ingle entrances in schools — Maw

This one is new - at least to me - and particulalrly horrifying. Like, imagine the saftey issues with this. A fire? Hell, say a shooter did get in? Like, these people would rather pick a fight against... doors, rather than address mass gun murder.

This has also been studied. The evidence is clear: it's guns. This is why the US is an outlier compared to other developed countries. Your gut feelings about "suspecting" a mental health crisis notwithstanding. — Xtrix

The percentage of households in the United States owning one or more firearms from 1972 to 2021 has stayed essentially the same (43% vs 42%). America has long been a country of guns. It has not long been a country of school shootings.

We ought to focus on gun ownership if we're talking about america as being a county of guns. Not how many are manufactured. That's not necessarily the same as getting into the hands of the public. Increased gun sales tend to follow mass shootings.

This one is new - at least to me - and particulalrly horrifying. Like, imagine the saftey issues with this. A fire? Hell, say a shooter did get in? Like, these people would rather pick a fight against... doors, rather than address mass gun murder. — Streetlight

Walking, talking pile of shit Ted Cruz and others have suggested it.

“Have one door into and out of the school and have that one door, armed police officers at that door,” Cruz argued. “If that had happened, if those federal grants had gone to this school, when that psychopath arrived, the armed police officers could have taken him out and we would have 19 children and two teachers still alive.”

Unsurprised that Ted Cruz would forget a key incident in American labor history that shows how that's a god awful idea. Instead of 19 children shot Cruz would prefer over 500 burned to death since we can't ban fire.

Unsurprised that Ted Cruz would forget a key incident in American labor history that shows how that's a god awful idea. — Maw

Yeah, I know about Cruz's suggestion. Meant that ths was the first time I'd heard it suggested in general after a child gun massacre. But yeah, that incident does come immediately to mind hey? Just nuts.

America has long been a country of guns. It has not long been a country of school shootings. — Moses

It has been both. They increase with an increase in guns and deregulation. As has been shown.

But feel free to ignore all of that and cherrypick data. This way we can all stay baffled by why the US has so many mass shootings compared to other counties. It can’t possibly be the guns. And if it is, there’s nothing we can do about it. All so we can pretend we’re safe from the boogeyman.

History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. You know, theoretically, we could all go back to riding horses and buggies everywhere instead of using cars, but being concerned about that happening to the point where you feel the need to build a stable in your backyard because IT HAPPENED BEFORE SO IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN would be stupid. Similarly, if you know anything about how modern governments work, their relationships with business and the creation and directing of wealth, the idea that they would randomly decide to throw all that away so they could kill the consumers that keep laying golden eggs for them is if anything batshit crazier than us all going Amish. — Baden

I've looked, but I don't see that you've transferred the post from the "Easy Plan for Gun Control" thread. Maybe I missed it. You indicated you'd move it.

Stricter gun control makes sense because we have a lot to gain by enforcing minor inconveniences. People who oppose gun control will always point out that it doesn't solve the root problem; but it doesn't have to address the entire root issue. For example, we could enact stricter gun control and revamp the mental health system at the same time. Overall gun deaths would be reduced by both.

History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. — Baden

And it is also full of things that are. If there's one thing that runs like a red line through history it's the corruption of power structures and the subsequent abuse of civilian populations.

... and cling to the fantasy that we'd heroically fend off the military. — Xtrix

You will never be an "insurgent"... — Streetlight

:yawn: Why are you so interested in talking about me? I don't even own a gun. But it's cute that you're trying.

For denizens of a philosophy forum you sure react like school children upon hearing an opinion you don't like. Many the animosity is insecurity?

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government.

We can talk about how likely it is for a government to misbehave to where a large part of the citizenry is willing to take up arms against it — Tzeentch

And yet that's exactly what you're refusing to talk about. The likelihood.

There is a serious, deathly serious, consequent risk to keeping the guns around, so it is absolutely fundamental to any 'argument' you want to make that the countervailing risk is assessed in terms of likelihood, and yet it's exactly this likelihood which you're diligently avoiding supplying.

We know horrifically well the risk that existing gun laws produce. To have any argument that isn't just a monstrous disregard for children's lives, you'd need to show that the risk from restricting gun ownership is greater. And yet, thus far, you've barely shown it even exists.

There is, of course, some chance that an armed populace might one day be needed, but, given the very high chance (given historical precedent) that any revolution would involve at least some of the armed forces, and that most gun owners would be useless in any actual revolution, your scenario under which guns are required is vanishingly unlikely.

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government. — Tzeentch

It's not your identification of the problem I'm objecting to, its your solution.

We can get into that, but I have to deal with this low hanging fruit first.

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government. — Tzeentch

I don't need to have faith in the US government to not have faith in mass murderers.

One of these is a genuine problem; the other is largely a paranoid delusion getting in the way of addressing the mass murderers.

You will never be an "insurgent" kindly go back to playing a video game with your mountain dew instead of enabling the regular murder of children. Comic-con is a far better place to play out your fantasies than the blood-stained walls of classrooms. — Streetlight

Yep. As long as nothing changes and kids continue to die, these LARPers will simply say anything from one end to the other. — Streetlight

At some point, when your whole identity is nothing but the fantasy of playing rebel freedom-fighter from your TV couch, you will literally let classrooms of children be shot to death so that one can still maintain that fantasy in their head. These people want to role-play victims so hard, they will let any number of real life victims drop dead so they LARP about being some Hollywood 'insurgent'. May they all commit suicide. — Streetlight

Just say you want more dead children already. — Streetlight

It is settled on the side of being totally OK with murdering children, regularly. The rest is performance. — Streetlight

:yawn: You got nothing.

Says the dude's whose entire argument is "the mountains of actual child corpses are no match for my overactive imagination".

Stricter gun control makes sense because we have a lot to gain by enforcing minor inconveniences. People who oppose gun control will always point out that it doesn't solve the root problem; but it doesn't have to address the entire root issue. For example, we could enact stricter gun control and revamp the mental health system at the same time. Overall gun deaths would be reduced by both. — Bird-Up

I appreciate the ideas but think it's just too late for the US to regulate gun purchase. There are too many weapons already out there in the hands of people. There are more guns in the US than people. Some people own dozens of guns. Controlling guns in the US is like trying to reduce the amount of sand in the Sahara.

The only way out would be to outlaw, not just all trade of new weapons, but also weapon possession. Ban all these weapons, collect them by force and burn them... I cannot imagine that happening. There's no way out, except a revolution.

The Argument

This plan is based upon a belief in universal, rational gun control by the state. The main aim of state-based gun control is the raising of gun literacy throughout society. Success entails the general public, en masse, taking a giant leap forward in their knowledge and skill with respect to the proper use, maintenance and storage of guns.

The motivation for this plan is, firstly, the knowledge that guns are established in America as an essential protector of liberty at both the individual and collective levels. Secondly, it is motivated by the belief that a gun is a special instrument because of its power to kill. Given the fact of this power, a gun is a useful instrument that cannot be counted as a general purpose, household appliance suitable for classification along with the microwave, the big-screen tv and the lawn mower.

In order to maintain a civil society of responsible individuals pursuing happiness individually and collectively, two exercises of power are essential: the power of the individual to choose to own a gun; the power of the state to regulate gun ownership.

The special status of guns therefore demands strictly rational control by a neutral party sanctioned by the polity. Logically, such rational control will be maintained primarily for the sake of public safety. Best candidate for this job is the duly elected state power.

State regulation of gun ownership need not be a devilish political controversy if civil society understands that such regulation must have as its main goal maintaining gun literacy at the highest possible levels.

A civil society informed about guns, both in theory and in practice, possesses the greatest capability for successful pursuit of happiness under the rubric of respect for liberty and its essential protector, individual gun rights.

The Plan

The design of this plan is based upon configuring gun control in a parallel with state control of motor vehicles.

Just as now we have the Department of Motor Vehicles, operated at the state level, this plan will establish the Department of Firearms, also operated at the state level.

Just as now we have a two-part course of instruction for motor vehicles i.e., a classroom part (theory) and a roadside part (practice), this plan will establish a two-part course of instruction for guns i.e., a classroom part (theory) and a shooting range part (practice).

Classroom instruction will introduce students to the handgun, its operating parts; breakdown and re-assemblage; pertinent gun laws

Firing range instruction will introduce students to handling and operation of the handgun; handling of ammunition; techniques of marksmanship; storage

A state might maintain firing range facilities if its legislature so ordains. Of course private firing range facilities will also be available according to preference.

Just as now we have a state-based licensing system for motor vehicle operators, this plan will establish a state-based licensing system for gun operators.

The gun operator will be issued a DFA photo ID. It will hold, as with the DMV photo ID, essential status as universally acceptable ID.

The DFA photo ID, like the DMV photo ID, will create a database of verified owners accessible to state and national law enforcement.

Just as now we have high-performance vehicle licenses for operators of larger, more complex vehicles (tractor-trailers), this plan will establish high-performance licenses for more complex and powerful guns (semi-automatic weapons).

High-performance DFA licenses will require additional training and practice qualifications.

Just as now the DMV license operates on a four-year renewal cycle, the DFA license will operate on a four-year renewal cycle.

Note – One important difference between the two systems is that gun operators must re-qualify for every license renewal. Regular, mandatory re-qualification will help insure gun operators stay current on gun laws and gun technology. This higher standard of qualification rigor is tied to the special status of guns.

While, of course, operation of a gun is determined by personal choice, for those who choose to become operators, qualification for such status under this plan will require a DFA license. In this way, state power shall fulfill its duty to protect public safety, to bind gun rights to education and to champion liberty.

Social Impact

A civil society operating under the foundational principle of individual and collective liberty must be an informed society.

Since the essential status of gun rights in America is a given, maintenance of maximal gun literacy, like maximal verbal literacy, becomes an essential function and duty of state power.

Best argument for public safety amidst the steady proliferation of guns in America is universal gun education.

Establishment of the DFA answers the crying need for universal gun literacy in America.

When a disturbed individual seeks to become a one-person killing machine in a public venue, thus threatening the lives of multitudes with high-speed destruction, a universally gun literate public, with right-to-carry gun laws supporting it, will best be able to quickly respond to such threats with an effective plan of nullification.

This is best answer to America’s pressing need for DIY peace officers who can step to the plate under duress of in-progress gun calamities.

Likewise, best answer to gun-fueled domestic violence calamities is universal gun skills possessed by members of the nation’s households.

Best answer also extends to gun literacy forestalling calamities stemming from improper storage of guns and ammunition.

Conclusion

Liberty does not mean anything goes. Just as the liberty afforded by motor vehicles does not mean anything goes regarding operation of said vehicles, the liberty afforded by gun rights should not mean anything goes regarding operation of guns.

Good parents know their children are happiest – and most free – when they’re guided by the strong hand of common-sense discipline. A spoiled child, lacking self-discipline, soon makes a mess of his-her life.

A society dedicated to liberty, and committed to its protector, gun rights, dissipates its potential with anything goes gun rights that cause proliferation of gun calamities rooted in ignorance and vanity. — ucarr

Merged OP. Please tag ucarr rather than respond to me.

Thanks for the reminder. See above.

Let's see if I understand you correctly:

Part of your argument is that if a citizenry would be in a position where it wanted to revolt, enough members of the law enforcement and military apparatus would join them to make armament of the citizens unnecessary.

- This implies that you agree some form of insurance needs to be in place to protect a nation's people from its own government.

- What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? During the rise of communism in Russia, they did not. During the rise of nazism in Germany, they did not. During the era of racial segregation in America, they did not. In 1989 in China, they did not, to name just a few examples.


To move forward we also need to agree on whether or not a large armed citizen's revolt is an effective way of toppling a government. I think history clearly shows the effectiveness of irregular warfare and the failure of large nations to combat it, despite extreme advantages in manpower and technology.

Given that it cannot bomb and destroy indiscriminately, a nation fighting a large revolt on its own soil against its own people is unimaginable. Even with indiscriminate destruction bordering a genocide, (i.e. WWII Germany in Eastern Europe, the US in Vietnam) they couldn't manage it.

Most nations who tried could barely control a rogue province.

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government. — Tzeentch

:yawn:

No, it’s just that we don’t use persecutory delusions to justify the status quo.

(The status quo being the killing of children because of the abundance of guns.)

You're avoiding any type of discussion. Run along now.

What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? — Tzeentch

Nothing. I'm not remotely certain. Thousands of children's lives could reasonably be saved if America had stricter controls over the ownership of guns. If, on one side, there's a strong chance of saving thousands of children's lives I don't see how it's a moral requirement to be 'certain' those guns aren't needed for a revolutionary resistance, a reasonable guess is sufficient.

On the contrary, if you want to risk thousands of children's lives, it seems very much that the onus is on you to show that it is absolutely certain those guns will be needed. Anything less than a very high certainty that private guns will be needed to alleviate a greater risk is clearly inadequate.

During the rise of communism in Russia, they did not. During the rise of nazism in Germany, they did not. During the era of racial segregation in America, they did not. In 1989 in China, they did not, to name just a few examples. — Tzeentch

In Russia...

Three days into the protests, the czar’s officials ordered the military and policy to break up the proests—using any means. The ensuing violence, says Harnett, claimed the lives of nearly 100. And on the next day, soldiers joined the demonstrators.

The army had enough.

In Nazi Germany...

Military support was key, as in 1933-4 the army could have removed Hitler. However once the SA was tamed in the Night of the Long Knives - and SA leaders who wanted to combine themselves with the military had gone - Hitler had major military support because he rearmed them, expanded them, gave them the chance to fight and early victories. Indeed, the army had supplied the SS with key resources to allow for the Night to happen. — https://www.thoughtco.com/who-supported-hitler-and-why-1221371

In 1960s America the military and police were not recruited, but the neither did the protestors use armed insurgency to get what they wanted so the example is moot.

In 1989 China...

The PLA's involvement in the incident has had serious and immediate results for the military, including a marked decline in public prestige and a drop in morale. Over the long term, the 1989 events in China coupled with communism's global crisis suggest that the natural evolution of the CCP-PLA relationship from symbiotic to coalitional may increase the likelihood of an eventual army-party split. — https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0095327x9201800203

To move forward we also need to agree on whether or not a large armed citizen's revolt is an effective way of toppling a government. I think history clearly shows the effectiveness of irregular warfare and the failure of large nations to combat it, despite extreme advantages in manpower and technology. — Tzeentch

The effectiveness is irrelevant. It could be a 100% effective method. The relevant factor is the likelihood. What is the likelihood of a revolt, involving only private armed citizens, emerging as the only (or least harmful) method of removing a tyrannical government.

It's vanishingly unlikely on three grounds...

1. It's vastly more likely, given historical precedent, that the military would be involved in any revolt and so private weaponry would be redundant.

2. It's extremely unlikely that the people currently armed would ever for a cohesive unit opposed to government tyranny, especially in America. Government's there are becoming increasingly right-leaning and most gun-enthusiasts are also right-leaning. You'd have to envisage either a left-wing tyranny or a sudden arming of left-wing militia. Neither show any signs of likelihood.

3. Modern warfare is fought on three fronts - informational, technological and territorial. Weapons are only of any use in the third. What we'd need for a revolution are hackers and bloggers, not rednecks with guns

Even if all those things came about and a new gunless America found itself under left-wing tyranny and wanting to rebel, you're asking us to envisage a revolutionary mass so powerful that it can overthrow the entire armed forces of the US, but which can't manage (for some reason) to just break into an army barracks and steal all the guns there.

You're avoiding any type of discussion. — Tzeentch

Lol. Yes and what a discussion it was. “You put all your faith in government.” :yawn:

Paranoia, delusion, and mythology find a way to continue on. Don’t look for logic.

In Russia... — Isaac

In Nazi Germany... — Isaac

In 1989 China... — Isaac

What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? — Tzeentch

If your argument is that law enforcement and militaries siding with the civilians is enough of a safeguard against tyranny, then you must agree that they did not do so to a sufficient enough degree in these examples.

Or perhaps relying on law enforcement and the military alone is not enough.

In 1960s America the military and police were not recruited, but the neither did the protestors use armed insurgency to get what they wanted so the example is moot. — Isaac

The example is not moot. It's an example of how tyrannical modern governments can be, including western ones, and that law enforcement and militaries are more likely to stand by and watch it happen than to side with whoever is being oppressed.

1. It's vastly more likely, given historical precedent, that the military would be involved in any revolt and so private weaponry would be redundant. — Isaac

What makes you believe private weaponry would be redundant?

Civilians fight in such wars, and they own firearms exactly like the ones used in such wars. Moreover, militaries are potentially at a major disadvantage when fighting against another stronger military. That's why in these types of conflicts irregular approaches to warfare are chosen (i.e. insurgency) and often come out on top.

By your own example you've shown that militaries and law enforcement are often not enough to make a significant change.

2. It's extremely unlikely that the people currently armed would ever for a cohesive unit opposed to government tyranny, especially in America. — Isaac

Why could the Polish, Afghans, Iraqis, Vietnamese, etc. form cohesive fighting units, but not Americans?

And what do you mean with cohesive?

Government's there are becoming increasingly right-leaning and most gun-enthusiasts are also right-leaning. You'd have to envisage either a left-wing tyranny or a sudden arming of left-wing militia. Neither show any signs of likelihood. — Isaac

Tyranny has no political affiliation, and considering the last two US presidents, and the West's recent trend towards authoritarianism per Chinese model, I politely disagree.

It's a slippery slope. We may go down it, or we may not. I don't trust people enough to blindly assume it will not happen.

3. Modern warfare is fought on three fronts - informational, technological and territorial. Weapons are only of any use in the third. What we'd need for a revolution are hackers and bloggers, not rednecks with guns — Isaac

Yes and no.

Modern warfare between modern nations is fought on multiple fronts, not all of which are physical.

But during irregular warfare all such rules and concepts go out of the window. The US military had to reinvent itself multiple times during its wars in the Middle-East, and still ended up losing them all to farmers who fought with nothing but the most rudimentary weapons.

The police don't carry guns here because they don't need them and neither do we because we don't have a gun culture. So, it's not an issue.

There is no violent crime where you live?

Not all violent crime requires a gun to deal with if you train your police properly. We have special armed units to deal with exceptional cases. Anyhow, I never in my entire life here felt I would need a gun to protect myself and I can't ever remember it even being a topic of conversation. It's certainly not a matter of political debate. Any political party suggesting we should infuse our society with deadly weapons to make it safer would be considered morons and immediately lose power.

And anyone suggesting our government might try to kill us would honestly raise mental health alarm bells.

Not all violent crime requires a gun to deal with if you train your police properly. We have special armed units to deal with exceptional cases. Anyhow, I never in my entire life here felt I would need a gun to protect myself and I can't ever remember it even being a topic of conversation. It's certainly not a matter of political debate. Any political party suggesting we should infuse our society with deadly weapons to make it safer would be considered morons and immediately lose power. — Baden

I have lived in dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Never carried a gun.

Ukrainian authorities had to effectively beg for weapons, and of course had to make it legal for civilians to walk around with guns for self-protection. It’s amazing the desire for firearms and weapons when it finally comes down to it.



I understand that. All I know is that if I am ever confronted with an armed robber or murderer, I would like to have a gun.