Gun Tragedy, 5th grader suicide

[Drifterman]

A Libertarian against firearm ownership? That's a first. How exactly does that fit in with the Libertarian philosophy?

It fits in thus: I do not want anyone to have the ability to prevent me from doing something that does no harm to others. Someone carrying a gun inhibits my actions, because they have the ability to impose their will upon me. The same goes for the Police - they should also have limited access to firearms.

I believe that, on balance, the benefits to be had by widespread gun ownership are outweighed by the invasion of privacy that such devices entail.

I am not North American, so perhaps my brand of libertarian philosophy is unusual. So perhaps the title "Pragmatic Libertarian" would be more accurate.

 

[Drifterman]

A libertarian is free to choose what aspects of mainstream libertarianism to accept, no?

Just because an idea is part of the mainstream doesn't mean I must accept its logic.

The country I am living in now was, 15 years ago a 1 party dictatorship. Democracy (a secure one) was installed with no armed uprising, but by street protest and persistent activism. If the government had been so inclined, it could have crushed the protests by force (as indeed they had in the preceding 50 years)

 

[shanek]

I hoped I was showing that the USA has some sort of a mental block about controlling guns simply because of a vague constitutional ammendment "allowing" them,

Vague??? What the hell's vague about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"??? That seems pretty unequivocal to me!

 

[shanek]

]It fits in thus: I do not want anyone to have the ability to prevent me from doing something that does no harm to others.

Including carrying a gun?

Someone carrying a gun inhibits my actions,

How so?

because they have the ability to impose their will upon me.

Having the ability to do so and actually doing so are two different things. I have a d*ck, so I have the ability to rape a teenage girl. Should I be castrated just in case I might?

The same goes for the Police - they should also have limited access to firearms.

Oh, great...then we'll be at the mercy of the criminals, who will be the only ones with them!

 

[ImpyTimpy]

It fits in thus: I do not want anyone to have the ability to prevent me from doing something that does no harm to others. Someone carrying a gun inhibits my actions, because they have the ability to impose their will upon me. The same goes for the Police - they should also have limited access to firearms.

Hold on... What about knives? People can carry hidden knives in order to "impose their will upon you"... Does that mean knives are to be banned as well?

Also why should police have limited access to firearms? The police are there to protect your rights as a citizen. If you are to remove the tools with which they uphold order, what is to stop the criminal element from going rampant - or as you put it, from imposing their will upon yours?

I believe that, on balance, the benefits to be had by widespread gun ownership are outweighed by the invasion of privacy that such devices entail.

I am not North American, so perhaps my brand of libertarian philosophy is unusual. So perhaps the title "Pragmatic Libertarian" would be more accurate.

I'm not sure I understand how ownership of guns invades others privacy...

 

[Drifterman]

Hold on... What about knives? People can carry hidden knives in order to "impose their will upon you"... Does that mean knives are to be banned as well?

Ummm, carrying hidden knives is rather anti-social behaviour. And in many situations knives are banned, e.g football matches, airplanes, office buildings, schools, libraries, swiimming pools and so forth.

The reason for this ban is obvious, but worth repeating: it is to prevent individuals from inflicting serious injury on others. Of course there are those who flout those rules - that is the nature of rules!

However, the ability of an individual with a gun to impose their will upon another is far greater than that of an individual with a knife. This is why Armies are armed with guns (in addition to knives). To argue that a ban on the ownership of one implies a ban on the other smacks of reductio ad absurdam to me.

Also why should police have limited access to firearms? The police are there to protect your rights as a citizen. If you are to remove the tools with which they uphold order, what is to stop the criminal element from going rampant - or as you put it, from imposing their will upon yours?

I believe that the Police exist to serve me, and not the government. Weapon carrying by either party erects a barrier between the law enforcement agent and those they exist to serve.

I also object to Police Officers carrying guns for the same reason I object to compulsory ID cards, DNA testing, fingerprinting and so forth for citizens - it gives the government more power over me. If I go to a protest in many countries, police are likely to use firearms to control the protest.

In addition - I feel that gun carrying police trigger an arms race in which the criminals feel it is necessary to also carry firearms, increasing the risk to all members of society.

 

[Drifterman]

I'm not sure I understand how ownership of guns invades others privacy...

Perhaps "invasion of privacy" is not the best phrase to use. "Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish" would describe it better.

For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Texas and to declare that the current resident of the Oval Office was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

In short, guns circumscribe my ability to express my opinions which others might find objectionable.

 

[Drifterman]

Do not forget, arguments against firearm control in the US a can be used as arguments for firearm ownership in other countries. That is why those of us take such a large interest in the issue in the US. We can see that the US is an experiment on the worth of liberal gun laws, and to many of us, the experiment seems to be a failure.

This is not an America-bashing exercise.

 

[Drifterman]

Originally posted by Shanek
Having the ability to do so and actually doing so are two different things.

Agreed. Nonetheless, having a penis is usually considered sufficient grounds to exclude someone from a girls changing room.

I have a d*ck, so I have the ability to rape a teenage girl. Should I be castrated just in case I might?

Castration would prevent you from enjoying a normal part of healthy human existence. Another reductio ad absurdam argument.

Castration is mutilation.

Castration is potentially life threatening (ask the Chinese eunuchs).

 

[Wolverine]

For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Texas and to declare that the current resident of the Oval Office was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

What makes you think it's legal in the State of Texas to carry either into a bar?

The situation you describe is a third-degree felony.

Take a peek at Title 10, Texas Penal Code.

 

[John Harrison]

For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Texas and to declare that the current resident of the Oval Office was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

Ah, the "more impulse killings if more people carry guns" theory. I haven't seen any evidence that supports this. Many pro-gun control people have said that when CCW laws were passed by various states that there would be gunfights over traffic accidents and other minor arguments, but time has shown that none of this has come to pass.

Of course, you are welcome to cite any evidence that supports your argument.

 

[Drifterman]

Ah, the "more impulse killings if more people carry guns" theory. I haven't seen any evidence that supports this. Many pro-gun control people have said that when CCW laws were passed by various states that there would be gunfights over traffic accidents and other minor arguments, but time has shown that none of this has come to pass.

Hmm, don't have any data on that one, and would like to see any data at all if you can point me in the right direction.

Nonetheless, are you denying that murders are ever commited on impulse?

Are you denying that the mechanisation of the act makes the act easier and more efficiently achieved?

Anyway, you miss the point of the text you quoted. The point was that my actions are circumscribed by the very notion that someone might be carrying a concealed weapon . I behave differently than I would if I believed that all parties were unarmed.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hmm, don't have any data on that one, and would like to see any data at all if you can point me in the right direction.

Nonetheless, are you denying that murders are ever commited on impulse?

Are you denying that the mechanisation of the act makes the act easier and more efficiently achieved?

Anyway, you miss the point of the text you quoted. The point was that my actions are circumscribed by the very notion that someone might be carrying a concealed weapon . I behave differently than I would if I believed that all parties were unarmed.

You would shoot them if you knew they were unarmed? Hang on, you haven't got a gun either.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of impulse killings. Also, for example, in Australia, where guns are rare, a brawl, for example, that involved knives, which are much more common, in which there were serious injuries, for sure, but no deaths. If guns had been around, the outcome may have been much worse.

 

[Drifterman]

What makes you think it's legal in the State of Texas to carry either into a bar? The situation you describe is a third-degree felony. Take a peek at Title 10, Texas Penal Code.

Ok ok ok - so I was being unfair to Texas I am truly sorry - I haven't yet forgiven the Lone Star State for unleashing Dubya, so I was perhaps guilty of unfairly stereotyping Texans. Try this alternative situation:

For example: if, in the spirit of enlightening argument, I was to enter a bar in Johannesburg and to declare that Nelson Mandela was a nincompoop, I would have to take into the account that one of the gun-toting beer-addled barflies might decide that my comment was deserving of a bullet. The same might be said about a knife, but a knife-wielding drunk is a less threatening adversary than a gun-wielding one. And hidden knives shouldn't really be permitted in a bar either!

Is that better? I hope so. The venue of the incident is not important - just the fact of gun possession.

 

[John Harrison]

Hmm, don't have any data on that one, and would like to see any data at all if you can point me in the right direction.

Here's one.

Nonetheless, are you denying that murders are ever commited on impulse?

Not at all. I'm saying that we are not getting more impulse killings from more people carrying firearms for protection.

Are you denying that the mechanisation of the act makes the act easier and more efficiently achieved?

Nope.

Anyway, you miss the point of the text you quoted. The point was that my actions are circumscribed by the very notion that someone might be carrying a concealed weapon . I behave differently than I would if I believed that all parties were unarmed.

I see. So you would deprive others of their tool for self defense based on your fear of being shot in an argument even though the chances of that happening are extremely rare?

 

[Drifterman]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You would shoot them if you knew they were unarmed? Hang on, you haven't got a gun either.

Aaaaaarrrgggh! Confusion reigns!

I am trying to criticise gun ownership, not defend it - so I certainly am not interested in shooting anyone!

The presence of guns Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish, therefore I cannot engage in controversial discussions that I might otherwise with to engage in, e.g. criticism of a highly popular political figure.

 

[John Harrison]

The presence of guns Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish, therefore I cannot engage in controversial discussions that I might otherwise with to engage in, e.g. criticism of I highly popular political figure.

Are you saying that this is true for the US? I'll be quite impressed if you can provide evidence for this.

 

[Cleopatra]

It's good to take precautions, but lets keep some perspective. I think it is more unreasonable to pay so much attention to a highly unlikely event than something more preventable that happens much more often, like an auto accident, drowning, falls, poisoning, fires, suffocation, etc...

John, I read all of your well written posts plus your comments on the statistics. You made some good points but you didn't give sufficient answers.

Let me take thing from scratch.

First of all, statistics are not supposed to give answers, they show a tendancy. This is the reason I said that statistics can be questioned primarly because there are not based on sufficient data, incidents are not reported correctly. Second. It's very easy for the gun industries to order surveys that support gun onwership. I am sure that you will agree that we are talking about big business here. The other part, those who are against gun ownership do not have similar financial interests and this makes their statistics more trustworthy.

I agree that there are many kinds of accidents that occur more often, as you mentioned and I really think that in case of neglect ( like poisoning from drugs or suffocation) parents must be procecuted.I already said that.

Accidents by guns should not happen in 21th century and I repeat. If somebody thinks that it's ok that its child is killed by his gun, if he thinks that "it happens" it's not ok at all that this child take his dad's gun and kills mine. Don't you agree on that?Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

How can you equate a death by a car accident with a death by a gun? Don't you see that there is a moral perspective on the issue too?

And something else, although it's not " my business"because I do not have children and of course I do not owe a gun. Don't you think that even for educational reasons guns must be away from a house? What is the message you give to your child?What do you teach it? That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

Where is the morality of the noble fight the kids must learn?

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The other part, those who are against gun ownership do not have similar financial interests and this makes their statistics more trustworthy.

What makes you think the only "interests" that might affect the trustworthiness of statistics are financial ones?

Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. How do gun owners do this?

How can you equate a death by a car accident with a death by a gun?

Both usually occur as a result of someone's irresponsible use of said car/gun, and you're just as dead either way.

Don't you see that there is a moral perspective on the issue too?

Sure. People should not be irresponsible with either cars or guns.

What is the message you give to your child? What do you teach it? That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

That certainly sounds like a worthwhile option, if they ever encounter a "difficult situation" in which someone equipped to harm them "from a distance" is threatening to do so.

Where is the morality of the noble fight the kids must learn?

Does anybody else know what this means?

 

[John Harrison]

Accidents by guns should not happen in 21th century and I repeat. If somebody thinks that it's ok that its child is killed by his gun, if he thinks that "it happens" it's not ok at all that this child take his dad's gun and kills mine. Don't you agree on that?Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

I'm going to start with this paragraph since I think it is the main focus of the issue:

Accidents by guns should not happen in the 21st century

Why not? I'm not saying that accidents are OK, but they are a fact of life.

If somebody thinks that it's ok that its child is killed by his gun, if he thinks that "it happens" it's not ok at all that this child take his dad's gun and kills mine. Don't you agree on that?

Sure.

Why you want to impose me your rules to my life because this is what gun owners do.

I've no idea what rules I'm trying to impose on you. As a gun owner, I'm the one that's trying to keep more and more rules imposed on me.

How can you equate a death by a car accident with a death by a gun? Don't you see that there is a moral perspective on the issue too?

I didn't equate them, I said that the chances of my child dying in a gun accident are much lower than dying in many other common accidents. I don't see how morals enter that statement at all.

And something else, although it's not " my business"because I do not have children and of course I do not owe a gun. Don't you think that even for educational reasons guns must be away from a house? What is the message you give to your child?What do you teach it? That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

Where is the morality of the noble fight the kids must learn?

What exactly do you mean by "educational reasons"? Apparently you seem to think that it is morally wrong to own a firearm, and owning a firearm in the house is akin to teaching a child to settle "difficult situations" (whatever that means) with a gun. Am I correct on this? I just want to be clear on this before I continue.