Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John M
climber
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 10:20pm PT
|
Werner, I agree that its not the gun. And that a higher state of consciousness is required. But the rub is getting people to this higher state of consciousness. And what to do in the meantime to slow the number of deaths. If people are going to create a world where craziness reigns, driving some people to commit mass murder, then one has to think in terms of what to do to slow that down. Can we force people to have higher consciousness? Of course not. But we could limit their means to do harm to others. So I am not anti gun, but I am for finding a way to slow down these people who are intent on harming many others. If banning semi auto rifles might help, then I have no problem with trying it.
not caring that people have a decent wage
not caring if people have decent health care
creating and depending on one of the most powerful militaries ever created to the detriment of helping others
giving power to people like Hillary or Donald
These are all examples of low consciousness.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 10:50pm PT
|
what possible argument is there to legally allow any gun to have a magazine and/or intrinsic capability for larger than 6-10 bullets outside of a “well-regulated militia” [ie. outside of a swiss style regulated oversight of a well-armed civilian “military”]?
I'll attempt to answer in all honesty.
I believe that the question should go the other way, as I'll explain after "the argument" you asked for. But, let's start with this.
1) You can't ensure (or even suggest) by any laws that threats against individual persons don't take the form of multiple assailants, each armed with weapons containing more rounds than whatever arbitrary legal limit you set.
2) The right of self-defense implies the right to such armaments as can give an individual "a fighting chance" against putative threats against him/her as an individual (or such scenarios as the individual might be "caught up in," such as a mob attack, store/bank robbery, etc.).
3) Any line drawn to minimize the intuitive impact of 1 and 2 above (such as, 6-10 bullets 'should' be enough for 'most' situations) will necessarily be an arbitrary line.
4) Per 3, any such line is an arbitrary limitation of an individual's right to defend him/herself against putative individual threats.
5) No government can legitimately put arbitrary limits on an individual's right to defend him/herself against putative individual threats.
-------------
6) Therefore, no government can legitimately limit the ammo an individual can carry to 6-10 bullets.
Various versions of the above argument can be framed, and the core issue isn't what "most people that carry would 'feel' 'should' be enough." The issue is that EVERY individual has the right to carry what THEY feel "should be enough" (within PRINCIPLED limitations that are framed in the context of INDIVIDUAL threats). That's going to vary according to background, training, past experiences, reading/knowledge of scenarios, and so forth. And, because we are talking about threats against INDIVIDUALS, we stop well back from the supposed "slippery slope to nukes" and other mass-carnage options.
But as long as assailants can carry multiple weapons, carry large-cap mags, join up with others like them, and so forth, individuals WILL be faced by threats that give them effectively no "fighting chance" with only six bullets.
So, now, to turn the question around, as I think it should be: What argument could be offered to suggest that such arbitrariness is legitimate? I mean, there is no PRINCIPLED difference between 6 and 10 bullets, as there is between, say, a 15-round handgun and a bazooka.
Why not limit caliber? Why not limit FPS? Why not allow 300 rounds but limit the FPS to, say, 450 FPS, you know, like an airsoft gun (they HURT, btw!)?
The point is that the 6-10 bullet idea is just setting arbitrary, unprincipled limitations that will NOT be followed by those that, well, don't follow the rules (criminals). ALL such a limitation accomplishes is to make legitimate, law-abiding citizens "less competitive" in those scenarios in which the fight is life or death.
So, the "burden of proof" is really on the advocate of such a policy rather than on a victim being told, in effect, "Well, in most cases, 3 rounds (or 6 or 10) SHOULD have been enough. So sorry that you ran out of the ability to fight back after 3 (or 6 or 10) shots."
That's just one response, and there are multiple others. But, lest I be accused of the dreaded WoT, I'll end with just the one.
The final point I'll make is that, unlike a bazooka or grenade or some such mass-carnage weapon, ANY semi-auto weapon, regardless of mag-cap, IS a single-shot, single-target weapon! It's virtually impossible to target an INDIVIDUAL with a bazooka or grenade. THEIR purpose just is to take out multiple targets at once, and nobody can really be "discriminate" with such a weapon. So, these are not suited to individual self-defense.
By contrast, even an AR-15 with a 30-round mag is designed for INDIVIDUAL targets. You CAN be precise in your target-selection, which is the point of all bullet-firing guns. You don't HAVE to risk multiple people in the act of targeting one. Thus, there's a principled difference between weapons designed to target individuals and weapons designed to engage multiple targets with one throw or trigger-press.
Full-auto weapons are already illegal for civilians without "special permission." So, the only remaining issue concerns drawing entirely arbitrary lines regarding how often a civilian should have to reload during a fight. And such arbitrary lines will have no palpable effect on the weaponry that criminals use, nor on their ingenuity regarding avoiding the reloads that law-abiding citizens are relegated to.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 10:59pm PT
|
So I am not anti gun, but I am for finding a way to slow down these people who are intent on harming many others. If banning semi auto rifles might help, then I have no problem with trying it.
Then, rather than to throw down arbitrary and ineffectual lines for law-abiding citizens, let's REALLY "slow down these people who are intent on harming many others" by, for example, getting school cops into walking beats inside our schools?
We could virtually overnight ELIMINATE school shootings by random nut-jobs. It's not that costly in the context of the many other expenditures in the USA that are, by contrast, flat-out idiotic! Aren't the kids worth some genuine protection while they are in school?
I'm not kidding about this. It is possible to push the nut-jobs on to other targets than our kids, and it is not even odious nor costly to do so. Then, have big signs and a national ad campaign to the effect of: "This is NOT a gun-free zone! There are armed, trained people here, and if you show up intending to do harm to kids, you will be PUT DOWN within seconds, no questions asked."
Why WOULDN'T we start with this, and then, in the absence of these really heart-rending mass-shootings of CHILDREN, we can have a less-frothy discussion of the sorts of gun-control that would be effectual regarding the remaining incidents.
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 08:02am PT
|
I'm with MB1 on this. Make sure the cop us undercover to avoid immediate targeting by the pscyhos. And, yes, lots of clear, unambiguous signage to make it clear that the campus is armed.
BAd
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 08:55am PT
|
Comon, just print up some more GUN FREE ZONE signs. It worked with for drugs right? wait.... Maybe pass some more laws banning stuff deemed 'icky'. More ink and paper always helps.
Root causes of human behavior (and their prevention) are what we have to get to but that's hard, like math, maybe even harder. Nobody does hard anymore so let's just skip that part and listen to the teevee.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 09:04am PT
|
The issue is that EVERY individual has the right to carry what THEY feel "should be enough"
I am wondering where this "right" comes from. The nation is not founded on the principle that individual liberty is sole determination of our society.
In the DofI an argument is made which is essentially that we have "inalienable" rights provided by our "creator" and that this right does not come to us through humans (e.g. kings) but directly. It is essentially a reformation argument, that our relationship with "the creator" is a personal one, and not through church authority (e.g. the pope).
The argument is ad hoc, though it makes for powerful rhetoric, and it is invoked to raise individual liberty as "inalienable." In the limit this is untenable, of course, since societies represent the workings of many individuals together, the cost of which is individual liberty.
No human survives alone, our species very success is based on our ability to form strong social groups. The basis of this ability does not have to appeal to a statement concerning a "creator."
The U.S. Constitution opens with a statement of social coherence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
where the "Blessings of Liberty" are but one part.
The DofI opens with a statement not about individuals, but about people,
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
which appeals to the "Laws of Nature" as well as "Nature's God." However, there is no such natural law that dictates "the separate and equal station... entitled them..." as the concept of "equal station" is a social construction, not a part of natural law. Note that this is not a question about individuals, but about the treatment of one people by another, in this case, the American Colonists and the British Crown. The Crown declared divine authority, the Colonists are asserting that that authority comes from a higher source (and hedge their bets).
While the appeal to the absolute right of individuals to defend themselves may be compelling, it is at the cost of a profound misunderstanding of human societies. This is not, however, a modern confusion, the tradeoff between individuals and the societies to which they belong has been discussed for as long as recorded history.
In the end, societies of people decide what individual liberties are tolerable and which are not. There are modern societies for which the defense of individuals against attack are delegated to the society and not held by individuals. As far as I know, giving up this liberty does not meaningfully alter the potential of an individual.
If maintaining the idea 'that EVERY individual has the right to carry what THEY feel "should be enough"' results in the death of young school children, and the absolute denial of their potential as individuals, it seems at least natural to debate the fulcrum about which the balance is made; the balance about which individuals are given the "right" to kill others, and the "rights" of those killed.
MB1 maintains that no balance is possible. His solution is that those children be armed so that they could defend themselves, using defenses they feel should be enough.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 09:17am PT
|
MB1 maintains that no balance is possible. His solution is that those children be armed so that they could defend themselves, using defenses they feel should be enough.
I was intending to respond to your post, Ed, until I got to this last part. At that point I realized that you have zero interest in an honest discussion. That's such an egregious straw-man that it's pathetic.
So, I'll simply say this: If you want to live in a society like you describe, there are MANY places on Earth that already hold principles like you describe. For people like me, the USA is the only place on Earth. So, why don't you leave the USA for people like me who continue to believe in the founding principles of THIS nation? You have many options; people like me have but one.
Our founding principles are far more than just "good rhetoric," but you're not interested in an honest discussion about that, and people here won't tolerate what they call a WoT. So, frankly, in this context a rigorous discussion of political philosophy is not possible, and, clearly, you're not interested in an honest discussion anyway.
"Children be armed..." Yeah, right. Pathetic, Ed.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 09:23am PT
|
MB1: "America, Love It or Leave It"
I've heard that before... and I'm still here.
The point is not to "win" the discussion demonstrating that our own individual vision is the "correct" one, but to have the discussion and find balance.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 09:26am PT
|
I've heard that before... and I'm still here.
I'm saying it in a different context, Ed.
Since you don't care to have an honest discussion about ethics and political philosophy, preferring instead to engage in rhetorical drive-by-shootings, I can only assume that you're a better physicist than philosopher. At least, I hope so.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 09:29am PT
|
you propose a solution that reductio ad absurdum demonstrates is untenable, I'm glad you agree with that,
so where is the fulcrum placed?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 09:35am PT
|
I'm not playing, Ed. Have fun with yourself.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
Wilds of New Mexico
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 09:50am PT
|
I think when people are seriously arguing that teachers need to be armed it's time to reconsider where we are as a society. Clearly the status quo is not working. If it is the second amendment that has led to this it should be repealed. If, as is more likely, its a political problem, then far, far more restrictive gun laws need to be passed. Maybe something more like Switzerland.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 10:06am PT
|
game, set, and match
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 10:23am PT
|
game, set, and match
Only if you're watching curling.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 10:48am PT
|
Watching curling or getting out Foxed by a nuclear physicist...it's a simple fix... Tax ammo , gun purchases to employ school security which includes campus cameras and fencing...Do like they did with tobacco...Why should weapons of murder be any different..? Or plan B , go door to door and collect weapons...Any nutjob that wants to shoot it out with the military can hug his AR and pray it will save his sorry ass...One less nutjob voting for Trump and one less National Enquirer subscription...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 11:10am PT
|
So, Rotting, do you believe that it is legitimate for government to do ANYTHING that the majority wants at the time the majority wants it?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 11:16am PT
|
Norton
Feb 26, 2018 - 10:06am PT
game, set, and match
Yeah. He really took it home with that closing.
MB1 maintains that no balance is possible. His solution is that those children be armed so that they could defend themselves, using defenses they feel should be enough.
Derp
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 11:19am PT
|
Why doesn't every male American claim a constitutional right to own an atomic bomb as selfdefence against himself?
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 11:24am PT
|
I'm starting to believe that the gun-control advocates don't want to accept this OBVIOUS solution because they relish further incidents to help froth up their (what is really completely unrelated) agenda.
If you’re “starting” I hope you can stop. That comment similar to the one Dana Loesch made actually brings nausea to my stomach. It’s a sickening thought that it could believed in either way. If people begin to embrace this thinking it is an attempt to reveal an underbelly of society that will stoop to anything to have an effect on policy. I just don’t believe that people really want mass deaths to push their agenda either way....the more gun people or the regulated gun people.
I am not first hand familiar with ARs however I grew up in Western Pa in a gun and hunting culture. We had rifle club in high school with coed interscholastic competitions. (I was actually pretty good). I went through all the rights of passage starting at 12 with a B.B. gun through .22 and 30.06 at 16. Our home had a dedicated gun room and I could reload shells at a very young age.
When my dad gave up his beloved hunting at age 75 because he said all the city yahoos are coming up and shooting at anything. Cows, out of season game, anything that moved etc. If they shot something in season but then didn’t like it they wouldn’t tag it, saving their tag for something bigger and better. My dad lamented the number of abandoned dead deer he came across. Or the sounds of uncontrolled random shooting in the forest.
My point in all that is that if a hunting Mecca is being bombarded with untrained, shoot em up city slicker “hunters” then I cannot feel at all comfortable thinking of yahoos walking around with rapid fire arms that have NOTHING to do with hunting.
Suggesting that I (or others) that advocate for some type of gun/ammo/extensive background licensing/training or whatever makes sense “relish further incidents” is just plain sickening.
All I’ve had to witness in walking the hunting grounds of Western Pa are dead cows, bears and untagged deers that were slaughtered because “oops” these jackasses chose to “ready, fire, aim”. I don’t know what I’d do if witnessing humans gunned down.
If jackasses are cruising hallowed hunting grounds....I know they exist in spades in “bigger, better, more powerful”. So yes, I advocate for gun/ammo regulation....I haven’t settled yet on what I think that should look like.
Susan
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2018 - 11:31am PT
|
MB1...I know that's a trick question but yeah....Majority rule...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!