You are here

Guns?

Okay, here is a "Food Fight" one.

Are you for or against the legal ownership of guns...as in currenly legal.  You can get a special licence to carry conceiled, and machine guns if you want.  Or you can own just about anything.

I myself am a gun owner, and would fight tooth and nail to keep that right as I don't want my guns taken away, mainly because my shotgun is a family heirloom, passed down from my grandpa, to my mom, and to me, and has his name enscribed on it, and one day I will pass it down to my son who I hope will pass it on to his children, so on so forth.

Also I think guns help to deter crime, and I am glad to know it is there in case someone is breaking down my door!  I plan to teach my son all about it from an early age so that he knows about it, what it can do, how to use it safely, just like I was taught from an early age.

How do you feel about this?  I don't hunt, nor do I really agree with hunting, but to me guns are for personal protection.  

I don't like 'em.

If anyone must have them, be safe (and for gawds sake, locked up). For me, I just don't like them.

0 likes

Yes, I believe in the right to own guns, for ones own protection and hunting, collecting, etc.  Its in the Constitution and should stay there. I do believe there should be some restrictions on what weapons; I really don't think anyone NEEDS to own machine guns, etc.  I also think convicted criminals and sex offenders should be banned from owning, as they are to an extent now.  Also believe in waiting periods, preferrably long enough to do extensive background checks.  And the system for doing those checks needs to be better cross state lines.  It can be easy for a criminal to cross states and buy where he is not in the system.

As a parent, no I don't want guns in my home, and have had serious talks with my father and FIL about keeping them 1. locked, 2. unloaded with ammo stored elsewhere, also locked, and 3.  with trigger locks on.

And frankly, safety courses should be mandatory for all those wishing to own, regardless of age.  I had to take hunter safety as a kid, but an adult does not.  

0 likes

I have pretty good collection of guns but they are all collectibles. I don't hunt and I am opposed to the politics of the NRA. Most of my guns are vintage or antique military firearms. Many cannot be fired because they are too old or there is just no ammo available. Those that can be fired get fired about once a year at a target range. Some are WWII and several are 100-150 years old.

I think war is the ultimate failure of mankind. When I pull out my type 38 Arisaka Japanese rifle to show people it allows me to educate them on the atrocities and crimes against humanity that occurred during that Japanese invasion of China - the rape of Nanking. When showing my Australian Enfield No. 1 SMLE, I tell people of the futility of Gallipoli and the great loss of ANZAC soldiers (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps).

I believe gun ownership should require certain safeguard. If you want to own guns be willing to go through the background check and registration. I have an FFL3 license (collector of curios and relics).

0 likes

I agree with you SnowQueen but when it comes down to it, I'm almost positive I wouldn't be able to shoot an intruder or even the evil groundhogs who get into our garden from time to time.  (Yes, they're evil!  Twice now, even though we have a fenced in garden the evil groundhogs found a way in and ate every single green and yellow beans that I'd been eagerly awaiting for). 

I'd like to be able to carry a concealed weapon for protection in the outside  world since I've had a few horrible assaults while out there but once again, I'm still pretty durn positive I wouldn't be able to point a gun at a living anything and take a life, or possibly disable them for life. 

I sincerely believe that that realm for killing just isn't in me anymore.

Peace, love and understanding.

0 likes

I could definitely shoot an intruder.

0 likes

Yeah.  Me, too.  People give their consent to be shot when then break into your house.  It's totally vegan.

0 likes

I'm not a fan. Yes, there are some people who are highly responsible gun owners, but for every so many people who would never raise a firearm against another person, you get a couple of crazies who show off, or practice poor safety, or don't lock them up properly, or are just plain dangerous.

I've never understood the rationale: okay, you're sensible and you lock your gun away from your kids. Someone breaks into your house, you can't get to your safe in time. Useless. Plus of course defensive weapons are frequently turned on their owners, and actually having a weapon on you makes YOU seem more dangerous to any intruder or person challenging you. They may react accordingly.

Or you shoot someone who breaks into your house. Then what? No matter how people shrug and say they could do it, I'm pretty sure that would screw you up for quite some time. Can't really take the moral high ground when you shoot a teenager who broke in on a dare. I think guns tend to offer a false sense of security: that said, I'm British so my mentality tends towards, "Oh, those Americans and their guns!" ;)

0 likes

Individual fools with guns have killed relatively few people throughout history, while out-of-control governments have killed hundreds of millions directly and billions indirectly in the 20th century alone!  Having an armed populace makes tyranny much more difficult and less cost-effective for the state.  Absolute power corrupt absolutely!

It is also important to understand that the Natural Right to self-defense is an immutable economic concept, not a law that originates with the U.S. Constitution and can be repealed as such.  You cannot repeal Natural Rights any more than you can legislate away the laws of mathematics!

0 likes

Individual fools with guns have killed relatively few people throughout history, while out-of-control governments have killed hundreds of millions directly and billions indirectly in the 20th century alone!  Having an armed populace makes tyranny much more difficult and less cost-effective for the state.  Absolute power corrupt absolutely!

It is also important to understand that the Natural Right to self-defense is an immutable economic concept, not a law that originates with the U.S. Constitution and can be repealed as such.  You cannot repeal Natural Rights any more than you can legislate away the laws of mathematics!

The problem with this kind of quasi-politico-philosophical analysis is that it trivialises the very real everyday traumas experienced by people who lose loved ones or are injured by "individual fools with guns".

0 likes

Adult individuals own themselves and are responsible for the consequences of their actions (that's what my philosophy of capitalism is all about).  You do something good and you keep the profit; you do something bad and you answer for the cost.  If you kill someone, even if it's an unintended consequence of irresponsible behavior involving a firearm, then I believe that you should lose all your assets, be imprisoned for a very long time, strongly incentivized to work while in prison, and required to pay restitution to your victim(s) or to their heir(s).  I believe that this will be far more effective at deterring crime than the free fleabag motel service that the government calls prisons, and even more effective than the economically barbaric use of the death penalty.

That said, all of my previous points remain.

I would also like to add that gun regulation on the basis of property rights (ex. gun bans in malls, neighborhood associations, etc) is perfectly valid, and that natural market forces will inevitably encourage the current generation of crude projectile-launching guns to be superseded with weapons that are safer and less lethal, and thus will be cheaper to maintain and insure.

0 likes

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I definitely think strict licensing and gun control should be in place.

I don't think it's okay to show a gun to a child, or to teach them how to shoot one. I think it encourages the belief that violence is okay. Also, I think that anyone who is not legally old enough to own a gun should not be shooting one.

0 likes

Any person that cannot be trusted (via government intervention) to own a gun cannot be trusted to be a self-owning adult, and should instead be a dependent in a family, a prison, or a mental institution until the competence of self-ownership can be reaffirmed. 

Gun safety is an important skills that needs to be taught thoroughly, and teaching it at a proper age (I'd say around 15) has many benefits.  Like learning about sex, drugs, and alcohol, individuals who learn about guns from people who care about their best interest are more likely to get the best learning experience as opposed to learning about them on the streets.  It is very important to teach children the difference between aggression and legitimate self-defense, and how to defend themselves property while avoiding unnecessary injury to their assailants (who, if nothing else, would be able to pay more restitution if brought to justice alive).

0 likes

Okay, AL, I'm very familiar with your political beliefs but I still feel like you're using the OP's post to wax lyrical about a "better" form of society. Your proposals aren't realistic based on the society in which you live - or indeed which anyone currently lives. Plus I have a problem with your assertion that "Adult individuals own themselves and are responsible for the consequences of their actions". I can see that badly reinterpreted as "I own myself and therefore I'm allowed to own and use guns in whatever way I like". A lot of people don't really feel the weight of potential consequences before they harm somebody else.

0 likes

Okay, AL, I'm very familiar with your political beliefs but I still feel like you're using the OP's post to wax lyrical about a "better" form of society.

If I am welcome on this forum, then I will use this opportunity to express my point of view.

Your proposals aren't realistic based on the society in which you live - or indeed which anyone currently lives.

I'm a philosopher, not a politician - I don't believe in fixing a society that thinks 2 + 2 adds up to 10 by first convincing them it adds up to 9, and then, if successful, maybe 8.5, etc.  To me it's always 4.

Plus I have a problem with your assertion that "Adult individuals own themselves and are responsible for the consequences of their actions".  I can see that badly reinterpreted as "I own myself and therefore I'm allowed to own and use guns in whatever way I like". A lot of people don't really feel the weight of potential consequences before they harm somebody else.

No human society will ever be perfect, but keeping individuals responsible for their actions is nonetheless beneficial to the alternatives.  The vast majority of healthy human adults want to live, and recognize that they benefit from being a part of the human civilization, which according to my philosophy simply requires that they follow the Non-Aggression Principle.  Criminals who initiate aggression against others can be quickly eliminated and/or forced to answer for their crimes.  It is by far the institutionalized criminal enterprises that have caused the greatest devastations in human history, and that is only allowed to happen because of the wide-spread delusion about the "divine right" of governments (ex. democracy - "we can violate your rights because the majority approves").  Take nuclear weapons, for example, can you imagine what the externalities costs would be to trying to build a nuclear missile in a government-free society?  It just wouldn't be possible without everyone else in the world teaming up to sue you for endangerment!

0 likes

Alex, you seem to be jumping all over the place for the sake of your argument and at the end of it all, not making a whole lot of sense. You say you don't believe in fixing a broken society and then say no society will ever be perfect. Philosophizing about how to improve things is all well and good, but you clearly state that you're not interested in fixing anything, you just want to make your opinion known. Standing up on your soap box will only get you so far, and I think you'll find that many here prefer some practical matters be addressed regarding a viewpoint rather than, as Catski put it, merely waxing lyrical about some set of rules for a mystical perfect society which you have conjured up.

At this point I don't know why you wouldn't be welcome to express your point of view on these forums. I suspect if you continue in your current manner, however, you'll find yourself without anyone really paying any attention to your "philosophy."

0 likes

Alex, you seem to be jumping all over the place for the sake of your argument and at the end of it all, not making a whole lot of sense.

The philosophy that I promote will be new and strange to most people on this forum, but that does not make it nonsensical in of itself.  My time isn't infinite, so I don't present a series of dissertations defining my philosophy on every forum I go.  It is your intellectual responsibility to at least briefly familiarize yourself with libertarianism / Anarcho-Capitalism, and I do try to include many helpful links along the way.

You say you don't believe in fixing a broken society and then say no society will ever be perfect. 

I do believe in a rational analysis of what universal rulesets a society should ideally accept for its own benefit (aka the "social contract", or the term that I prefer is Natural Law).  I do not claim that an Anarcho-Capitalist society will be a utopia that is free of crime, fraud, stupidity, and other problems, but it would be a definite improvement on what we have today.  A perfectly free society isn't a society where people don't have problems - it is a society where people have no one to blame for their problems except themselves and the circumstances they were born into.  Furthermore, I don't believe in "fixing" a society by changing it top-down, I believe in setting up alternative societies on a voluntary basis and demonstrating their superiority (or the violence inherent in the other governments if they try to destroy us).  That is what libertarian movements like the Seasteading Institute and the Free State Project are all about.

That said, let's please get back to what this thread was originally about - the Natural Right to self-defense, which will include the Right to bear arms.

0 likes

That said, let's please get back to what this thread was originally about - the Natural Right to self-defense, which will include the Right to bare arms.

Actually, SnowQueen's original question was what we thought about gun ownership, which does not solely include the right to bear arms but also hunting and antique or modern day gun collection. This is the problem. You interpret every thread in the way which best allows you to espouse your views. It's incredibly tactless, a kind of blunt force trauma with words, and it doesn't contribute a great deal to a bunch of casual forumgoers who may not be privileged with the same intelligence, breadth of reading or understanding as you.

0 likes

Yes, I am guilty of being tactless, and if no one here supports "gun control" then my rants have been unfounded.

0 likes

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I definitely think strict licensing and gun control should be in place.

I don't think it's okay to show a gun to a child, or to teach them how to shoot one. I think it encourages the belief that violence is okay. Also, I think that anyone who is not legally old enough to own a gun should not be shooting one.

this :)

0 likes

Hey doesn't Alex remind you guys of asleep on a sunbeam? Annoyingly philosophical to the point where it just plain nonsense... I get bored reading it... We need to stay on topic

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

More Posts Like This