Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

-Land of the Free

Who needs a gun?

2013-12-14

Notre Dame philosophy professor tries to make the case that he gets to decide who should own a gun.

Good lord -- is there anyone left who isn't making decisions for the rest of us?

In September, Navy Yard; in November, a racially fraught shooting in Michigan and a proposed "stand-your-ground law" in Ohio; now the first anniversary of the Newtown massacre -- there's no avoiding the brutal reality of guns in America. Once again, we feel the need to say something, but we know the old arguments will get us nowhere. What's the point of another impassioned plea or a new subtlety of constitutional law or further complex analyses of statistical data?
There is no point to it. You advocate for more gun control on top of what is already law, you are a fascist.
Even when a gun makes sense in principle as a means of self-defense, it may do more harm than good.
Guns in America are for the purpose of opposing tyranny, such as people like you, professor, who want to equate control with common sense.
Our discussions typically start from the right to own a gun, go on to ask how, if at all, that right should be limited, and wind up with intractable disputes about the balance between the right and the harm that can come from exercising it. I suggest that we could make more progress if each of us asked a more direct and personal question: Should I own a gun?
There is no 'balance' to Gawd given rights. The balance moniker is a made up condition in courts who seek to destroy rights through the use of the courts and law enforcement.

I shouldn't own a gun, actually. On the other hand, I turn out to be pretty good with a 16 horsepower chainsaw, as long as the trees are on the small side. Both are my choice. Do let's discuss that, Professor.

A gun is a tool, and we choose tools based on their function. The primary function of a gun is to kill or injure people or animals. In the case of people, the only reason I might have to shoot them -- or threaten to do so -- is that they are immediately threatening serious harm. So a first question about owning a gun is whether I'm likely to be in a position to need one to protect human life. A closely related question is whether, if I were in such a position, the gun would be available and I would be able to use it effectively.
You left out, not surprisingly, opposition to tyranny.

The availability question is easily resolved by wearing a loaded handgun. I'm sure there's a fancy philosophy term for that, Professor, like obvious.

Unless you live in (or frequent) dangerous neighborhoods or have family or friends likely to threaten you, it's very unlikely that you'll need a gun for self-defense.

Why no, Professor. I live in quite a nice neighborhood, and one day I came home to discover a pair of gentlemen sitting in a car at the bottom of a neighbor's drive. It turned out they were armed guards (of course I trotted over and asked them -- how else does one find out things?) hired to prevent kidnappings while a big money deal was being negotiated. They were there for a few weeks, after which my neighbors bought a much bigger house in a much fancier neighborhood. Perhaps a different argument would be better -- that straw man has burnt to ash, I'm afraid.

Further, counterbalancing any such need is the fact that guns are dangerous. If I have one loaded and readily accessible in an emergency (and what good is it if I don't?), then there's a non-negligible chance that it will lead to great harm. A gun at hand can easily push a family quarrel, a wave of depression or a child's curiosity in a fatal direction.

I've had suicidal foster children. The list of things that are required to be locked up is quite astonishing, and utterly impossible. Rest assured that being gun-free will prevent no fatalities, Professor. Likewise, a great deal of damage can be done with a frying pan or flying crockery, when the combatants lack self restraint.

The professor here wants to make the determination as to whether you should have a gun for protection. He and his like minded allies want to make the decision for you, like the good fascists they are. He, in one sentence, has inserted a straw man argument that the only legitimate use for guns is as a counter to crime. That is ONE use, not the main use.
Even when a gun makes sense in principle as a means of self-defense, it may do more harm than good if I'm not trained to use it well. I may panic and shoot a family member coming home late, fumble around and allow an unarmed burglar to take my gun, have a cleaning or loading accident. The N.R.A. rightly sets high standards for gun safety. If those unable or unwilling to meet these standards gave up their guns, there might well be a lot fewer gun owners.
NRA publishes standards for gun safety, but it is the individual gun owner who set his own 'standards'.
Guns do have uses other than defense against attackers. There may, for example, still be a few people who actually need to hunt to feed their families.

Though of course not anybody the good professor knows.

But most hunting now is recreational and does not require keeping weapons at home. Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition were securely stored away from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season. Target shooting, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home.
Here comes the hunting straw man argument. One of the acceptable means of gun control, as fascists have realized over the decades, to most hunters and gun owners.
Finally, there's the idea that citizens need guns so they can, if need be, oppose the force of a repressive government. Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy. The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy.
To an individual such as the professor, it would be beyond fantasy. The fascists who will be sent to first take your guns are as vulnerable as the professor will be if they push gun control even further.
Once we balance the potential harms and goods, most of us -- including many current gun owners -- don't have a good reason to keep guns in their homes. This conclusion follows quite apart from whether we have a right to own guns or what restrictions should be put on this right. Also, the conclusion derives from what makes sense for each of us as individuals and so doesn't require support from contested interpretations of statistical data.
And the professor, the good fascist that he is, want to make the decision as to what the balance will be. This f*cker is reading too many law journals to understand that he is advocating first taking guns, then property, then lives. A bit of advice for the professor: Get a gun. You may be needing it before too long.
I entirely realize that this line of thought will not convince the most impassioned gun supporters, who see owning guns as fundamental to their way of life. But about 70 million Americans own guns and only about four million belong to the N.R.A., which must include a large number of the most impassioned. So there's reason to think that many gun owners would be open to reconsidering the dangers their weapons pose. Also, almost 30 percent of gun owners don't think that guns make a household safer, and only 48 percent cite protection (rather than hunting, target shooting, etc.) as their main reason for having a gun.
Statistics. I only need to know that individuals such as the professor insist on using the power of the government to take guns away. That is the only statistic I need to oppose and fight against what he wants to do to me, my friends and our families.
It's one thing to be horrified at gun violence. It's something else to see it as a meaningful threat to your own existence. Our periodic shock at mass shootings and gang wars has little effect on our gun culture because most people don't see guns as a particular threat to them. This is why opposition to gun violence has lacked the intense personal commitment of those who see guns as essential to their safety -- or even their self-identity.
Opposition to gun violence means not using a gun until it is needed, regardless of whether it is safe, or acceptable, or included in compiled statistics. Don't need gun control for that.
I'm not suggesting that opponents of gun violence abandon political action. We need to make it harder to buy guns (through background checks, waiting periods, etc.) both for those with criminal intentions and for law-abiding citizens who have no real need. But on the most basic level, much of our deadly violence occurs because we so often have guns readily available. Their mere presence makes suicide, domestic violence and accidents more likely. The fewer people with guns at hand, the less gun violence.
The professor thinks that a social good such as making it harder to have and use guns won't cause a backlash. Professor: get a gun. You will need one before it is all said and done.
It's easier to get people to see that they don't want something than that they don't have a right to it. Focusing on the need rather than the right to own a gun, many may well conclude that for them a gun is more a danger than a protection. Those fewer guns will make for a safer country.
A safer country for fascism. When you have gun control, you won't have safety,. but you will have a lot of pissed off individuals who have been pushed to the brink.

Clearly the gentleman is not a specialist in that branch of philosophy known as logic. A pity he is not more familiar with the tool he attempts to wield in this case.

Posted by:badanov

#16 What the idiot misses is that my neighborhood is safe because there's a good chance anyone you attempt to rob or assault is armed.

Posted by: Rob Crawford 2013-12-14 23:47

#15 "Not a great Comparison since abortion is not a right outlined in the constitution even though the left believes so."

Depends on your audience. I love using this line with Leftists. They always respond with "But my right to abortion is Constitutionally....oh."

Posted by: Iblis 2013-12-14 20:07

#14 #5 I noted as a start point. Several states have separate militias, to take the place of federalized and deployed National Guard units. The law may have been changed, but when I went in, individuals taking Regular Army commissions were subject to recall at any time to include beyond 64.

Posted by: P2Kontheroad 2013-12-14 18:02

#13 I have on Tennessee vs. Wichita St.

The Battle of New Orleans was joined by a number of Tennessee Volunteers, and assisted the defeat of a foreign invader.

The other represents Kansas, where during its formative years had armed citizenry defeat criminals.

Besides being bland and illogical, this is a failure of a person of learning; complete preener. Because he does not have the will to learn to handle a firearm properly, I by default am incapable because I simply do not measure to the good puffy's gift to humanity? Don't target shoot at home, don't get off campus much eh bowtie? Wolf is on the colt, or the bear is through the door, and I am supposed to hop in the car, travel to the armory, check out my equipment, and then get back home?

Criminals are not going to turn in their firearms, that is their trade tool. Gonna ask a Taxi Operator to give up his cab?

Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-12-14 15:11

#12 He could almost replace gun violence with child birth and poof, we are in communist China. This self proclaimed philosopher needs to get back to reading Plato and pondering the "good" and stop being political.

Posted by: 49 Pan 2013-12-14 13:47

#11 a Philosophy Professor "you want fries with that"?

Posted by: Frank G 2013-12-14 13:43

#10
"On the other hand, I turn out to be pretty good with a 16 horsepower chainsaw, as long as the trees are on the small side."

And a chainsaw can do a ripping good job of making a point, as Paul Newman demonstrated in Sometimes A Great Notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDpiUD3lJs

Posted by: Dave D. 2013-12-14 13:18

#9 1. Set up a straw man.
2. Cut it down.
3. See how easy that was.

The facts do not provide an answer, they only seem to.
(And if you have a certain mindset you'll fall for it)

Posted by: Redneck Jim 2013-12-14 11:57

#8 Not a great Comparison since abortion is not a right outlined in the constitution even though the left believes so.

True. A more apt analogy would be mandatory identification and proof of citizenship in order to vote.

Posted by: Pappy 2013-12-14 11:51

#7 Their mere presence makes suicide, domestic violence and accidents more likely. The fewer people with guns at hand, the less gun violence.

Employing that logic one could conclude that restaurants that have a jar of free matches makes the threat of a catastrophic fire exponentially more likely. Its really quite simple. The fewer people with matches at hand, the less arson.

Posted by: DepotGuy 2013-12-14 11:38

#6 Can you imagine the outcry if there were background checks for abortion? Not a great Comparison since abortion is not a right outlined in the constitution even though the left believes so.

But given that the left has yelled and screamed at the notion of requiring proof of residency and citizenship for voting is probably better proof of the leftist hypocrisy of constitutional rights.

Posted by: Airandee 2013-12-14 10:31

#5 32 USC § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

Do sections 311 and 313 limit the militia to able-bodied people under age 45 (or 64 as in 313)? It would seem that people over 64 would not be able to be a part of the militia--organized or unorganized. What is your interpretation?

Posted by: JohnQC 2013-12-14 10:06

#4 They always ask the question backwards. I don't need a reason to own a gun, or to worship as I please or to refuse to let the police rummage through my things without cause. These are Constitutional rights. Anyone who wants to encroach on my Constitutional rights has the burden of proof.

Can you imagine the outcry if there were background checks for abortion?

Posted by: Iblis 2013-12-14 10:06

#3 Breitbart: Firearms stocks soar.

Posted by: Besoeker 2013-12-14 08:48

#2 Well, here's a start -

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-12-14 08:10

#1 Remember when philosopher meant a lover of wisdom?

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-12-14 05:22

00:00