Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Selene]

I'm just saying that this misconception of a conflict of interests needs to be straightened out before an understanding will be reached.

Calvin:

What are you presupposing with your statement?

What "understanding" needs to be reached?

But many people do not respect your right to protect yourself if it conflicts with their right to not be shot. <<<<What the heck does the highlighted red piece mean?

A...

[anthony]

Say there is a country divided between Bicycle Riders and Car Drivers.

The CD's say: As long as there are cars still out there - you're not getting me on one of those dangerous contraptions! My family and myself are more protected in a car, which I drive responsibly.

The BR's say: Ban cars! They kill. (And self-righteously: They pollute!)

Let the whole country ride bicycles!

Here in SA, one of the most prolific death-by-crime nations, road accident deaths far exceed gun deaths, maybe triple or more. I find myself giving little thought to violent crime though I've been personally held at gun-point. It's the roads that scare me, and pose the greater daily threat.

To me, an auto is a guided missile, whose unknown operator one has no choice but to trust.

I'd guess at such a higher road-death/gun death statistic in the USA, too - and does anyone there attempt to ban/control/regulate cars after a horrific smash that kills a family, for example?

Every week?

No national outcry? Where's the consistency?

No. It was "an accident". News for you - basically there are few, true accidents.

Cars don't kill people, bad (ignorant, irrational, crazed) drivers kill people.

That a gun even exists, with the express purpose of killing, is what offends a certain people's mindset. That's what I think this is mostly all about.

[Brant Gaede]

Say there is a country divided between Bicycle Riders and Car Drivers.

The CD's say: As long as there are cars still out there - you're not getting me on one of those dangerous contraptions! My family and myself are more protected in a car, which I drive responsibly.

The BR's say: Ban cars! They kill. (And self-righteously: They pollute!)

Let the whole country ride bicycles!

Here in SA, one of the most prolific death-by-crime nations, road accident deaths far exceed gun deaths, maybe triple or more. I find myself giving little thought to violent crime though I've been personally held at gun-point. It's the roads that scare me, and pose the greater daily threat.

To me, an auto is a guided missile, whose unknown operator one has no choice but to trust.

I'd guess at such a higher road-death/gun death statistic in the USA, too - and does anyone there attempt to ban/control/regulate cars after a horrific smash that kills a family, for example?

Every week?

No national outcry? Where's the consistency?

No. It was "an accident". News for you - basically there are few, true accidents.

Cars don't kill people, bad (ignorant, irrational, crazed) drivers kill people.

That a gun even exists, with the express purpose of killing, is what offends a certain people's mindset. That's what I think this is mostly all about.

"Mostly all about" defending, not "killing."

--Brant

mixing up military with civilian

[Selene]

No. It was "an accident". News for you - basically there are few, true accidents.

Cars don't kill people, bad (ignorant, irrational, crazed) drivers kill people.

That a gun even exists, with the express purpose of killing, is what offends a certain people's mindset. That's what I think this is mostly all about.

Tony:

Solid argument.

A...

[Dglgmut]

I'm just saying that this misconception of a conflict of interests needs to be straightened out before an understanding will be reached.

Calvin:

What are you presupposing with your statement?

What "understanding" needs to be reached?

But many people do not respect your right to protect yourself if it conflicts with their right to not be shot. <<<<What the heck does the highlighted red piece mean?

A...

There are some deaths that would be prevented by banning guns. In the case of accidental deaths, the victims have not had their rights violated to any lesser extent than those that die because they aren't allowed to use a gun to protect themselves--having your life taken by one person or 10,000 people does not make it any more or less of a tragedy.

Gun bans are theoretically a form of self-defense because they do save certain lives, but as Thomas Sowell said, "There are no solutions, only trade-offs." If we are trading 50 saved lives for 100 deaths, all of which are innocent people, then we shouldn't save those 50 lives.

The understanding that needs to be reached is that legal gun ownership does not come at the expense of the individual's safety; that it is not a choice between freedom and security.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm just saying that this misconception of a conflict of interests needs to be straightened out before an understanding will be reached.

Calvin:

What are you presupposing with your statement?

What "understanding" needs to be reached?

But many people do not respect your right to protect yourself if it conflicts with their right to not be shot. <<<<What the heck does the highlightedred piece mean?

A...

There are some deaths that would be prevented by banning guns. In the case of accidental deaths, the victims have not had their rights violated to any lesser extent than those that die because they aren't allowed to use a gun to protect themselves--having your life taken by one person or 10,000 people does not make it any more or less of a tragedy.

Gun bans are theoretically a form of self-defense because they do save certain lives, but as Thomas Sowell said, "There are no solutions, only trade-offs." If we are trading 50 saved lives for 100 deaths, all of which are innocent people, then we shouldn't save those 50 lives.

The understanding that needs to be reached is that legal gun ownership does not come at the expense of the individual's safety; that it is not a choice between freedom and security.

Utopian reasoning?

--Brant

"accidental deaths" are outside the right (truth) of rights--one is a positive right (outside) and the implied right is negative (inside)

instead of 50 for a hundred, how about 100 for 50?--still the same utilitarian fallacy

[Dglgmut]

What happened to the right to life? If the people who would be killed accidentally by legal guns knew before hand, gun control is one way they could act in self-defense. It is utilitarian, but utilitarianism still deals with real human beings.

How is society supposed to support legal guns if they think it's a threat to society? Rights must be applicable to all people equally in order for them to be considered rights, but when one person's rights conflict with another person's, it comes down to utilitarianism...

In a town of 100 people, where 1 wants to whistle, and the rest hate it... whistling should be banned. The right to whistle and the right to not hear whistling are of equal weight, but the fact that more people do not want to hear it means that it is only reasonable to ban whistling for their sake.

We have to share the world in many ways; we affect each other whether we want to or not. We can try to keep things separate as much as possible, to allow people to succeed and fail on their own terms... but gun control is one of those things that gets into an area of the world that is shared.

If legal guns actually did contribute to violent crimes, I'd be against them because more (innocent) people dying is worse than fewer (innocent) people dying. Because one person dies by accident does not make their death any less of a violation of rights than a person sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit.

Legal guns are good for society.

[Selene]

Calvin:

Your essential premise is that "some" "entity" should be "empowered" in some "mystical" manner to oversee reality and "manage" the human herd is fascinating in it's Utopian wish fulfillment.

This type of "Platonic" fascism has it's roots in a "childlike" fascination with preventing the "accidents" of life, and, learning, that makes living truly worthwhile.

If I am incorrect in my understanding of your point of view, tell me where, and, why.

What "ifs" scenarios in your 557 post above, border on the delusional. What if hell freezes over and we are all dead? These what ifs are mental masturbation.

A...

[Dglgmut]

Well, what gives you the right to own a gun? Because it's your property, right? You can't claim it is your right to carry a gun on someone else's property when they have asked you not to, obviously.

But what happens when what you do on your property puts other people at risk? Is it still your right just because it's your property?

Why is one person's fear of being disarmed any more legitimate than another person's fear of being shot or having a family member shot by a legal gun?

[Mikee]

Calvin, your desire to live a risk free life with "someone" else removing all the risk has results like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373571/The-perfect-pitiless-Nazi--Soldiers-interviews-reveal-German-troops-driven-bloodlust-killed-fun.html

Every day driving your car, shopping for groceries, riding the bus, walking down the street, you pass by, perhaps bump into, people who given the right circumstances would be like this.

[Dglgmut]

I don't desire to live a risk free life... I don't believe one is possible.

What I'm trying to explain is that the gun control debate does not revolve around whether or not people have the right to self-defense. That is not the point.

Can self-defense be preemptive (as in, disarming the public)? Yes, self-defense is always preemptive--otherwise it's retaliation.

How can you claim that someone was going to hurt or kill you if they didn't actually do it?

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

The point is not whether or not people should be allowed to defend themselves, but what form of self-defense is most effective. Remember, self-defense is all about protecting individual rights. So if guns should be legal or illegal depends on how it effects individuals' rights (the right to life, in particular).

Attacking a country that is building a nuclear bomb is an invasion of that country's rights... but it is also a protection of the rights of the people who are believed to be at risk of being attacked by that country. It's a trade-off.

There are only very few instances where self-defense is a legitimate claim for banning guns... but most people do not understand that. They think that all the guns would basically dissapear. On top of that they are ignorant of what it means to the relationship between "the people" and the government.

All I'm saying is that the principle that you can do and own whatever you want on your own property is not argument enough.

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't desire to live a risk free life... I don't believe one is possible.

What I'm trying to explain is that the gun control debate does not revolve around whether or not people have the right to self-defense. That is not the point.

Can self-defense be preemptive (as in, disarming the public)? Yes, self-defense is always preemptive--otherwise it's retaliation.

How can you claim that someone was going to hurt or kill you if they didn't actually do it?

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

The point is not whether or not people should be allowed to defend themselves, but what form of self-defense is most effective. Remember, self-defense is all about protecting individual rights. So if guns should be legal or illegal depends on how it effects individuals' rights (the right to life, in particular).

Attacking a country that is building a nuclear bomb is an invasion of that country's rights... but it is also a protection of the rights of the people who are believed to be at risk of being attacked by that country. It's a trade-off.

There are only very few instances where self-defense is a legitimate claim for banning guns... but most people do not understand that. They think that all the guns would basically dissapear. On top of that they are ignorant of what it means to the relationship between "the people" and the government.

All I'm saying is that the principle that you can do and own whatever you want on your own property is not argument enough.

Here is a lesson from the Babylonian Talmud:

If he comes to kill you, rise up early and kill him first.

That is right out of the Jewish Survival Manual.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mikee]

"People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder."

No. Your amorphous "people" cannot have a unified defined purpose. There are at least two types: 1. Those who desire not to have to act or think at all for their own defense or for anyone else. 2. Those who want to ban private ownership of guns in order to get and insure total government control of everything in society with them in charge.

Even if a gun ban succeeded if removing ALL guns of every kind from private hands you would have only made a majority of the population prey to the ruthless predators among them. You would have a less civilized society where the strongest gangs can prey on the weakest members of society with impunity. The handgun is called "the great equalizer" with good reason. The removal of our constitutional rights would have a devastating effect on the protections provided by our professional military who swear to uphold our constitutionally given individual rights. If those rights don't exist what are they swearing to? Allegiance to whoever happens to be in power? I think the best of our officer corp would leave and the military would attract only thugs. Read up on military history and the history of guns and their effect on civilized society. The Swiss would be a good place to start. Stop thinking like a collectivist.

[caroljane]

"People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder."

No. Your amorphous "people" cannot have a unified defined purpose. There are at least two types: 1. Those who desire not to have to act or think at all for their own defense or for anyone else. 2. Those who want to ban private ownership of guns in order to get and insure total government control of everything in society with them in charge.

Stop thinking like a collectivist.

No. people who want to ban guns, or limit their accessibility, are not "types" and especially not the types you imagine.

Calvin is right. The wish to live with the fewest guns available in society is a self-defensive wish. It is based among other things on statistical probabilities.

you too Mikee, need to stop thinking like a collectivist about individuals who disagree with you.

[Mikee]

You don't understand what a collectivist is duance because you don't know what an individualist is, but at least you don't claim to be an objectivist. I said "at least" two types. As usual you ignore the substance of my remarks. I've ceased to expect more from you.

[Dglgmut]

"People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder."

No. Your amorphous "people" cannot have a unified defined purpose. There are at least two types: 1. Those who desire not to have to act or think at all for their own defense or for anyone else. 2. Those who want to ban private ownership of guns in order to get and insure total government control of everything in society with them in charge.

Even if a gun ban succeeded if removing ALL guns of every kind from private hands you would have only made a majority of the population prey to the ruthless predators among them. You would have a less civilized society where the strongest gangs can prey on the weakest members of society with impunity. The handgun is called "the great equalizer" with good reason. The removal of our constitutional rights would have a devastating effect on the protections provided by our professional military who swear to uphold our constitutionally given individual rights. If those rights don't exist what are they swearing to? Allegiance to whoever happens to be in power? I think the best of our officer corp would leave and the military would attract only thugs. Read up on military history and the history of guns and their effect on civilized society. The Swiss would be a good place to start. Stop thinking like a collectivist.

Just a couple things. "Stop thinking like a collectivist."--Most people in society do think like collectivists, and I'm sure you're well aware that it is in your own best interest to learn to persuade those people to allow civility into our "civilization". In order to do that, shouldn't we all take the time to "think like a collectivist"?

As far as "the great equalizer", it is true that it does balance power in many ways. The ultimate balance of power, perhaps, would be if every individual carried a detonator that could instantly destroy the world. Nobody would be negligent enough to step on another person's toes in this ultimately equal society.

And finally, personal accountability is what society is lacking, and I'm sure we agree on this, but the right to bear arms does allow for consequences of one's actions to fall on another person. Legal guns have negative effects on society, just like any policy does. This is the point that has to be conceded by the pro-gunners if they hope to enter into a rational argument. Disregarding this fact inadvertently discredits the rest, and the really good parts, of the pro-gun argument.

So the advocates of gun control feel comfortable basing their argument on selective statistics, and instead of saying, "Well, actually, most of that violent crime cannot be prevented by gun control... and the cost in innocent lives would actually be worse because in most cases (here we are being utilitarian) legally owned guns contribute to preventing crimes," the pro-gunner talks about the right to self-defense.

The fact that prohibition does not work is not being stressed enough.

[caroljane]

You don't understand what a collectivist is duance because you don't know what an individualist is, but at least you don't claim to be an objectivist. I said "at least" two types. As usual you ignore the substance of my remarks. I've ceased to expect more from you.

I do not always ignore the substance of your remarks. In fact, I meant to thank you for commiserating with me when my back seized up (nobody else did; I called my friends who have chronic bad backs and they were very dismissive, as I only suffered for two days and they have been suffering for years).I agree strongly that chiropractors are useless (in fact their neck manipulations can be downright dangerous); chiropractic theory is simplistic and their recognition as "doctors" is a triumph of PR-- but I digress.

I don't subscribe to Objectivism but I do know a fair bit about it, and one thing I know is that is relies on defining, or redefining words and phrases such as collectivism and individualism. And yes, our definitions would be different.

[Mikee]

"And finally, personal accountability is what society is lacking, and I'm sure we agree on this, but the right to bear arms does allow for consequences of one's actions to fall on another person."

Every single action of any kind made by any person can result in a negative consequence to themselves or another person. Persons in hospitals make treatment errors that result in deaths, there are 100's of deaths on the highways from people simply trying to move from one location to another. We don't tear down hospitals or ban cars. The thing is to encourage self responsibility, awareness, intelligence in peoples actions. You don't do this by banning things, by acting as if there is some higher power than our individual minds that can take over responsibility for our actions and make everything "safe". Mankind is the greatest and most dangerous predator that ever walked the face of the earth. Men were killing and eating things the size of houses thousands of years before guns existed. They were also killing other men.

I believe you read the article I posted about the German WWII soldiers. Did you make note of the very end? Where the German said he can forget the people they killed but will have to live with the horses they shot until his dying day. People do not respect other people who put themselves into positions of helplessness and weakness. It's human nature (amongst the people you need to fear). You will hear them say things like "Well, he deserved to die". Simply for being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. Philosophy has nothing to do with it, deserves got nothing to do with it. Sorry if you don't like to hear this.

[Dglgmut]

Every single action of any kind made by any person can result in a negative consequence to themselves or another person. Persons in hospitals make treatment errors that result in deaths, there are 100's of deaths on the highways from people simply trying to move from one location to another. We don't tear down hospitals or ban cars.

But when you agree to let a doctor operate on you, that is your choice. When choose to get into a car, that is your choice.

The argument coming from the left side of gun policy is that there are many people who don't choose to be around guns, and get shot anyway. Your job is to show them that this is less common than the kind of tragedies legal guns prevent.

It has nothing to do with people's choice to think or not... it's not like people are dying because they took the risk of going into a place where psychos have guns and therefore there is some personal accountability to consider. People aren't as worried about what harm they might do with a gun, but what harm others might do to them if they have guns.

[Mikee]

You don't understand what a collectivist is duance because you don't know what an individualist is, but at least you don't claim to be an objectivist. I said "at least" two types. As usual you ignore the substance of my remarks. I've ceased to expect more from you.

I do not always ignore the substance of your remarks. In fact, I meant to thank you for commiserating with me when my back seized up (nobody else did; I called my friends who have chronic bad backs and they were very dismissive, as I only suffered for two days and they have been suffering for years).I agree strongly that chiropractors are useless (in fact their neck manipulations can be downright dangerous); chiropractic theory is simplistic and their recognition as "doctors" is a triumph of PR-- but I digress.

I don't subscribe to Objectivism but I do know a fair bit about it, and one thing I know is that is relies on defining, or redefining words and phrases such as collectivism and individualism. And yes, our definitions would be different.

Glad you're feeling better which I assume you are. Everybody gets back pains from time to time, it's a pretty miserable time.

Yeah. Definitions. We definitely don't look at things the same way. I look for first principles and patterns. I'm very fond of Ayn Rand but I think of her as an awesome individualist and author more than a philosopher. I don't judge people at all as long as they let me be. I got an 8" Dobsonion telescope for Christmas, I've joined the Mt. Diablo Astronomical Society so when the weather gets nice I probably won't be on OL all that much. Too much to look at. There's supposed to be a spectacular comet swinging by later in 2013. I want to be up on Mt. Diablo getting some good pictures say around Sept. I wish you well Carol.

[Mikee]

Every single action of any kind made by any person can result in a negative consequence to themselves or another person. Persons in hospitals make treatment errors that result in deaths, there are 100's of deaths on the highways from people simply trying to move from one location to another. We don't tear down hospitals or ban cars.

But when you agree to let a doctor operate on you, that is your choice. When choose to get into a car, that is your choice.

The argument coming from the left side of gun policy is that there are many people who don't choose to be around guns, and get shot anyway. Your job is to show them that this is less common than the kind of tragedies legal guns prevent.

It has nothing to do with people's choice to think or not... it's not like people are dying because they took the risk of going into a place where psychos have guns and therefore there is some personal accountability to consider. People aren't as worried about what harm they might do with a gun, but what harm others might do to them if they have guns.

Please speak for yourself. What do YOU think?

[Brant Gaede]

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

You are embracing collectivism in the name of safety--i.e., "self-defense." If rights were a human being you have skinned him and put on his skin.

--Brant

[Selene]

Apparently Mikee:

We can present clear, unbiased statistics that establish that an armed populace dramatically reduces crimes:

1) rapes, dramatically down;

2) home invasions, dramatically down; and

3) general violent crime, dramatically down.

Calvin and Carol insist that this reality does not exist because, basically, they "feel" that the bad guns get up in the morning and march out into reality with the legs that they do not have and randomly fire bullets into random civilians.

See, it is the guns fault. Just like the car that allows itself to be started by the drunk. It is not the drunk's fault. It is the cars fault for transporting the drunk.

It is, frankly, hopeless to argue with folks that refuse to:

1) introduce facts;

2) have a basic assumption that is connected to reality; and

3) apply some form of logical reasoning that comes to a conclusion.

A...

[Dglgmut]

Apparently Mikee:

We can present clear, unbiased statistics that establish that an armed populace dramatically reduces crimes:

1) rapes, dramatically down;

2) home invasions, dramatically down; and

3) general violent crime, dramatically down.

Calvin and Carol insist that this reality does not exist because, basically, they "feel" that the bad guns get up in the morning and march out into reality with the legs that they do not have and randomly fire bullets into random civilians.

See, it is the guns fault. Just like the car that allows itself to be started by the drunk. It is not the drunk's fault. It is the cars fault for transporting the drunk.

It is, frankly, hopeless to argue with folks that refuse to:

1) introduce facts;

2) have a basic assumption that is connected to reality; and

3) apply some form of logical reasoning that comes to a conclusion.

A...

Jesus. You obviously haven't read a word that I've posted. I am clearly against gun control.

Can you not admit that in at least the cases of accidental deaths, there are certain people who would be better off with gun bans... ie. alive. If you don't admit this, nobody is going to take you seriously when you point out the fact that most of their gun crime statistics involve gangs and recidivists who would not be affected by a change in the law.

With the amount of deaths and injuries caused by automobiles, why aren't people asking for automobile bans? Because they know the uses exceed the gain. Not because it is our human right to drive, especially in the case of pedestrian deaths... it's a utilitarian approach. If we didn't have those people dying from car accidents, how many more people would we have dying from starvation, or how much lower would the average life expectancy fall to?

It is not anyone's human right to have a nuclear bomb in their backyard, even if it is their property. It would be a threat to humanity... and that's how gun control advocates see guns... so I think it would be best to focus your arguments on this misunderstanding...

[Dglgmut]

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

You are embracing collectivism in the name of safety--i.e., "self-defense." If rights were a human being you have skinned him and put on his skin.

--Brant

And what rights do you have when you've been killed by a legally owned gun? Again, this is not about the right to self-defense. This is about whose self-defense. Which is more important, the rights violations of victims of legal guns, or the rights violations of victims of gun control? Since each innocent human life should be considered with equal weight under the law, the logical choice is to protect the rights of the majority--the victims of gun control.