouldn't draw a social contract to prohibit one from murdering the other.

Hobbes had a different view of this situation. In nature, men do as they will within the boundaries of their capability . In this situation where there is no external restraint on what they do the life of man, as Hobbes says is "solitary, nasty, brutish and short". Which is why we need government to restrain what people do with the fear of punishment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analog to a drunk deployed behind the wheel of an automobile not being punished until he injures someone is a drunk firing his .45 randomly and not being punished until he injures someone.

Had Rodney King been doing the latter, those same LA cops would have summarily executed him on the spot and received medals for doing so.

In real life, Rodney King did the former and was merely spanked for it, ultimately causing the LA Riots when the cops who merely spanked him were found not guilty for merely spanking him.

Also in real life, those same LA Riots answered the often asked question, "Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle with high capacity magazine? There is no credible argument that which already happened cannot happen.

Where was LA Law enforcement during those riots? They were in a purely defensive crouch, protecting nothing and nobody-- largely on their way out of the courtroom that just acquitted them of spanking poor Rodney, who would someday live to DUI again.

Those same cops regularly clean up the pink frothy chunks of victims of DUI on the asphalt in the many instances of drunks who fail to not accidentally hurt somebody else with their forced association behavior. No wonder they spanked Rodney.

Possessing the auto is not forced association. Possessing alcohol is not forced association. Deploying the auto is not forced association. Drinking the alcohol is not forced association.

Subjecting others to our ability to manage an actually deployed million ft-lbf dynamic event while under the influence of alcohol is exactly the instance of forced association with an absurd belief; the belief that it is reasonable to do so.

Drunk while deploying a rolling weapon of mass destruction...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...what is the evidence about what "most men have" in your stated case? After all, "will" and "free will" are two different things, but there seems to be some conflation here. I'd like to know what kind, if any, government we'd get out of this.

--Brant

Some children are born without brains. Some humans are retarded and others have become vegetables. I'll go out on a limb and say that they don't have much will. And I deliberately didn't write "free will".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most men have the will to do what they please, within reality. That's freedom. We are free to do what we will, and the limits we place are only on ourselves. And the reaction of others to that will - good or bad - is separate.

Two men who have no inclination to murder each other wouldn't draw a social contract to prohibit one from murdering the other.

Hobbes had a different view of this situation. In nature, men do as they will within the boundaries of their capability . In this situation where there is no external restraint on what they do the life of man, as Hobbes says is "solitary, nasty, brutish and short". Which is why we need government to restrain what people do with the fear of punishment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So did Hobbes support his government because without it he was nasty and brutal?

Understanding that a problem exists is not the same as knowing why it does. And whatever the problem is, correcting it begins with the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did Hobbes support his government because without it he was nasty and brutal?

Understanding that a problem exists is not the same as knowing why it does. And whatever the problem is, correcting it begins with the individual.

Hobbes believed all men could or would be nasty in a pinch if there was no external constraint on their actions. In nature, all have equal right to seek what they wish. Of course what one would get depends on one's strength and cleverness. Hobbes believed that the only way men could live in peace was to be constrained by the laws of a commonwealth.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most men have the will to do what they please, within reality. That's freedom. We are free to do what we will, and the limits we place are only on ourselves. And the reaction of others to that will - good or bad - is separate.

Two men who have no inclination to murder each other wouldn't draw a social contract to prohibit one from murdering the other.

Sure they would. It would be easy to agree to since they have no such desire. Resolved: pigs shall not fly out of ... etc.

The disconnect is found at the junction of entry into society, i.e, birth. No one ever actually moved from a state of nature into a state of society. We are all born into societies: informational, post-industrial, developing, agrarian, hunter-gatherer. Perhaps (perhaps) about about 13,000 BCE very isolated very small clusters existed at the margins of the ice sheets. But realize that for a million years and sure for 30,000 years, for most other people, life went on today as it had yesterday and would tomorrow. Hobbes' construct is a construct.

Baal claimed:

Hobbes believed all men could or would be nasty in a pinch if there was no external constraint on their actions. In nature, all have equal right to seek what they wish. Of course what one would get depends on one's strength and cleverness. Hobbes believed that the only way men could live in peace was to be constrained by the laws of a commonwealth.

Again, it depends. Different people are different. Some (perhaps many) are passive. The Nietzschean Superman is not constrained, perhaps. By definition, such persons are few.

The fundamental question remains unanswered:

Do they have the power to drive drunk and carry guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now