What can we do about the shootings?

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

Armalite rifles are not assault rifles or assault-style weapons.

You mean like these: Login

I would disagree.

I’m not a fan of the .308 caliber, myself, but I don’t see the logic in restricting other people from buying any firearm capable of firing it.

Also, to my recollection, no one is using AR-10s to shoot up places…so is it just a red herring?

Nikolaite:

You’re railing against firearms designs that were set more than 100 years ago.

I fail to see when the type of weapon came into existence is pertinent to the discussion at all. Gatling guns are what, 150 years old, so they must be ok in private hands?

You seem to be trying to set up a straw man here.

My point was directly relatable to your contention that there is something going on currently to drive designers to work on firearm designs now (versus 50 years ago) solely intended for killing people. John Moses Browning (the father of the modern firearm) has been dead for coming up on 100 years soon. Designs have not changed significantly since his death.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think the magazines for “off the shelf” AR 15s vary depending on where you are. Around here, it’s 30. An ordinary “off the shelf” unmodified 30.06 deer rifle holds five. So the AR would have more capacity and can be loaded faster than an unmodified garden-variety deer rifle.

The deer rifle, on the other hand, is almost certainly going to be more powerful and more accurate.
But it’s heavier and harder to carry. Depending on the surrounding conditions, a pistol can be every bit as deadly as an AR, as the Aurora shooter demonstrated. A semi-automatic shotgun would be the deadliest of all in close quarters.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

If classical liberalism is correct, and that’s certainly my position, then it is evil to infringe or restrict or otherwise regulate or preside over the right to bear arms, which means it’s evil to meddle in gun markets, evil to restrict what people can and can’t own or carry, force people to register or to jump through administrative and bureaucratic hoops to arm themselves, limit magazine capacity, limit features of the guns including ‘silencers,’ etc.

You really believe this.

I said it.

There is no limit to what a person’s right (in a society governed by classic liberalism) to own or carry a weapon?

In classical liberalism there is no limit to authentic fundamental human rights, period. “A society governed by classical liberalism” is governed according that.

And no “right” exists to violate someone else’s rights, whether it’s the right to life, to liberty, to speech, to religious freedom, etc. So the right to free speech e.g. is not any right to libel or slander or credibly threaten someone using words. That’s not a limitation on the right to free speech—that just is not free speech at all.

If we do not trust someone with a gun, through due process of law, before a judge and or jury, we should confine them. Because America is not a gun free zone, and if we can’t trust you with a gun, then we can’t trust you at all.

 

[tafan2]

My point was directly relatable to your contention that there is something going on currently to drive designers to work on firearm designs now (versus 50 years ago) solely intended for killing people. John Moses Browning (the father of the modern firearm) has been dead for coming up on 100 years soon. Designs have not changed significantly since his death

No, you are setting up a strawman. I have said nothing about gun designers. There have always been, and likely always will be, a need for weapon designers. A nation must defend itself. There will always be a need for military weapons. My point has been very consistent, and it has nothing to do with this. My point has been that the widespread (civilian) ownership of military style weaponry is a recent phenomena.

As to designs changing since the death of John Moses Browning, you are wrong about that. Sub machine guns were first seen in warfare in WWI. He died in the 1920s? There have been vast changes in these guns in that time frame. But this is just a side note. It has no bearing on my argument. If they were all designed 100 years ago, I do not care.

 

[tafan2]

In classical liberalism there is no limit to authentic fundamental human rights, period.

So owning a bazooka, or an M1-Arams tank is a fundamental human right? Answer my specific question please, don’t change the wording.

 

[Economist]

You really believe this. There is no limit to what a person’s right (in a society governed by classic liberalism) to own or carry a weapon?

Not at all. What he describes is total anarchism, which is not the same as classical liberalism.

 

[PetraG]

To live life without a moral compass, especially past the age of discretion (i.e., approximately seven years old) is to be an immoral person.

Most people who commit crimes because they lack a moral compass do not do so indiscriminately. They do not do so a single time, ending their “life of crime” with a suicide. You can say that suicide is an immoral act, because it is, but that hardly means that a moral crusade is likely to be the most effective solution to a rash of public mass-murder-suicides. Something that aims to identify and treat people who are at risk of suicide will do more good and save a lot of people who would have ended no lives but their own.

 

[tafan2]

You might be right, I do not know of his posting history. But I would prefer to let him speak for himself.

 

[PetraG]

Unconstitutional is illegal. I was repeating myself. Gun control objectively contravenes the Bill of Rights.

Well, the Constitution was written to be changed, too. People who want to keep their right to own a firearm had better get that through their noggins. What the Constitution recognizes, the Constitution can be changed to decide not to recognize. It didn’t come down from Sinai; it was written by citizens and written so the citizenry can change it.

More to the point, there aren’t any rights in the Constitution that are unlimited when they arguably infringe on other rights.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

In classical liberalism there is no limit to authentic fundamental human rights, period.

So owning a bazooka, or an M1-Arams tank is a fundamental human right? Answer my specific question please, don’t change the wording.

I did answer you. There are no limits to rights, if classical liberalism is correct, and if it is incorrect, then we don’t have rights.

But, how am I to show it? With a thought experiment, where your life is imperiled, and the only thing you have hypothetically within reach is a bazooka or M1-Abrams tank. You can choose to either die, or to use one of those weapons to defend yourself. If it is OK in such a hypothetical case to use those weapons to defend your life, then that is merely agreeing that the right to bear arms is inalienable and absolute. If you instead choose to die for some reason, then you disagree.

I suspect that we just disagree, and the type of thing that we disagree about is philosophy; all our disagreements about gun rights and gun control boils all the way down to a difference in philosophy. I’m a classical liberal.

 

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

My point was directly relatable to your contention that there is something going on currently to drive designers to work on firearm designs now (versus 50 years ago) solely intended for killing people. John Moses Browning (the father of the modern firearm) has been dead for coming up on 100 years soon. Designs have not changed significantly since his death

No, you are setting up a strawman. I have said nothing about gun designers. There have always been, and likely always will be, a need for weapon designers. A nation must defend itself. There will always be a need for military weapons. My point has been very consistent, and it has nothing to do with this. My point has been that the widespread (civilian) ownership of military style weaponry is a recent phenomena.

As to designs changing since the death of John Moses Browning, you are wrong about that. Sub machine guns were first seen in warfare in WWI. He died in the 1920s? There have been vast changes in these guns in that time frame. But this is just a side note. It has no bearing on my argument. If they were all designed 100 years ago, I do not care.

Sub machine guns were designed and developed in Browning’s day. Not after his death. My point still stands that there has been no significant change or advance in firearms design since his death (not that he designed every new firearm in existence ).

If I went tangent to your point, then you have my apologies: I believed from what you wrote you were making the point that designers were doing something different currently. I see on re-reading your post you wrote “advertisers.”

Finally, I thoroughly disagree without about firearms ownership. The only real metric to divide military-style rifles from civilian-style is the action. There is no such metric for hand guns as the civilian use of hand guns predates their military use. Point is, in general, people do NOT have access to military-style rifles on the open market.

 

[tafan2]

I did answer you. There are no limits to rights, if classical liberalism is correct, and if it is incorrect, then we don’t have rights.

But, how am I to show it? With a thought experiment, where your life is imperiled, and the only thing you have hypothetically within reach is a bazooka or M1-Abrams tank. You can choose to either die, or to use one of those weapons to defend yourself. If it is OK in such a hypothetical case to use those weapons to defend your life, then that is merely agreeing that the right to bear arms is inalienable and absolute. If you instead choose to die for some reason, then you disagree.

No you are not answering me. I will address this scenario in the first place. Your life is imperiled and the only thing withing reach is a bazooka. Yes, one can use it in that. But that is different than owning it.

Again, is the right to own a fire arm a fundamental human right? Does this extend to all weapons? Answer my specific question please.

 

[DaveBj]

Well, the Constitution was written to be changed, too

Changing the Constitution requires, among other things, the ratification of 38 of the 50 states. In the current context, good luck with that.

D

 

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

To live life without a moral compass, especially past the age of discretion (i.e., approximately seven years old) is to be an immoral person.

Most people who commit crimes because they lack a moral compass do not do so indiscriminately. They do not do so a single time, ending their “life of crime” with a suicide. You can say that suicide is an immoral act, because it is, but that hardly means that a moral crusade is likely to be the most effective solution to a rash of public mass-murder-suicides. Something that aims to identify and treat people who are at risk of suicide will do more good and save a lot of people who would have ended no lives but their own.

I’m not making any claims about a moral crusade. My claim is that nothing can be done in law to stop what is going on.

What can be done on an individual basis? I don’t know.

Do I think that the government should be involved in identifying and treating people who are at risk? No, it’s not within the authority or competence of the government to do so.

As Catholics we have to accept the doctrine on subsidiarity.

 

[Nihilo]

tafan2:

You really believe this. There is no limit to what a person’s right (in a society governed by classic liberalism) to own or carry a weapon?

Not at all. What he describes is total anarchism, which is not the same as classical liberalism.

Nope. Don’t listen too much to “Ron Paul-” or “neo-libertarians;” they are not classical liberals. I am a classical liberal. Sometimes extreme force is required to make lawmakers defend the rights of innocent people, and when it is, it is right and just to do so; it furthermore works, and is not just theoretical but has been confirmed to work in practice.

“Modern libertarians” reject this as “interventionist.” Modern libertarians think the Civil War and WWII were “immoral.” I am not “libertarian” but classical liberal.

 

[tafan2]

If I went tangent to your point, then you have my apologies: I believed from what you wrote you were making the point that designers were doing something different currently. I see on re-reading your post you wrote “advertisers.”

Apology accepted. I do not believe I ever said anything about the design of firearms. Not one word.

Finally, I thoroughly disagree without about firearms ownership. The only real metric to divide military-style rifles from civilian-style is the action.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck. Or as Justice Potter Stewart once said “I know it when I see it”. However, I admit that is too much of a stretch. There are metrics we can define. And if they intrude upon some type of non-assault type weapons, so be it. Pistol grips, magazine limits, semi-automatic action, barrel length to name a few. It may not be perfect, but it works. On top of that, certain typs of ammo can be heavily restricted.

As to handguns, all of them can be more thoroughly regulated.

 

[Nikolaite]

tafan2:

You really believe this. There is no limit to what a person’s right (in a society governed by classic liberalism) to own or carry a weapon?

Not at all. What he describes is total anarchism, which is not the same as classical liberalism.

Anarchism is a rejection of government.

Classical liberalism is a type of government style in which subsidiarity is the primary concern. Simply because a person doesn’t understand what subsidiarity is, doesn’t automatically make it anarchy.

 

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

Finally, I thoroughly disagree without about firearms ownership. The only real metric to divide military-style rifles from civilian-style is the action.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck.

Except a hawk is not a duck even if it is raised as a duck.

 

[tafan2]

Anarchism is a rejection of government.

Classical liberalism is a type of government style in which subsidiarity is the primary concern. Simply because a person doesn’t understand what subsidiarity is, doesn’t automatically make it anarchy.

I am a proponent of classical liberalism. I am a huge proponent of subsidiarity. I do not find the latter reference much in the definitions of the former. Indeed, Madison was afraid of subsidiarity.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

Unconstitutional is illegal. I was repeating myself. Gun control objectively contravenes the Bill of Rights.

Well, the Constitution was written to be changed, too. People who want to keep their right to own a firearm had better get that through their noggins. What the Constitution recognizes, the Constitution can be changed to decide not to recognize. It didn’t come down from Sinai; it was written by citizens and written so the citizenry can change it.

I absolutely agree that the Bill of Rights can be changed, the Constitution’s own amendment procedure was employed to create the Bill of Rights in the first place. I additionally haven’t found anybody who disagrees with this.

The question about the Second Amendment is whether it recognizes an authentic alienable human right to bear arms, or whether that is an opinion and no such right exists.

Definitely every other developed country has decided that there is no such right. I disagree with that opinion.

More to the point, there aren’t any rights in the Constitution that are unlimited when they arguably infringe on other rights.

I agree with your thought here if not your word choice. I just say that there is no right to rob any innocent person of their rights, whether it is done with speech, weapons, or anything else. Doing so is by definition not the exercise of a right, but is just criminal. So again, I agree with your thought. The alternative would be something like anarchy, which is untenable, immoral, and would ultimately lead to constitutional republics anyway long-term (since that is in a way the history of humanity in a nutshell—from anarchy to constitutional republics), imo, but that’s an aside.