Gun Plan

[Deus Naturae]

No restrictions upon the right to bear arms.

I'm moving more toward this position. I've done a lot of reading and talked to a lot of people about this and I'm starting to look at gun ownership with less disapproval than I did. I still stand for background checks and I still don't think anyone needs to own assault rifles or any of that jazz but yeah

What reading have you done? I haven't seen anything that says that gun ownership makes sense, except for a very, very few instances.

Mostly articles posted on Facebook from both left and right wing blogs and whatnot. I'm looking at gun ownership as a hobby, the same way that building model airplanes is a hobby. The fact of the matter is that a majority of gun owners aren't violent about it, they just own weapons. Is gun violence unfortunate? Yes. But it's very hard to actually prevent it.

If 30,000 people were killed by model airplanes last year, nobody would shrug their shoulders and give up on trying to create sensible regulations.  And honestly, there is a balancing act between allowing people to pursue a hobby and the survival of 30,000 people every year.  But, I would submit that life is precious and hobbies are less so.

Is that statistic for people killed by all firearms, or just legally owned ones?

[Deus Naturae]

No restrictions upon the right to bear arms.

I'm moving more toward this position. I've done a lot of reading and talked to a lot of people about this and I'm starting to look at gun ownership with less disapproval than I did. I still stand for background checks and I still don't think anyone needs to own assault rifles or any of that jazz but yeah

What reading have you done? I haven't seen anything that says that gun ownership makes sense, except for a very, very few instances.

Mostly articles posted on Facebook from both left and right wing blogs and whatnot. I'm looking at gun ownership as a hobby, the same way that building model airplanes is a hobby. The fact of the matter is that a majority of gun owners aren't violent about it, they just own weapons. Is gun violence unfortunate? Yes. But it's very hard to actually prevent it.

If 30,000 people were killed by model airplanes last year, nobody would shrug their shoulders and give up on trying to create sensible regulations.  And honestly, there is a balancing act between allowing people to pursue a hobby and the survival of 30,000 people every year.  But, I would submit that life is precious and hobbies are less so.

Is that statistic for people killed by all firearms, or just legally owned ones?

That's about the number of people killed by all firearms per year.  I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make.

What I was wondering was whether or not a portion of those deaths caused by firearms that, under current laws, were already illegal for the killer to own/were possessed illegally. You just answered my question.

[Deus Naturae]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

[Deus Naturae]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

If it were not true, we would need to go through TSA just to get on the subway or go to a football game. The American way of life would not exist.

There are two things which prevent people from murdering and stealing from others at random:
1. The State's threat of force against those who do such things
2. The potential victim's assumed threat of force against the potential aggressor

Ideally, all people would respect the rights and freedoms of others. In reality, however, the threat of force is all that prevents a great many people from violating those things.

[Deus Naturae]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

If it were not true, we would need to go through TSA just to get on the subway or go to a football game. The American way of life would not exist.

There are two things which prevent people from murdering and stealing from others at random:
1. The State's threat of force against those who do such things
2. The potential victim's assumed threat of force against the potential aggressor

Ideally, all people would respect the rights and freedoms of others. In reality, however, the threat of force is all that prevents a great many people from violating those things.

No the primary thing is that most people, believe it or not, do not want to go around randomly murdering and stealing from others. I can't tell you how many times I've lost my wallet in this city... and the last 10 times, someone has always picked it up and turned it into the lost and found, or pointed it out to me. Once, someone even drove to my house to deliver it. This is the kind of thing that makes society work.

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

[Deus Naturae]

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

Yes that's sort of my point. It is social norms that govern crime, not the police. If someone is truly determined to kill you, no amount of laws or self-defense will prevent them. Anyway, the more police you put on the ground, or the more people with coercive weapons generally, the greater the chance for abuse. By the way I really think my position in this debate is the more 'libertarian' one.

To be clear, you believe that the existence of law enforcement has no effect on crime? I mean, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I'd probably steal frequently if there was no one, not even property owners themselves, to stop me.

As to which position is more libertarian, I'm simply saying that the use of force is justified (and in many cases necessary) to protect basic rights. I'm fairly sure that most non-anarchist libertarians (probably even including many anarchists) would agree with that.

[Deus Naturae]

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

Yes that's sort of my point. It is social norms that govern crime, not the police. If someone is truly determined to kill you, no amount of laws or self-defense will prevent them. Anyway, the more police you put on the ground, or the more people with coercive weapons generally, the greater the chance for abuse. By the way I really think my position in this debate is the more 'libertarian' one.

To be clear, you believe that the existence of law enforcement has no effect on crime? I mean, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I'd probably steal frequently if there was no one, not even property owners themselves, to stop me.

You're arguing with a strawman. I'm saying the threat of countervailing force is not primarily what deters violence. Law enforcement is sometimes necessary, but it's at most a stop-gap measure, an admission that something has gone wrong. Lack of sufficient law enforcement is not main source of the problem of violence, in the view of those interested in a free society.

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I agree with this. The necessity of defensive force is one of the greatest tragedies of human civilization. However, that doesn't make it any less necessary.

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that the right to self-defense is very much a freedom. If people have the right not to have their persons violated, that would imply that they have the right to prevent such a thing from happening.

In addition, I would agree that peaceful solutions are greatly preferable to violent ones. I'm not so sure that I agree with the solution that you seem to be implying.

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You're assuming the question, though. In order for property owners to fail to react to the violation of their property rights, the violation must have already occurred to begin with. My question is, without assuming anything, what is the reason why property rights are generally secure? And my argument is that the security of property rights rests primarily on society's inculcation into it's citizens that rights ought to be respected, as a matter of moral principle. And that, to go back to TNF's original point, that this is the foundation of free societies. I never said that the police ought to be gotten rid of; only that the police (Or the parallel use of force by private citizens is an inferior solution to the real problem that must be dealt with to the extent that we want society to survive. Force, in other words, while may be necessary to reduce violence tactically, is inimical to freedom. If you want to look at a country where the social norms I am talking about have broken down but the police and individuals are responsible for their own 'defense', just look at Syria; there are plenty of guns there, but would you want to live there ?

I agree that moral principles and social contracts are also part of what allows us to preserve our rights and freedoms. Ideally, they'd be all we need to preserve them. However, I think we can agree that the threat of force is still necessary to a certain degree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence of the right to self-defense prevents its own use, at least to a certain degree. People are deterred from attacking others because they know that they will be attacked in return. Obviously this doesn't always work, in fact it often doesn't, but it still decreases the number of conflicts in society. In fact, that seems like a good example of a social norm that prevents violence, wouldn't you say?

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You're assuming the question, though. In order for property owners to fail to react to the violation of their property rights, the violation must have already occurred to begin with. My question is, without assuming anything, what is the reason why property rights are generally secure? And my argument is that the security of property rights rests primarily on society's inculcation into it's citizens that rights ought to be respected, as a matter of moral principle. And that, to go back to TNF's original point, that this is the foundation of free societies. I never said that the police ought to be gotten rid of; only that the police (Or the parallel use of force by private citizens is an inferior solution to the real problem that must be dealt with to the extent that we want society to survive. Force, in other words, while may be necessary to reduce violence tactically, is inimical to freedom. If you want to look at a country where the social norms I am talking about have broken down but the police and individuals are responsible for their own 'defense', just look at Syria; there are plenty of guns there, but would you want to live there ?

I agree that moral principles and social contracts are also part of what allows us to preserve our rights and freedoms. Ideally, they'd be all we need to preserve them. However, I think we can agree that the threat of force is still necessary to a certain degree.

This is where we disagree though. The social contract is not just "part" of our rights and freedoms; it's the very essence of our freedoms themselves. With no social contract we've got no freedoms or rights. We've returned to the Hobbesian state of nature. (This is where think traditional social contract theory has it backwards.) The fact that you can use violence to assert yourself in that scenario is all well and good, but you have no 'freedoms' or 'rights' in the sense that we talk about them today in that scenario. If a 'right' was anything that you could enforce yourself, you could simply declare your own right to $1 million and then go try rob a bank. Rights are social guarantees.

I never said anything about where rights come from (or if I did I phrased my thoughts incorrectly). I completely agree that rights do not come from force. All I'm saying is that force is (unfortunately) sometimes necessary for the defense of rights, and it is thus immoral for the State to restrict the ability of the People to adequately defend themselves.

Now, let's look at the "right to rob a bank" problem you pose. Such a right doesn't exist (at least not in the sense I'm talking about) because it is an arbitrarily derived positive right, based solely on interest. I'm talking about rights in the classical liberal sense, as negative rights that remain unviolated as long as aggressive force isn't used. However, when aggressive force is used, rights have, as you said before, already been violated. At this point, the violated party has the right to prevent further violation of their rights by using defensive force. This prevents the random violation of rights at will. In fact, it is this conception of defensive rights that prevents people from violently asserting arbitrary demands like bank robberies.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence of the right to self-defense prevents its own use, at least to a certain degree. People are deterred from attacking others because they know that they will be attacked in return. Obviously this doesn't always work, in fact it often doesn't, but it still decreases the number of conflicts in society. In fact, that seems like a good example of a social norm that prevents violence, wouldn't you say?
[/quote]

Yes, but it's trivial. That's my point. Anyone can defend themselves, and as I've repeatedly said you have a right to; but so what? Such as it has always been for thousands of years. Modern (classically) liberal societies involve more than that.
[/quote]Well, you originally said that a right which is guaranteed by the threat of force is no right at all. Philosophically and ethically, I agree with you. What I'm saying is that, in reality, the threat of reactive force is all that prevents many from neglecting and ignoring that philosophical and ethical truth. Is not the prevention of such neglect the justification for the existence of the State in the first place?