"Bowling for Columbine"
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Even though I'm a staunch anti-gun guy I have to admit your explanation of utility vs rights was very good and rather persuasive. It's by far the best argument I've seen to date. Many pro-gun guys don't seem to be able to articulate what you said as well ("Pry my gun from my cold dead hands", etc).
The only thing I would offer as a counter argument would be that we accept government regulation in areas where it is unnecessary because we recognize that that one role of government is to protect the lowest common denominator in society. As an example, in my province bungy jumping is illegal. Personally I think it is a stupid rule since I enjoy bungy jumping and I've never died doing it. But while I disagree with the rule I appreciate why the government implemented it. People died and they felt the need for regulation. I've lost a freedom, but
lives will be saved. If it were up to me, we would still have a few "tightly regulated" places where we could jump.
I think a parallel to gun control could be made. If the U.S. gov't regulates guns are they not simply acting on their responsibility to protect society from itself? I guess the answer lies in your perceived notion of the role of gov't.
The only thing I would offer as a counter argument would be that we accept government regulation in areas where it is unnecessary because we recognize that that one role of government is to protect the lowest common denominator in society. As an example, in my province bungy jumping is illegal. Personally I think it is a stupid rule since I enjoy bungy jumping and I've never died doing it. But while I disagree with the rule I appreciate why the government implemented it. People died and they felt the need for regulation. I've lost a freedom, but
lives will be saved. If it were up to me, we would still have a few "tightly regulated" places where we could jump.
I think a parallel to gun control could be made. If the U.S. gov't regulates guns are they not simply acting on their responsibility to protect society from itself? I guess the answer lies in your perceived notion of the role of gov't.
"If the U.S. gov't regulates guns are they not simply acting on their responsibility to protect society from itself? I guess the answer lies in your perceived notion of the role of gov't. "
This cuts to the issue.
The american founders originally designed our country, to foremost,
protect individual rights. Majority does NOT rule in this country.
They also believed in a LIMITED government.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was key, as long as
you did not violate any others rights.
In this context, I seriously doubt they would have a problem
with bungie jumping, since only YOU can claim a right to your
own life, and you are pursuing happiness, and no one elses
rights are being violated. Passing laws explicitly for bungie jumping
and all other sports that could possibly hurt you, would certainly
not describe a "limited government" which allowed the
pursuit of happiness.
I wager the founders would agree with Cutten and allow
personal gun ownership as well as the freedom to go
bungie jumping
peace
axeman
This cuts to the issue.
The american founders originally designed our country, to foremost,
protect individual rights. Majority does NOT rule in this country.
They also believed in a LIMITED government.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was key, as long as
you did not violate any others rights.
In this context, I seriously doubt they would have a problem
with bungie jumping, since only YOU can claim a right to your
own life, and you are pursuing happiness, and no one elses
rights are being violated. Passing laws explicitly for bungie jumping
and all other sports that could possibly hurt you, would certainly
not describe a "limited government" which allowed the
pursuit of happiness.
I wager the founders would agree with Cutten and allow
personal gun ownership as well as the freedom to go
bungie jumping
peace
axeman
Ok, the following is mostly just a devil's advocate type argument, because on a philosophical level I agree 100% with Cutten & axeman.
Here's a very typical situation from when I was living in downtown Chicago:
Bum: "Hey, spare some change"?
Rearden Metal: "You think people should give free money to strangers? Good, then why don't you give me some free money? I'm lazy too. I don't feel like getting a job and working like everybody else, come on man, please give me some free money. Hook me up man"
Bum: MUTHAFUCKA! Man, FUCK YOU! You a racist man Fuck you. FUCK YOU!
Rearden metal: walks away in one piece.
Now, what would would happen if they sold handguns for $19.99 at the liquor store, no background check? There would probably be a sideways gangsta grip 'BLAM BLAM' at the end of that story- at least after one of the many times I've mouthed off to a lazy moocher.
Axeman, the current system seems to help keep firearms out of the hands of derelicts who are way too lazy to bother buying one illegally....but if it was real easy and convienient, they probably <b>would</b> carry a piece. What say you?
Here's a very typical situation from when I was living in downtown Chicago:
Bum: "Hey, spare some change"?
Rearden Metal: "You think people should give free money to strangers? Good, then why don't you give me some free money? I'm lazy too. I don't feel like getting a job and working like everybody else, come on man, please give me some free money. Hook me up man"
Bum: MUTHAFUCKA! Man, FUCK YOU! You a racist man Fuck you. FUCK YOU!
Rearden metal: walks away in one piece.
Now, what would would happen if they sold handguns for $19.99 at the liquor store, no background check? There would probably be a sideways gangsta grip 'BLAM BLAM' at the end of that story- at least after one of the many times I've mouthed off to a lazy moocher.
Axeman, the current system seems to help keep firearms out of the hands of derelicts who are way too lazy to bother buying one illegally....but if it was real easy and convienient, they probably <b>would</b> carry a piece. What say you?
" Axeman, the current system seems to help keep firearms out of the hands of derelicts who are way too lazy to bother buying one illegally....but if it was real easy and convenient, they probably <b>would</b> carry a piece. What say you? "
1) Would never happen because the bum would immediately
sell the firearm for liquor money
2) Innocent until proven guilty, we cant assume he would shoot you.
3) Would you be mouthing off to every bum if you KNEW
they likely had a firearm? ...society becomes a lot more
courteous when everyone is armed
4) The law exists to handle criminals like this. He wouldn't
be around very long on the street with a firearm.
It should be enforced.
5) Using this line of reasoning, we immediately fall into
the trap of punishing the law abiding for the actions
of the criminal minority. We don't outlaw cars when drunks
kill people with them under the influence.
6) Reasonable laws should keep guns out of the hands
of homeless drunks. Unlike bungie jumping, where you can
only kill yourself, things like cars require tests/licensing.
I cringe at the idea of the government being in charge of this
though, because they could effectively make gun ownership
illegal via impossible test standards. This is another discussion.
peace
axeman
1) Would never happen because the bum would immediately
sell the firearm for liquor money
2) Innocent until proven guilty, we cant assume he would shoot you.
3) Would you be mouthing off to every bum if you KNEW
they likely had a firearm?
...society becomes a lot morecourteous when everyone is armed
4) The law exists to handle criminals like this. He wouldn't
be around very long on the street with a firearm.
It should be enforced.
5) Using this line of reasoning, we immediately fall into
the trap of punishing the law abiding for the actions
of the criminal minority. We don't outlaw cars when drunks
kill people with them under the influence.
6) Reasonable laws should keep guns out of the hands
of homeless drunks. Unlike bungie jumping, where you can
only kill yourself, things like cars require tests/licensing.
I cringe at the idea of the government being in charge of this
though, because they could effectively make gun ownership
illegal via impossible test standards. This is another discussion.
peace
axeman
Rearden - I would say in that example your safety would be lower, as a result of deregulated firearms giving easier access to vagrants.
However, it is the vagrants (those that are aggressive) who are doing you wrong, not normal gun owners. Therefore, on the principle that only those guilty of the crime should be punished, it would be wrong to restrict the rights of normal citizens, just because some violent citizens abused those rights.
There may be many situations where you could improve your own personal safety by restricting the rights of others, but that does not make it just to do so. That is the whole point of "inalienable" rights.
Lightning Smurf -
As you say, it boils down to whether or not it is legitimate to infringe a person's freedom in order to achieve a perceived "benefit" to society. People who view society as a collective group, where each person is subservient to the needs of the whole, will tend to agree that it is legitimate; those who view society as simply a web of interactions between free individuals, who exist for their own ends and not those of others, will tend to disagree.
Now I do not imagine that I am going to persuade a convinced "collectivist" to start believing in inalienable individual rights - there will always be those who think you can override the individual for the sake of society. However, what I would do is try to demonstrate to non-collectivists how gun control is an inherently anti-individualist approach. For there are huge numbers of people who would swear they are in favour of inalienable human rights (based on the non-aggression principle), and who would not accept a utilitarian argument if it meant imprisoning people without trial, incarcerating ethnic minorities during times of war or terrorism, or bombing innocent civilians in order to overthrow dictators. Yet when you ask their view on guns, they are stridently against it, and justify it purely with utilitarian arguments! Either you believe in inalienable rights, or you do not. You can't have it both ways.
Finally, for Americans, I would point out that clearly the US was founded on the latter individualist principles, so it is hard to argue against the 2nd amendment without wanting a fundamental shift in the idea of what it is to be an American. This is why gun ownership is such a hot issue in the USA, compared to more "collectivist" societies such as Europe, Japan, the UK etc.
However, it is the vagrants (those that are aggressive) who are doing you wrong, not normal gun owners. Therefore, on the principle that only those guilty of the crime should be punished, it would be wrong to restrict the rights of normal citizens, just because some violent citizens abused those rights.
There may be many situations where you could improve your own personal safety by restricting the rights of others, but that does not make it just to do so. That is the whole point of "inalienable" rights.
Lightning Smurf -
As you say, it boils down to whether or not it is legitimate to infringe a person's freedom in order to achieve a perceived "benefit" to society. People who view society as a collective group, where each person is subservient to the needs of the whole, will tend to agree that it is legitimate; those who view society as simply a web of interactions between free individuals, who exist for their own ends and not those of others, will tend to disagree.
Now I do not imagine that I am going to persuade a convinced "collectivist" to start believing in inalienable individual rights - there will always be those who think you can override the individual for the sake of society. However, what I would do is try to demonstrate to non-collectivists how gun control is an inherently anti-individualist approach. For there are huge numbers of people who would swear they are in favour of inalienable human rights (based on the non-aggression principle), and who would not accept a utilitarian argument if it meant imprisoning people without trial, incarcerating ethnic minorities during times of war or terrorism, or bombing innocent civilians in order to overthrow dictators. Yet when you ask their view on guns, they are stridently against it, and justify it purely with utilitarian arguments! Either you believe in inalienable rights, or you do not. You can't have it both ways.
Finally, for Americans, I would point out that clearly the US was founded on the latter individualist principles, so it is hard to argue against the 2nd amendment without wanting a fundamental shift in the idea of what it is to be an American. This is why gun ownership is such a hot issue in the USA, compared to more "collectivist" societies such as Europe, Japan, the UK etc.
OMG â I have finally read this whole thread⦠all 25 pages of it with no pictures (I donât very fast but have my thoughts on the movie so I wanted to see what everyone else thought too.
Iâm with axeman and Cutten on this one and agree with points added by bobcathy1, surfer and a few others too. Thanks for continuing to make the argument axe. It makes it easy for me not to have to pitch in (even though I fully realize thatâs what Iâm doing now). Moore is a drama queen. But it wasnât enough drama to keep my girlfriend awake very long or to keep me very interested in the movie or the case that he was trying to make. Nonetheless I did watch until the end.
mrmarket - I think you just got a small sample. When I was living Stateside, most of the guys that I was lifting with were huge (all of us were 315+ on the bench) and I, the scrawniest one of them all, seemed to be the only one who wasnât armed.
Btw â I live in the same city as M (Siwash) does and I lock up every day. Damn house has been broken into twice in 3 years and I live in a very safe neighborhood⦠so much for peaceful Canada⦠maybe I should get a big dog⦠if someone ever broke in while I was at home, Iâd either have to beat him silly or make him watch CNBC until s/he was bored to deathâ¦
Iâm with axeman and Cutten on this one and agree with points added by bobcathy1, surfer and a few others too. Thanks for continuing to make the argument axe. It makes it easy for me not to have to pitch in (even though I fully realize thatâs what Iâm doing now). Moore is a drama queen. But it wasnât enough drama to keep my girlfriend awake very long or to keep me very interested in the movie or the case that he was trying to make. Nonetheless I did watch until the end.
mrmarket - I think you just got a small sample. When I was living Stateside, most of the guys that I was lifting with were huge (all of us were 315+ on the bench) and I, the scrawniest one of them all, seemed to be the only one who wasnât armed.
Btw â I live in the same city as M (Siwash) does and I lock up every day. Damn house has been broken into twice in 3 years and I live in a very safe neighborhood⦠so much for peaceful Canada⦠maybe I should get a big dog⦠if someone ever broke in while I was at home, Iâd either have to beat him silly or make him watch CNBC until s/he was bored to deathâ¦