Philotic Web

I'm not really concerned about the outcome of whether the populace is armed or unarmed.

It's more about process than outcomes. For me, as a natural-rights liberal, it comes down to the presumption of liberty.

I took only one political science course in university, a comparative study of North American politic systems, and one course in law and ethics. A few things from those courses have stuck with me. One of which, was the theory that Canadian laws and much of the overall mindset of our citizens tend to based on the notion that individual rights are really important, but they're forfeit in favour of the greater good of society. To quote Mr. Spock, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." For Americans, however, individual liberties are given the utmost priority, although I guess some would say that 9/11 made that less true with regards to matters of security.

This simple alleged difference is in my mind whenever I observe and try to account for differences in American and Canadian attitudes, and I'll be damned if it doesn't seem to hold true more often than not. Your remarks above seem to be yet another example. I don't know if stricter gun laws would make for a safer society, but you've outright said that you don't care, people shouldn't have to compromise their right to bear arms even if it would have an overall positive effect. I found your arguments to be more compelling when they were based on the premise that safety wouldn't be improved if law abiding citizens didn't have easy access to guns. This new angle just sounds petulant to me. [/my $0.02]

I took only one political science course in university, a comparative study of North American politic systems, and one course in law and ethics. A few things from those courses have stuck with me. One of which, was the theory that Canadian laws and much of the overall mindset of our citizens tend to based on the notion that individual rights are really important, but they're forfeit in favour of the greater good of society. To quote Mr. Spock, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." For Americans, however, individual liberties are given the utmost priority, although I guess some would say that 9/11 made that less true with regards to matters of security.

I suggest you read this, but here are two (and a half) little snippets that highlight exactly why the utmost emphasis on individual rights is the emphasis on the good of society.

The first point I draw attention to comes in Hayek’s discussion of Adam Smith’s view of mankind. Smith’s “chief concern,” Hayek wrote,

was not so much with what man might occasionally achieve when he was at his best but that he should have as little opportunity as possible to do harm when he was at his worst. It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of the individualism which he and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid. Their aim was a system under which it should be possible to grant freedom to all, instead of restricting it . . . to “the good and the wise.” [Emphasis added.]

the constitutional limitation of man’s knowledge and interests, the fact that he cannot know more than a tiny part of the whole of society and that therefore all that can enter into his motives are the immediate effects which his actions will have in the sphere he knows. All the possible differences in men’s moral attitudes amount to little, so far as the significance for social organization is concerned, compared with the fact that all man’s mind can effectively comprehend are the facts of the narrow circle of which he is the center; that, whether he is completely selfish or the most perfect altruist, the human needs for which he can effectively care are an almost negligible fraction of the needs of all members of society. The real question, therefore, is not whether man is, or ought to be, guided by selfish motives but whether we can allow him to be guided in his actions by those immediate consequences which he can know and care for or whether he ought to be made to do what seems appropriate to somebody else who is supposed to possess a fuller comprehension of the significance of these actions to society as a whole.

There’s irony in individualism: “What individualism teaches us is that society is greater than the individual only in so far as it is free. In so far as it is controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of the individual minds which control or direct it.”

you've outright said that you don't care, people shouldn't have to compromise their right to bear arms even if it would have an overall positive effect.

Really? I said that? Or did I answer Steve's question about the "default rule" when there's no compelling evidence that disarming victims makes them safer?

Pro-tip: Don't put words in other people's mouths. Words have meaning and I generally choose mine carefully.

I quoted your exact words above. I may have misunderstood your meaning, but your pro-tip is a little condescending.

I'm sorry, Jason. I didn't mean to be snippy. (I've grown a little tired of being taken out of context, having words put in my mouth and being told to defend straw men.) I apologize for my tone with you earlier.

You did quote me (while cutting out the surrounding context of the question I was answering). But the quote doesn't say anything remotely resembling what you allege I "outright said."

I was asked, because we don't have compelling evidence that disarming victims makes them safer, what my "default rule" would be, an armed or unarmed society. The question was worded a very specific way, and I tried to answer it as written. I interpreted the question to be asking what my default rule was about the outcome of whether our society should be armed or unarmed. (As an aside, I'm not sure how you ensure the "armed" outcome comes about, unless it's accompanied by government mandates. And I oppose government telling me I have to possess a gun nearly as much as government telling me I cannot possess one.)

So I said that I'm not really concerned about the outcome of whether the populace is armed or unarmed. Because the outcome isn't the relevant question. The question isn't whether, because we don't have compelling evidence that disarming victims makes them safer, we should arm or disarm them. The question, in my mind, is whether, because we don't have compelling evidence that disarming victims makes them safer, we should take away from them the power to choose for themselves. (I think the answer to that question is clearly a "No.")

Heh, so apparently my decision to stay up all night reading the archives of a random webcomic wasn't entirely a pointless misuse of time I should've devoted to sleeping after all.

I'm sorry, Jason. I didn't mean to be snippy. (I've grown a little tired of being taken out of context, having words put in my mouth and being told to defend straw men.) I apologize for my tone with you earlier.

You did quote me (while cutting out the surrounding context of the question I was answering). But the quote doesn't say anything remotely resembling what you allege I "outright said."

No problem. I've been popping in and out of the conversation and I replied without fully reading all the posts. I didn't intend to quote you out of context.

And now we'll have to sit through all the goddamn gun arguments again.

Personally, I think this is a good thing.

[Sorry I edited this several times because I feel very emotional right now and I didn't mean to pick a fight for whatever difference on personal opinions]

And now we'll have to sit through all the goddamn gun arguments again.

Personally, I think this is a good thing.

[Sorry I edited this several times because I feel very emotional right now and I didn't mean to pick a fight for whatever difference on personal opinions]

We'll have to listen to the same arguments and nothing will change. The gun advocates are going to find a way to say it's totally ok that people can get .223 caliber rifles. They're very sorry some sick sad person killed kids, but they aren't going to do it personally so it should still be super easy for everyone to get giant, automatic weapons.

Blargh.

And now we'll have to sit through all the goddamn gun arguments again.

Personally, I think this is a good thing.

[Sorry I edited this several times because I feel very emotional right now and I didn't mean to pick a fight for whatever difference on personal opinions]

We'll have to listen to the same arguments and nothing will change. The gun advocates are going to find a way to say it's totally ok that people can get .223 caliber rifles. They're very sorry some sick sad person killed kids, but they aren't going to do it personally so it should still be super easy for everyone to get giant, automatic weapons.

Blargh.

Take it to the gun control topic (mod on duty please?). Nobody has "giant automatic weapons", and this guy certainly didn't. Gun control doesn't stop criminals from having guns, it stops law abiding heroic types from having them. If the teachers in that school had been armed and trained to use a gun, this would have ended very differently.

I despise that argument 90% of the time.

Used after this particular incident, I respect the mouths its coming out of less.


Its so victim blaming. Its like saying a rape victim deserved it because she wore short skirt. Not that this is a sick, sad world and that guns outpace our abilities to keep us safe from them. I'm sorry, a teacher with a handgun is not.going to take down a guy with body armor.and a semi automatic rifle.

Some sober talk about gun control.

If the teachers in that school had been armed and trained to use a gun, this would have ended very differently.

I seriously doubt it. Think about what you're saying-- you really think if every teacher had a gun in the classroom there would be LESS violence? Think about all of the careless mistakes people can and do make, let alone the fact that a few teachers are also unfortunately sick individuals.

There is absolutely no reason any civilian needs a .223 caliber rifle. I hope Obama can get more specific about what we can do than taking "meaningful action." What we need is better gun control, and this is the best time to talk about it. The knife incident in China is terrible and horrible and heartbreaking and no one died. Gun control won't stop sick individuals from carrying out violence, but it is a step we can take to alleviate the results.

Police in Germany likely fired less bullets in all of 2011 than the shooter fired today: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... -2011?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

31,347 Americans died from gun violence in US last year.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some sober talk about gun control.

Some sober talk about gun control: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... -guns.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gun control doesn't stop criminals from having guns, it stops law abiding heroic types from having them.

The police are going to have guns regardless. Your delusions of grandeur do not supercede public safety.

If the teachers in that school had been armed and trained to use a gun, this would have ended very differently.

All I have to say to that is that teachers aren't cops, and most of us would not feel comfortable or safer with guns in our classrooms.

And now we'll have to sit through all the goddamn gun arguments again.

What arguments? Today the news media has been saying that the knife wielding attacker in China who injured twentyish student just means that this happens all over the world completely missing the point that he didn't have a f****** gun and nobody died. Gun Control saves lives.

Or as Ezra Klein said:

Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.

But that's unacceptable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ed-states/

I mean the bullshit like what Thomas "adds" to the conversation. I agree the China incident just emphasizes that people are insane and awful, but when they don't have access to high power weaponry, the results are less horrifying.

Pretty much coming in to voice agreement with Kim and Claire. Thank you for voicing all that.

Take it to the gun control topic (mod on duty please?). Nobody has "giant automatic weapons", and this guy certainly didn't. Gun control doesn't stop criminals from having guns, it stops law abiding heroic types from having them. If the teachers in that school had been armed and trained to use a gun, this would have ended very differently.

What would happen when the police arrived during the shooting and saw you with your weapon drawn?

Also, i'm not entirely certain that a teacher, no matter how good and confident a shooter he feels he is, would be willing to draw his weapon and fire it, when he's surrounded by kids.

While irrelevant for gun crime statistic, these "shocking" shootings could be reduced by gun control, because they are done by law abiding citizens more often than not. Law abiding citizens whose mental health deteriorates in the previous weeks/months and stop being safe gun owners.

Take it to the gun control topic (mod on duty please?). Nobody has "giant automatic weapons", and this guy certainly didn't. Gun control doesn't stop criminals from having guns, it stops law abiding heroic types from having them. If the teachers in that school had been armed and trained to use a gun, this would have ended very differently.

So, when you take your gun test, and register for your gun license (you know, following the laws we ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE BUT FAIL TO ENFORCE), do you put a check mark in the "law-abiding hero type"? Or is there another test you take so you can wear your "Law Abiding Hero Type" badge and spandex suit?

Sorry, but that's a sad, infantile fantasy.

Wait! Maybe there's a test for ""Law Abiding Hero Type" AND can shoot straight in a panic crossfire situation!!

This guy in CT legally obtained a semi-automatic weapon (well, his MOM did. Seriously? The mom he killed). Restrict the accessibility of guns, and maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have had the gun.


I read a headline today, "26 killed in gun rampage"

When was the last time you read a headline, "26 killed in knife rampage," or "26 killed in angry pummeling" or "26 killed in angry Internet argument over whether God exists"? You don't. That's because semi-automatic weapons are, by design, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

I dislike the comments about why anyone should have or use a 223cal rifle . I use a 220 swift varmint rifle every winter to try to keep the coyotes under control before spring calving. Whats caliber got to do with it , and that evil cowardly man did the crime not the weaponry!

This is a huge part of why I still firmly believe that this culture of owning guns for "protection" is a vile thing. It presumes that gun owners will be okay pointing guns at human beings, because that is their purpose. If guns are strictly tools for hunting and never, ever to be pointed at people, you develop a safer culture and one that is okay with a certain level of gun control and basic gun safety. And maybe once you can get there, things like this will stop happening so often.

I dislike the comments about why anyone should have or use a 223cal rifle . I use a 220 swift varmint rifle every winter to try to keep the coyotes under control before spring calving. Whats caliber got to do with it , and that evil cowardly man did the crime not the weaponry!

Well I do have to admit I know absolutely nothing about hunting! I'd love to know...why that particular gun for coyote control?

But I just don't understand the rationale behind the bolded part of your comment. I do recognize that gun control won't address the root of the issue (that evil, cowardly people exist in the world and perhaps don't have or want easy access to any mental health assistance that could potentially help them), but this particular gun enabled him to GREATLY multiply the effects of his crime. I'm not putting the gun itself at fault (clearly it has no volition of its own), but I definitely put his access to it at fault for the magnitude of the incident. Granted, I could definitely use some help in understanding why people feel that these particular guns might be more useful than others in hunting, and why someone may feel this is worth the increased risk that a sick individual, or even a careless individual, or someone who mistakenly trusts a sick individual, would obtain legal access to them.

I seriously doubt it. Think about what you're saying-- you really think if every teacher had a gun in the classroom there would be LESS violence? Think about all of the careless mistakes people can and do make, let alone the fact that a few teachers are also unfortunately sick individuals.

Yes. I absolutely think that. If you want facts about gun control, go read the first few pages of this topic. Syphon and I (with a little help) have already said essentially everything that needs to be said.

There is absolutely no reason any civilian needs a .223 caliber rifle.

I don't think you even know enough about guns to know what a ".223 caliber rifle" means. I'll stand back and let buckshot do the talking though.

The police are going to have guns regardless. Your delusions of grandeur do not supercede public safety.

And the police with their guns sure did a GREAT job of stopping this, with their teleportation technology, huh? Wait. No. They showed up AFTER all the innocent people were dead to clean up the mess.

I mean the bullshit like what Thomas "adds" to the conversation. I agree the China incident just emphasizes that people are insane and awful, but when they don't have access to high power weaponry, the results are less horrifying.

I can BUILD more high power weaponry with a visit to Lowes or Home Depot than you can buy in any gun shop without being in the military.

Restrict the accessibility of guns, and maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have had the gun.

That's nonsense. Gun control doesn't keep guns away from criminals (remember facts? let's use them), it keeps them away from law abiding citizens.

I dislike the comments about why anyone should have or use a 223cal rifle . I use a 220 swift varmint rifle every winter to try to keep the coyotes under control before spring calving. Whats caliber got to do with it , and that evil cowardly man did the crime not the weaponry!

I was waiting for you to show up and give everyone a lesson in guns and gun usage

Granted, I could definitely use some help in understanding why people feel that these particular guns might be more useful than others in hunting, and why someone may feel this is worth the increased risk that a sick individual, or even a careless individual, or someone who mistakenly trusts a sick individual, would obtain legal access to them.

From an ethics standpoint, because of the presumption of innocence.
From a utilitarian/economic standpoint, because anyone who has ever taken an econ class knows that it is better to provide legal access to things than to encourage the formation of a black market. The economic arguments against gun control are exactly the same as the ones against drug or alcohol prohibition or banning abortion. If you don't understand why this is the case, take an economics class.

Anyway, I have no intentions of posting in this topic again unless someone is interested in talking about facts.

That's nonsense. Gun control doesn't keep guns away from criminals (remember facts? let's use them), it keeps them away from law abiding citizens.

Except that in this case (and in most of the cases in these mass shootings that capture media's attention) it wasn't a criminal. It was a law abiding citizen. Just a law abiding citizen with a personality disorder, according to the news (and it isn't strange, again, these mediatic shootings are almost always done by people who are going through a potentially dangerous mental disease).

This is exactly and precisely the kind of case that could be avoided with a gun ban. With an European-like restriction on firearms, his mother would have never been able to get a gun, living with a person with mental disease.

But if we want to talk about crime, we can consider this: the EU has a slightly higher rate of violent crime than the US. Still the intentional homicide rate is roughly 3 times lower.
Is this because of our gun restrictions?

When there is a ban on firearms, they become much harder to obtain. Also, they become much scarcer. Scarcity increases price, which means that less criminals are going to be able to afford guns in the black market.
On the other hand, a gun ban makes victims less weaponized. If all potential victims were to be armed, all criminals would "need" a gun to be able to intimidate/coerce them. But if victims are de-weaponized, the intimidation effect can be obtained without a gun, and it doesn't justify the investment required. This makes the confrontations criminal-victim less lethal in average, because the weapons used will be much lethal.

The only argument that holds water to allow guns, as i see it, is that it gives the potential victim an actual chance to not become a victim. But even this isn't really strong, in my opinion: a criminal will have a greater expertise in the use of the gun, as it's his "trade tool". His quality of life literally depends on how good he is using weapons for intimidation or damage. The only potential victims that could realistically benefit from having guns are the gun hobbyists.

That's nonsense. Gun control doesn't keep guns away from criminals (remember facts? let's use them), it keeps them away from law abiding citizens.

Except that in this case (and in most of the cases in these mass shootings that capture media's attention) it wasn't a criminal. It was a law abiding citizen. Just a law abiding citizen with a personality disorder, according to the news (and it isn't strange, again, these mediatic shootings are almost always done by people who are going through a potentially dangerous mental disease).

This is exactly and precisely the kind of case that could be avoided with a gun ban. With an European-like restriction on firearms, his mother would have never been able to get a gun, living with a person with mental disease.

No, she wouldn't have been able to get a gun legally, there's a huge difference.

But if we want to talk about crime, we can consider this: the EU has a slightly higher rate of violent crime than the US. Still the intentional homicide rate is roughly 3 times lower.
Is this because of our gun restrictions?

As Syphon pointed out a few pages back, criminals are most concerned about their victims being armed, and as lots of us have pointed out, areas that institute gun control see a dramatic rise in crime. Areas that remove gun control or even make gun ownership mandatory see a dramatic drop in crime.

When there is a ban on firearms, they become much harder to obtain. Also, they become much scarcer. Scarcity increases price, which means that less criminals are going to be able to afford guns in the black market.

Are you familiar with the phrase "Bootleggers and Baptists"? It applies just as much here as it does to drug or alcohol prohibition. Take a look at the situation in Mexican with cartels. Fighting the "war on drugs" only makes the drug cartels more violent and their merchandise more profitable. Ending prohibition destroys their profits and their power.

On the other hand, a gun ban makes victims less weaponized. If all potential victims were to be armed, all criminals would "need" a gun to be able to intimidate/coerce them. But if victims are de-weaponized, the intimidation effect can be obtained without a gun, and it doesn't justify the investment required. This makes the confrontations criminal-victim less lethal in average, because the weapons used will be much lethal.

An interesting argument, but again, read back a few pages and take a look at the numbers. Chicago is a direct counterexample to this argument. So is Vermont. So is Kennesaw, GA, who haven't had a murder since they made gun ownership mandatory.

The only argument that holds water to allow guns, as i see it, is that it gives the potential victim an actual chance to not become a victim. But even this isn't really strong, in my opinion: a criminal will have a greater expertise in the use of the gun, as it's his "trade tool". His quality of life literally depends on how good he is using weapons for intimidation or damage. The only potential victims that could realistically benefit from having guns are the gun hobbyists.

That's the incentive behind laws which mandate gun ownership and training for heads of households. As a libertarian I'm opposed to gun control OR mandatory gun ownership, but I think the latter is a much more intelligent policy. People who own guns for self defense are going to be motivated to know how to use it defensively and how to shoot well.

There is absolutely no reason any civilian needs a .223 caliber rifle.

Seriously? Do you even know what a .223 actually is? It's one of the smallest calibers around, typically only large enough to take down a fox, coyote or other varmints. (Though, if you're well-trained, you can take down a deer with one. But many states ban most game hunting with the .223 because it is too small.)

It's smaller than the typical small-game caliber and only slightly larger than the typical vermin caliber (.22). It's also one of the most popular sporting calibers, because it is light-powered and its small rounds are very inexpensive.

In heart wrenching instances like what happened yesterday it's easy to be a passionate "anti or pro gunner" I for one could never allow legally owned and aquired weapons to be "legislated away" from the hands of a true selfless hero, who would without delay or thought charge in and do what is needed to save life.

I seriously doubt it. Think about what you're saying-- you really think if every teacher had a gun in the classroom there would be LESS violence? Think about all of the careless mistakes people can and do make, let alone the fact that a few teachers are also unfortunately sick individuals.

Yes. I absolutely think that. If you want facts about gun control, go read the first few pages of this topic. Syphon and I (with a little help) have already said essentially everything that needs to be said.

I have a dear friend who is a school teacher, in a CITY school, where you'd think there would be an even BIGGER gun problem (actually: there is).

She's a liberal, but lived for a while in Texas, and has fired multiple weapons (with a friend, at a firing range); at one point, I think she had thought about obtaining a license.

I asked her: Do you think that school teachers should carry guns to defend their classes from armed assailants?

Her response (and I quote): ARE YOU f****** NUTS?!

Buckshot,

Can you please provide a link to the website that has the test for "true selfless hero who would without delay or thought charge in and do what is needed to save a life"?

Thanks.

Elfprince13,

As Syphon pointed out a few pages back, criminals are most concerned about their victims being armed, and as lots of us have pointed out, areas that institute gun control see a dramatic rise in crime. Areas that remove gun control or even make gun ownership mandatory see a dramatic drop in crime.

Links, please.

And, in the name of fairness, I would ask that you provide links to pages that REFUTE your claims. How about we ALL do that? Know thy enemy and all that good stuff....

Boothby wrote:
Restrict the accessibility of guns, and maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have had the gun.

That's nonsense. Gun control doesn't keep guns away from criminals (remember facts? let's use them), it keeps them away from law abiding citizens.

Except most of these recent massacres were with LEGALLY OBTAINED guns.

Gun control would, by its definition, reduce the number of LEGALLY OBTAINED guns. Hence: less massacres.

Except most of these recent massacres were with LEGALLY OBTAINED guns.

Gun control would, by its definition, reduce the number of LEGALLY OBTAINED guns. Hence: less massacres.

Did you think this was a logically sound argument when you typed it, or are you trolling me?

Links, please.

My point was that the first 3 pages of this topic are already festooned with them. Let me start with a new one that is full of numerical data.
http://www.philoticweb.net/forum/viewto ... 53#p126853" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.philoticweb.net/forum/viewto ... 19#p127019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.philoticweb.net/forum/viewto ... 83#p126683" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.philoticweb.net/forum/viewto ... 68#p126668" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_C ... lent_crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
etc.

Boothby" Did I lead you to believe that I plucked my heartfelt opinion from some website, or some wee dinky's made up test?