Gun Control

What is your opinion on gun control laws?
I don't know enough about it except to say that it's not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It's not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical.
Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, Robert Mayhew editor.

Raymond Newman: You have stated that the government ought to be the exclusive agent for the use of force under objective rules of law and justice --
Ayn Rand: That's right.
Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?
Rand: I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.

In a Ford Hall Forum in 1973, she said:
It's a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.
"Ayn Rand on Gun Control: An Investigation" http://www.noblesoul.com/rl/essays/guns.html

Post 1

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 7:10pm

I had not read those statement from Rand before, however, in some of her writings about the use of force or that the government should be the sole agent of force I did get some ideas.

From your post Rand seems to care little about private handgun ownership and at the same time thinks that it would not be so bad if they were taken away. Is that what you gather from her remarks?

Post 2

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 7:33pm

Rand said nothing about confiscation, only registration.

It seems to me that Rand simply didn't imagine herself in a situation where she would be defending herself with a gun in real life. I find the "privilege to kill people at whim" uncharacteristiaclly silly. As if you couldn't poison, stab, or push people on the tracks. I have to assume she was caught off guard on that one.

A more interesting question to me is whether one has the right to bear arms not yet envisioned in the founder's days. They knew of cannon and (sp?) trebouchets. Do we have the right to own these?

Ted

Post 3

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 11:17pm

If anyone ever presses me to my breaking point I'll have an answer that ul fix 'em good:

Medieval trebuchets could sling about two projectiles per hour at enemy positions.

:)

Tyson

(Edited by Tyson Russell on 4/23, 11:21pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 9:26am

Tyson...Can I borrow that a week from friday? I'll bring it back with a full tank of bolders.

Post 5

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:56am

Ted to take a stab at your question of what type of arms citizens ought to be able to have as a right, the criteria ought to be whether the weapon is indiscriminate or not as far as who it would kill. For example, poison gas, virulent weapons, or nuclear warheads are indiscriminate weapons, as well as explosive ordinances such as bombs, grenades, or rocket launchers. They are not needed for personal self-defense nor can someone reasonably use them for self-defense without indiscriminately killing others. (These types of weapons need to be reserved for military applications only) Now weapons that can discriminate are firearms; handguns, rifles, etc. So let's say for example someone is about to unleash poison gas into a building. What is needed to stop this initiation of force? Retaliating with poison gas doesn't make sense because others who did not initiate force may be killed, (nor would it be effective in stopping the criminal) so instead a firearm can stop this person quite well without endangering others (at least within reason).

I think that's a reasonable criteria for what type of arms we as individual citizens are meant to possess as a right.

Post 6

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 5:42pm

Regulating indiscriminate weapons seems a reasonable proposition. But couldn't those worried about defending themselves from government overreaching make a case for being given access to arms needed to defend against an army? And on the other hand, one can certainly use less destructive arms in a nevertheless indiscriminate manner. The discrimination is in certain cases dependent on the person. These seem like two valid objections to your criterion on a prima facie basis. But I do think you've got a good idea. Want to modify it or augment it with other principles to meet my objections? Or give counter-objections?

Ted

Post 7

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 7:00pm

Hmmm, I think you're just about there Ted. I'll get back to you though and see if I can come up with something.

Post 8

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 7:56pm

After all, remember - the right to bear arms was meant as a defense against the government, not the neighbors....

Post 9

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 6:45am

I believe that as Rand stated, the point is to allow the individual to protect their lives in the event that the authorities cannot respond in time - this does happen of course, and maybe even more often than not. However, it is not meant to be a defense against the government itself. Think about this - many many times guns are used in self-defense every year in the US, but never has a heavy machine gun or artillery piece been needed by those same people.

Post 10

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 7:00am

It's no accident that these mass shootings all take place at schools. They knew they would encounter disarmed victims.

It is even more appalling in Cho's case. He killed two people, went back to his dorm to make a video, and mailed the video. It seems like nobody was going to do anything about him.

I have a cousin who is out of the hospital, after taking three bullets from him. If Virginia Tech does not have "sovereign immunity," they will see themselves on the wrong end of the biggest lawsuit in history.

(Edited by Chris Baker on 4/25, 7:03am)

Post 11

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 7:21am

I think the argument that the right to bear arms was needed to protect yourself from the government still doesn't make sense that it would include indiscriminate weapons. If our government were to become so oppressive to the point only force could be used to stop it, even with only the existing amount of firearms Americans have, you would be talking about one of the largest, bloodiest, and most protracted insurgencies in world history. There is no army on this planet, not even our own, that could effectively occupy American soil given the amount of arms Americans have. America has the highest rate of gun ownership than anywhere else in the world. Total firearms in U.S. according to recent Newsweek is 270,000,000. That's three times more than most of the EU countries. Imperial Japan during WW2 once considered a US mainland invasion but decided against it citing the high rate of gun ownership in America rendering an occupation force ineffective.

Post 12

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:27am

One of the guys in my police classes did his seminar presentation on tactical gear. One of the things he showed us was a "Bat Shield." Bullet-proof and lightweight, it folds away, yet deploys quickly.

What sense does it make to seek defense (of life or property) in an offensive weapon? Defensive equipment is under-appreciated, under-used, and under-developed. We throw government money at weapons for destruction. Military mentality is summed up in Patton's injunction that victory comes not from dying for your country, but from making some other poor bastard die for his. That is the axiom behind civic policing, as well -- at least as far as government goes. Not surprisingly, people who support that mentality share it, believing that the best way to "defend" themselves is to kill anyone whom they perceive as a threat.

Do I go around unarmed? Of course not. I always carry a pencil. Being a wooden stake, the pencil will kill a vampire. (To do that with a gun, you'd need silver bullets.) My primary tactical gear is a pair of kevlar gloves... well, that, and my ability to reason with an internally conflicted (and therefore unreasonable) individual.

Since government rightfully holds a legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, no consistent Objectivist would own a weapon for defense.

Post 13

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:32am

"Since government rightfully holds a legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, no consistent Objectivist would own a weapon for defense."

You are studying criminal justice?? Yeah, and no consistent objectivist would stab an attacker with a pencil, or even shove him off of him. In fact, the only thing a 'consistent' Morotta objectivist could do was run and scream!

Do you think 'retaliation' is the same thing as 'defense' in this context? Clearly by defense we are talking about deterring and stopping a violent aggresive act which is directly taking place or reasonable expected to take place imminetly. If you see your attacker the next day, it is no longer self defense to sneak up to him and shoot him, that is vigalintism and is what is meant by 'retaliation' in this context (and in most normal contexts)

From dictionary.com

retaliation
-the act of retaliating; return of like for like; reprisal.
-To pay back (an injury) in kind.
-To return like for like, especially evil for evil
-action taken in return for an injury or offense

defense
-resistance against attack; protection
-something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental quality
-A means or method of defending or protecting

self-defense
- the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant

Post 14

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:40am

Marotta in typical simplistically shallow analysis drops context and proclaims:

Since government rightfully holds a legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, no consistent Objectivist would own a weapon for defense.

Government holds a legal monopoly on the application of retribution and the establishment of due process, and thus holds a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force to accomplish this. Defending oneself from attack is not retribution, nor should it be construed as contrary to the government monopoly on the use of retaliatory force and is nothing but an equivocation between government monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, (which such retaliatory force is in the context of the establishment of due process) and personal defense for self-preservation given an emergency situation.

No doubt Marotta will quip back with some kind of pseudo-psycho babble with a disjointed rant on history, but the fact remains human knowledge is contextual, not equivocal.

Post 15

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:43am

"One of the things he showed us was a "Bat Shield." Bullet-proof and lightweight, it folds away, yet deploys quickly"

The Baker "Bat Shield" can be found here
http://www.bakerbatshield.com/products/batshield.asp

It is certainly NOT 'bullet-proof' and hardly anything that isnt a foot think and made of solid steel is.

The "Bat Shield" has for it's rating

Ballistic Capability:
9MM 124gr. FMC Exceeding 1700 F.P.S. Designed in accordance with NIJ-STD- 0108.01, Threat Level IIIA.

Basically it is a hard plastic shell with a thick nylon covering, hardly 'bullet proof' I don't have the specs memorized, but I am willing to bet that 'Threat Level IIIA' is only good for short range small arms fire.

from - http://www.tote.com.au/threatlevel.htm
"Level IIIA: - This is usually the highest threat level in soft body armour. It is usually worn as overt style armour because of the weight and thickness of the ballistic panels. However, with the decrease in weight of newer fabrics, it has become viable for covert use."

Level IV Body armor is the hard plate type meant to protect against rifles at almost twice the projectile velocity of IIIA.

Hopefully you'll be quick enough to take that Bat Sheild out and hang it around your back so you'll be protected while running away and screeming, brandishing your pencil.

Post 16

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 1:50pm

and ye might want to use it when confronted by your possible future -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2063979,00.html

Post 17

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 2:57pm

Robert I appreciate the link and I share many of the concerns expressed in there, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to our discussion on this thread?

Post 18

Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 8:10pm

While I will admit that owning a tactical nuke would probably not be extremely practical in waging a popular rebellion against an illegitimate domestic tyranny, I could still imagine circumstances under which one might come in handy, such as against a military base.

And the Founders most certainly did recognize that an armed populace was a protection against tyranny. One of the first acts of the American Revolution was the seizure of the Royal Armory in Massachusetts. The seizure and outlawing of private arms is a long and honored tradition in authoritarian states and upon the ascension of a tyrant.

Even if we characterize a tactical nuke as an indiscriminate weapon, upon what constitutional grounds could we outlaw their possession? I think that the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments place a burden upon those who would pass such a law. Let me state that I don't particularly look forward to owning a nuke, let alone my neighbour's having one. I just think the issue is open.

Also, can we define "indiscriminate" in objective terms? It is not weapons, but weapons bearers who really discriminate. Chemical weapons might be messy, but tear-gas is often used to good effect, and so is mace.

Finally, we can hide behind shields and under desks. But as the VA Tech killer showed, a bullet to his head (even if self-inflicted) was what truly put an end to his rampage.

Ted Keer

Post 19

Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 8:34pm