Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Brant Gaede]

Automobiles are not intended as murder weapons, and a firearm does not know if a user is bad or not. You evade my very simple point.

I'd like to see the data to your point. That something seems commonsensically true doesn't make it so. There are a lot more things than autos and guns that can be intended as murder weapons. Knives, rocks, IEDs, sodium azide, arsenic (and old lace), etc.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I mean, manufactured as weapons, intended for only one use, as Ayn Rand said.

[caroljane]

I believe your burden is one of disproof. I cannot find any data of a location of most firearms, yet least bullet wounds or kills. I do not speak of crime decrease collectively, and please do not trot out Lott one more time.

[caroljane]

To be clear, I do not speak of civil order, or crime prevention, or property protection or real estate values raised or lowered. but of life, individual life, mine, yours, its, and yes, Trayvon Martins.

[Brant Gaede]

I mean, manufactured as weapons, intended for only one use, as Ayn Rand said.

Rand was wrong, but you're sharing that with her. In the 1950s the U.S. created the Strategic Air Command which consisted of heavy bombers loaded with nuclear weapons. A portion of these bombers were always aloft and the rest ready to go at the drop of a hat. They had one purpose, maintaining peace. That was the intention.

During WWII the U.S, created B-17 and B-29 heavy bombing forces. Their purpose was to help win a war already under way. That was the intention. That was the result.

If I own firearms my intention is my peace and security, not to go out and murder someone; not even to pull the trigger in self defense. Mere display of weapon can do that. In Vietnam my intention was to kill. Soldiers don't carry assault rifles for defensive purposes. American civilians, almost all of them, who do own guns, own them for defense, hunting, sport, or just loving their presence. Then there are the criminals.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Yes, I know.

But mere display saved no lives in Florida, did it? Was it even tried?

Armed citizens are not soldiers, as you note. An armed citizenry is a cross section , and equally armed will unequally kill and wound. Unarmmed, kills would be fewer, as knives, cars, blankets etc are less efficient at murder.

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, I know.

But mere display saved no lives in Florida, did it? Was it even tried?

Armed citizens are not soldiers, as you note. An armed citizenry is a cross section , and equally armed will unequally kill and wound. Unarmmed, kills would be fewer, as knives, cars, blankets etc are less efficient at murder.

We don't know Florida. No one incident has any statistical value whatsoever.

--Brant

[caroljane]

True, it does not.

And so, you do not project your own experience of self-defence as any indicator of self-defensive action in principle? If youd carried a firearm and not a knife, would you be now a killer or just a wounder? You still would be self-saved from rape. You would be justified. Does even an attempted rapist deserve to die immediately?

[Brant Gaede]

True, it does not.

And so, you do not project your own experience of self-defence as any indicator of self-defensive action in principle? If youd carried a firearm and not a knife, would you be now a killer or just a wounder? You still would be self-saved from rape. You would be justified. Does even an attempted rapist deserve to die immediately?

It's one thing to refer to what you know through your own experience, but when it comes to others it becomes more problematical. As for self-defense, if you have the right to defend yourself you have the right to defend yourself with something. The guy I cut wasn't badly hurt and I raised a ruckus so others came and intervened. I used minimal force. I only wanted him to get away from me. Later I said I didn't remember the incident, ending the matter. Carrying a firearm into that outdoor party in Sedona would have been completely uncalled for and I wouldn't have done it even if I had had one. If I had gone as a guard I would have been standing off to one side and not participating. He only tried to take advantage of me because I was drunk. The next time I got that drunk drinking red and white--actually drunker--was in 1978 at the bottom of the Grand Canyon on a dory trip. I was flat on my back and couldn't get up. I seldom drank, even in the army.

--Brant

[caroljane]

As you say, to carry a firearm to a party is uncalled for, as it would be to carry to work or university or a store or a picnic or to mass or to anyplace in civil life.

Killers are uncalled for, and as fewer weapons available for killers to own, fewer are killed.

[Brant Gaede]

As you say, to carry a firearm to a party is uncalled for, as it would be to carry to work or university or a store or a picnic or to mass or to anyplace in civil life.

Planning on drinking?

--Brant

go to Israel and watch soldiers dance with assault rifles strapped to their shoulders--if they lose the gun they'll get seven years in the slammer

[Selene]

Yes Carol, let's not bring up Lott because his massive statistical work proves that more guns equal less violent crime.

Your argument is more guns equal more casualties which should be quite easy to prove. For example, Chicago has strict gun control laws and therefore, by your argument, there should be almost no gun wounds, murders, etc. ...Correct?

[caroljane]

If you can enumerate # of firearms actually located in said city, please do so.

It is not a city well known for law conformity.

[caroljane]

And O sly! No, my contention is more control equals fewer kills. You must compare to a similar population in a more weapon controlled place. You almost fooled me!

[Brant Gaede]

Yes Carol, let's not bring up Lott because his massive statistical work proves that more guns equal less violent crime.

Your argument is more guns equal more casualties which should be quite easy to prove. For example, Chicago has strict gun control laws and therefore, by your argument, there should be almost no gun wounds, murders, etc. ...Correct?

No, Adam, I don't think that's her argument. I don't recall her saying gun control laws are effective and should be used therefore. At least in my back and forth with her it's less guns less dead and wounded by guns yes or no? My point is that's way too much simplicity for--what?, and for her argument. Not too much problem with guns in Great B. Never mind all the violent crime because the citizen is disarmed to the point he cannot even use force to defend hearth, wealth and self. If I lived in Canada I'd generally be less needful of having a gun than in the U.S. I still don't pack here in Tucson. Legally I can carry concealed without a permit in most places.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I see I was wrong--about "controls."

--Brant

[caroljane]

Brant, you were correct. I was simplistic, and I do believe, at base, fewer opportunities equal fewer successes, in access to murder weapons. Simplicity is for....yes, control. If it were possible I would be for abolition. And I am a rifle owner, remember.

[Brant Gaede]

And O sly! No, my contention is more control equals fewer kills. You must compare to a similar population in a more weapon controlled place. You almost fooled me!

The right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not a primary right. The primary right is the right to self defense. If the 2nd was primary then criminals would have the right to bear arms--to commit criminal acts. That's one reason some libertarians have problems with the idea of I've got a right to have a nuclear bomb ready to go in my garage. No, you don't.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Yes Carol, let's not bring up Lott because his massive statistical work proves that more guns equal less violent crime.

Your argument is more guns equal more casualties which should be quite easy to prove. For example, Chicago has strict gun control laws and therefore, by your argument, there should be almost no gun wounds, murders, etc. ...Correct?

Lott proved in a few locales, various crimes decreased for a limited time after an NRA victory. Any alternate reasons for a decrease, like criminals forced to move operations, or local political pressure, are discounted. Lott said zero about number of firearms actually out in population before or after/

[caroljane]

And O sly! No, my contention is more control equals fewer kills. You must compare to a similar population in a more weapon controlled place. You almost fooled me!

The right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not a primary right. The primary right is the right to self defense. If the 2nd was primary then criminals would have the right to bear arms--to commit criminal acts. That's one reason some libertarians have problems with the idea of I've got a right to have a nuclear bomb ready to go in my garage. No, you don't.

--Brant

Yes, ! if Foundin Dads could speak , I believe it would be sensibly about differences between an 18tcentury citizenry at war, and descendants and circumstances. Basic principle would still obtain.

[Brant Gaede]

And O sly! No, my contention is more control equals fewer kills. You must compare to a similar population in a more weapon controlled place. You almost fooled me!

The right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not a primary right. The primary right is the right to self defense. If the 2nd was primary then criminals would have the right to bear arms--to commit criminal acts. That's one reason some libertarians have problems with the idea of I've got a right to have a nuclear bomb ready to go in my garage. No, you don't.

--Brant

Yes, ! if Foundin Dads could speak , I believe it would be sensibly about differences between an 18tcentury citizenry at war, and descendants and circumstances. Basic principle would still obtain.

There is also the right to bear arms against tyrannical government. It's self defense, you know?

--Brant

[anthony]

And O sly! No, my contention is more control equals fewer kills. You must compare to a similar population in a more weapon controlled place. You almost fooled me!

The right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not a primary right. The primary right is the right to self defense. If the 2nd was primary then criminals would have the right to bear arms--to commit criminal acts. That's one reason some libertarians have problems with the idea of I've got a right to have a nuclear bomb ready to go in my garage. No, you don't.

--Brant

Yes, ! if Foundin Dads could speak , I believe it would be sensibly about differences between an 18tcentury citizenry at war, and descendants and circumstances. Basic principle would still obtain.

There is also the right to bear arms against tyrannical government. It's self defense, you know?

--Brant

Is that tongue in cheek, Brant?

Circumstances have surely changed - specifically technology, the size of 'guns' - leaving private gun-ownership contra tyranny as merely symbolic, I think. For more wrong reasons than right, governments now hold the monopoly on force.

Huge Govment + Huge Weaponry could not have been envisaged by the Fathers except

in their worst nightmares.

[Dglgmut]

The law is the topic of discussion here, not hypotheticals with no connection to reality. Why don't you just say less bad people would mean less crime, we can't have a law to enforce it, but hey, it's an argument.

The fact that you think shooting sprees would be more common if we had less gun control laws is absurd. How do you even make a move to pull out a gun in a sea of armed citizens?

The question I really want to know your answer to now is: Do you believe police should carry guns?

[Brant Gaede]

And O sly! No, my contention is more control equals fewer kills. You must compare to a similar population in a more weapon controlled place. You almost fooled me!

The right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not a primary right. The primary right is the right to self defense. If the 2nd was primary then criminals would have the right to bear arms--to commit criminal acts. That's one reason some libertarians have problems with the idea of I've got a right to have a nuclear bomb ready to go in my garage. No, you don't.

--Brant

Yes, ! if Foundin Dads could speak , I believe it would be sensibly about differences between an 18tcentury citizenry at war, and descendants and circumstances. Basic principle would still obtain.

There is also the right to bear arms against tyrannical government. It's self defense, you know?

--Brant

Is that tongue in cheek, Brant?

Circumstances have surely changed - specifically technology, the size of 'guns' - leaving private gun-ownership contra tyranny as merely symbolic, I think. For more wrong reasons than right, governments now hold the monopoly on force.

Huge Govment + Huge Weaponry could not have been envisaged by the Fathers except

in their worst nightmares.

It's not tongue in cheek. You're imagining the full military power of the US government employed against deer hunters and today as tororrow without the complexity.

--Brant

[Selene]

Add to the mix that there would be patriotic members of the military that would join the resistance and take valuable weaponry with them.