Gun Control, Nuclear Proliferation, and Free Societies

[Phil Elmore]

A thread on gun control at another forum touched on the usual arguments ("Guns have only one purpose..." "If those parents had been more responsible, that little girl who shot herself would be alive today," etc.), plus the concept that the USA's interference with other nations' development of nuclear weapons constituted the failure to recognize their rights to arm themselves for self-defense. I wrote the following as a reply and thought I'd share it here:

--------------------------------------------------------

Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only: to launch projectiles at high speed in a direction away from the firearm.

All tools -- firearms, hammers, kitchen knives, jacks, battery-operated "massagers," tire pressure gauges, toothpicks, fireplace pokers, electron microscopes, egg beaters, toasters, wrenches, "Salad Shooters," and Garden Weasels included -- can be misused. Inanimate objects possess neither volition nor intent; their presence or absence no more causes crime than the presence of my toaster forces me to make toast. Certainly my toaster facilitates the cooking of bread -- but in its absence, if I wished to make my bread warm, there are numerous ways to make this happen regardless of laws forbidding the consumption of toast.

The government of a free society can and should make a good faith effort to protect its citizens before the fact -- but when those efforts infringe on individual natural rights, we no longer live in a free society. Residents must constantly ask themselves: what level of prior restraint are we willing to accept? At what point does treating all individuals as criminals who have not yet committed crime constitute a violation of individual rights in the name of such prior restraint?

Advocates of firearms prohibition seek to create a world in which people who wish to do harm cannot do harm because they lack the physical means -- but this is impossible, and reality has quite clearly taught us that disarming the law-abiding merely empowers those who retain ill intent and do not care what laws they break. Even in a world where all firearms could be magically erased, human beings would be at the mercy of the most aggressive, the strongest, the most numerous -- and thus society's predators would have license to do as they wished, in the absence of the equalizers that make average citizens less attractive prey.

Beware, in seeking to find meaning in the "gun control" debate, the fallacious thinking of inappropriate analogies. Nations are not individuals, and nuclear weapons are not tools of individual self-defense. If I choose to use my handgun against a mugger while others are within twenty feet but not in my direct line of fire, I am exercising my right to self-defense. If, however, I choose to to use my hand grenade to accomplish the same feat, I am both dangerously suicidal and a threat to all others in the vicinity -- and thus my action is not an issue of individual self-defense, but a political problem affecting all in the room.

A single nuclear weapon is a not a knife clipped to the nation's metaphorical front pocket, nor a Glock in a shoulder holster; it is a lighted stick of dynamite thrown in the general direction of the enemy.

A nuclear arsenal is not wood-grain glass-fronted case full of shotguns in metaphor; it is a butane lighter in a room whose occupants stand ankle-deep in kerosene.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" -- the doctrine on which nuclear proliferation as "self-defense" on the national scale is based -- is not applicable to individual arms, which is what handheld weapons like firearms and knives happen to be. We do not buy handguns and then hold them to our neighbor's heads twenty-four hours a day while they hold their guns to our heads, each of us hoping no one will pull a trigger. It is not an applicable analogy.

For those interested in more information on natural rights and from where our innate rights are derived, please see "Manifesto of the Mind: Natural Law, Rights, Property, and Government" here:

http://www.philelmore.com/objectivism/rights.htm

 

[Cthulhu]

I do not advocate banning firearms in the United States. However, I do believe that there should be more regulation and control, in particular, a national system of licensing, similar to driver's licenses.

But that's just my wingnut view.

Cthulhu

 

[chufeng]

Blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for fat people...

Nice post.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[arnisador]

I find Rand's Objectivism interesting. I view it as an outgrowth of Peirce's Pragmatism though historically this is not entirely historically accurate.

I have had mixed thoughts upon reading that the sniper victims' families will sue the gunmaker. My first thought is that it's preposterous, and yet lawsuits like this often force safety and other improvements (locks, fingerprinting of bullets, closer supervision of guns and investigation of gunbuyers, etc.). When the British officer was stabbed and killed recently they pointed out how rare that was in the UK. It's surely different here. Guns are easily gotten and too often misused, be it by accident or design.

The tool analogy is of limited value--this is a tool which, when properly used, kills things. One might argue somewhat facetitously that in that regard it's simialr to tobacco! While I agree that the extreme of comparing it to a nuclear weapon is too much of an exaggeration, there's a heap paradox here--I don't mind if you own a slingshot, but where do we draw the line as we proceed to crossbow, revolver, semi-automatic small caliber pistol, fully automatic pistol large caliber pistol, automatic rifle,... (please forgive me if I misuse gun terminology--I am not a gun, er, firearm person). Is a shotgun or rifle a weapon of individual defense? Submachine gun? Are you prepared to give a list, or a definition that can be applied case-by-case?

There's also the practical issue--guns are used to kill lots of people. Outlawing malfeasance and stupidity to eliminate homicides and accidental deaths is impractical. Like it or not, restricting guns could in principle work (though prohibition as we know has its own set of problems). You're arguing a philosophical point about rights and a practical point about individual self-defense; I might grant that philosophically you should be allowed to have a gun, but I might say that politics is the art of compromise and that attacking the problem where one can may be the only approach. How many cities have made spray paint illegal or restricted?

There is a whole board for topics like this where we have only a forum!

 

[chufeng]

In fact, in MOST places where gun control laws are strict...violent crimes escalated after the laws were enacted...why? Because the bad guys kept theirs and the threat of being shot by a law-abiding citizen vanished. Conversely, in those areas where permits to carry concealed (a sort of licensure, if you will) are common...there is less violent crime.
There are plenty of laws on the books regarding violent behavior...if they were applied more strictly, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[M F]

How many cities have made spray paint illegal or restricted?

Many. The question is, how many of those cities have seen a decrease in vandalism? I would wager, none.

 

[Seig]

In some ways, it is sad. There are arguments both pro and con, all I know is that I have to have three different gun licenses and do. Maybe, if more people had to go through that to be able to obtain a firearm....nah. The fact of the matter is that there are laws already in place. The problems stem from enforcement of said laws or the lack thereof. I will not condemn the already overworked police officers nor the ATF. They have their hands full and I salute their efforts.

 

[Cthulhu]

I agree with the problems enforcing gun laws. There should be a national set of laws instead of having different regulation practices in every state. For example, in Florida, it is very easy to get a concealed weapons permit, but more difficult in say, Massachusetts.

Having different sets of regulations and penalties for every state makes it that much more difficult to enforce those laws for any single federal law enforcement agency.

Cthulhu

 

[Kirk]

There should also be a nation permit to carry.

 

[Cthulhu]

That's what I mean, a national set of regulation covering all aspects of gun legislation and control.

Fat chance of that happening.

Cthulhu

 

[MountainSage]

Gentlmen and women,
Get off the fence folks! The gun debate is foolish for many reasons. The two most important, in my humble opinion, are that you will never be able to legislate intelligents/ common sense and our constitution protect the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS". I own a few rifles, but use them very little, shoot coyotes, marmets, and the occassional domestic dog from town( I am a sheep rancher). Beyond these activities I have little use for guns, but do not deny anyone else the right to own. I strongly disagree with any requirement to license ownership, it only services two purposes: For states to collect money from citizens and a record of who has guns, usually the law abiding people, notthe criminals.

Mountain Sage:soapbox:

 

[Elfan]

Actually I think gun control is an example of something that is best left up to the individual states. I live in Massachusetts. The gun control laws that are in place here and desired by the populous would not be appropriate in say Montana. Conversly the increased gun freedom in Montana would not be desired by the peopel of Massachusetts.

------

our constitution protect the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS"

The 2nd amendment to the US constitution protects the right of states to have militias, like the rest of the Bill of Rights it is intended to limit the power of the *federal* government, not the states.

 

[Jill666]

I disagree- I'm currently in the first stage of jumping through many hoops to get a liscence (How the HELL is that spelled- it's the small words that get me lol). I have never been convicted of a violent crime, and just want to protect myself. Meanwhile, I personally know several people who have unregistered guns, one of whom is a felon.

The weapons we own my husband has qualified for- God forbid he should go on another business trip and I need to shoot an intruder. I'll be legally screwed. (But breathing)

I just have what I admit is a pet peeve about the powers that be getting in my business a bit too much for my taste. I've called the cops on two addicts pissing in my front hall, waiting for my crack-dealing ex-neighbor. Fifteen minutes later they show up, after I've told them to get lost & gotten into an argument with the neighbor in question. But if I run a red light- all of a sudden those same cops are freakin' Johnny-on-the-spot.

Massachusetts needs an enema.

:soapbox:

 

[Cthulhu]

If I remember correctly, MA gun laws (particularly licensing) are much more strict than those of FL. In FL, you just need to take a firearms safety course, not be a convicted felon, and not have been recently certified insane. This is for a concealed weapons permit, by the way. I believe these are the requirements for just a Class B LTC in MA, which lets you buy a handgun, but not carry. As long as you're 21 and go through the mandatory waiting period and background check, you can buy a gun without needing any sort of license in FL.

Cthulhu

 

[yilisifu]

To support gunm rights, I strongly suggest joining the NRA. Although they have been the butt of many jokes and many political skirmishes (they are usually billed as the bad guys by the left-wing types), they have done more than any other organization in helping us maintain our right to bear arms.

During the Clinton administration, we came VERY close to losing that right. I watched in awe as Barbara Walters spoke disparingly of people who own "semi-automatic machine guns" (????) and Peter Jennings gave tremendously inflated statistics regarding the number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. (he was later forced, by the NRA and it's membership who sent him over a million letters DAILY for a week.....to recant what he had said).

The fact is that there ARE powerful people out there who do NOT want you to be able to obtain or carry a firearm of any kind and they will do whatever they can get away with to ensure that they get their way.

I remember that during that same administration, Sen. Kennedy (who can't swim, either) actually tried to pass a bill which would have OUTLAWED ALL MARTIAL ARTS WEAPONS! Yep. I actually SAW it. Fortunately, none of the idiots who wanted to pass this legislation could decide what constituted a "martial arts" weapon and the whole gimmick fell apart.

But the point is that they TRIED. And they're not finished trying, either.

When Washington, DC made the ownership of handguns illegal, their violent crime rate soared. Their homicide rate rate increased dramatically.

A small city in the south decided to pimp Washington and New York and actually required, by law, all citizens(of that town) over the age of 21 to carry a firearm when in public! You could be issued a ticket for NOT having one!
Their violent crime rate dropped to almost zero immediately. This was something they hadn't foreseen......

If the government takes your guns, they will then go after your swords and spears...at least as long as we have people like Kennedy in public office. The threat is very real.

Join the NRA. Keep your right to bear arms.

:soapbox:

 

[TLH3rdDan]

no amount of firearms legislation will prevent felons from obtaining what they want... if i wanted i could walk to a few select areas of nashville... yes nashville tn... and purchase anything from a 22 pistol to a MP-5 for the right price... it happens everyday... regardless of how many laws you pass and how many guns your take off the streets... the fact that remains is that those with the right amount of money and the total disrespect for the law and human life can obtain what they want when they want it in order to accomplish their crimes... besides say we got rid of all firearms in the united states... some how managed to have every person in the country who owns a gun both legally and illegally both law abiding and criminal to turn in the guns... and we somehow magically prevent them from ever entering into our country...and they were all distroyed... do you really think that would prevent violent crimes such as murder, rape, and robbery... what would we outlaw next? knives? baseball bats? glass bottles? razors? forks? spoons? nails? as long as there is hate and jealousy and greed there will always be violence... as long as man can think we will always come up with a way to kill or hurt each other... what the ulitimate??? pad every inch of the world and put us all in bubble suits capable of defelcting every posible means of harm??? the thing is that people or violent... we have been killing each other from the dawn of time that will not change... simply do your best to enforce the laws we have (which are not being enforced half as well as they should be) and teach and educate the people as best as you can... sorry for the rant and rambling lol

 

[Cthulhu]

1. There is no way you can get every U.S. citizen to turn in their firearms. Won't happen. That would only end in extreme ugliness.

2. Create and enforce federal regulations and guidelines for firearms to be followed by every state. Every state will have the same requirements for ownership, carry licenses, etc.

3. Create and enfore strict penalties for those who do not comply with these laws (basically, criminals and the wingnuts who thing the gov't is out to get them). For example, if a convicted felon is caught with a firearm, back to the hokey-pokey they go, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200. For a long time.

4. A requirement for gun ownership should be a mandatory safety course, like many states do with driver licenses. If someone is injured due to carelessness on a gunowner's part, penalties will be severe since the legal ownership of the gun indicates the person was aware of the safety rules they broke. So, if your kid gets a gun and shoots someone, you go to the hokey-pokey for being stupid enough to leave the gun readily available.

5. Great Cthulhu thinks all weapons should be banned, as the taking of human life should be the sole right of His Evilness

Cthulhu

 

[MountainSage]

At least we know there is some common sense in Oregon and Iowa. A-men yilisifu.

Mountain Sage

 

[J-kid]

Fire arms protect us,
In Some countrys which they have banned guns law bidding citizeins had to hand over there guns wal street thugs did not.
The rate of Murders have gone up in those countrys due to the cops not having guns and people unable to protect themselves.
Go figure, Guns are good but you have to have gun safty and control.

 

[Nightingale]

Originally posted by M F
Many. The question is, how many of those cities have seen a decrease in vandalism? I would wager, none.

My hometown actually did.

High school/junior high age kids were buying spray paint and using it on the walls. The adults of the community were really pissed and passed a city recommendation that nobody under 21 could buy spraypaint. The places selling spraypaint unanimously decided to go along with it.

the graffiti was greatly reduced, simply because the kids couldn't get a hold of the paint, because the adults wouldn't buy it for them (this is the most important part!) and the stores wouldn't sell it to them. It only worked because the whole community supported it.

This argument, however, won't apply to gun control. There are many ways to kill someone, and only one to spraypaint a wall (yes, they could use buckets and brushes, but that takes forever and is a real good way to get caught).