Ayn Rand's Utopia

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 1:31:55 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 24 July 2015 06:09:23 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:
one possible example being a country where people are helpless when criminals
confront them, and so call for more and more police powers to protect them,
even ones that conflict with civil liberties.

John Savard

Many impoverished neighbourhoods in Europe are largely outside the law as far as ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding citizens are concerned. Shouldn't the NRA go in, as a charitable organisation, with their strong [fixed] opinions on self protection? Shouldn't they be handing out guns to all these decent citizens? Those downtrodden by drug dealers, loan sharks, immigrant gangs, money launderers and all the antisocial bullies surfing the tidal wave of lawlessness?

Will my shiny, new, NRA gun bring me new respect for my "rights" when the @sshole next door plays loud music all night? Will my shiny new gun close down the street gangs brought up on hatred for authority? Will my shiny new gun stop the police and fire brigade from being stoned by the local kids when they deliberately set fire to apartment blocks every other night? Will my shiny new gun stop me being mugged on the way back from the shops? Will my shiny new gun stop my car being scratched up by gang members endlessly proving their cave-manhood to each other?

If I do use my shiny new gun it is not the hundreds of thousands of lawless thugs nationwide who will suffer. It is me. It is my family and property which become the default scapegoat for revenge.

The unarmed police are completely powerless to stop local crime yet claim for themselves the *only* authority for maintaining the law. So where is my NRA gun? I want it now! The NRA can afford it and get huge discounts from their sponsors and suppliers for bulk buying. I want my NRA gun to level the local playing field with my .45 "Leveller." I want to wave it in the street and shout: "Are you feeling lucky, punks?" I want my citizens rights to security and peace back!

Guns obviously work in America. Just ask the NRA! They say there is no crime thanks to guns. I've heard that all the prisons in the USA are completely empty except for a few overnight drunks who just needed somewhere to sleep it off in comfort.

I've heard that the few police, who are still left in active service, are all doing voluntary work as gardeners. Or helping little school kids across the road. Anything to productively pass their empty, working hours away before early retirement. I even heard that they disarmed the American police because the people could easily protect themselves. And, it's all thanks to the NRA's policies on universal gun ownership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

I see by your map that the Great Lakes, the Mediterranean, Hudson's Bay, Lake Chad, the Caspian sea and other places like that are completely without any murder rates. Maybe you should relocate to one of those places? Just sayin'.

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:59:08 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote this crap:

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 11:37:38 AM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 20:09:21 UTC+2, wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is

The only problem with gun ownership is that more people should own
guns.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

There are lots of guns in this area of northern
Illinois / southern Wisconsin. And lots of gun deaths too.

We got a guy here who lives just outside of town on a
rural stretch of road. An avid gun collector who had a
large arsenal of assault rifles and handguns and a mess
of ammo. Also had a large dog. Nobody would mess
with him, yes? Except that somebody shot him and his
dog dead Saturday morning. All those guns didn't do him much good.

Obviously he shoulda had more guns, maybe carry a
few in his pockets or a strap on holster. Somebody
got the drop on him - he shoulda practiced his quick draw.

Probably somebody who knew him and knew his weaknesses.



How about this one: two guys, both law abiding licensed to carry, shoot each other in a road rage incident: http://kdvr.com/2013/09/19/angry-dri...ot-each-other/

Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 1:31:55 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 24 July 2015 06:09:23 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:
one possible example being a country where people are helpless when criminals
confront them, and so call for more and more police powers to protect them,
even ones that conflict with civil liberties.

John Savard

Many impoverished neighbourhoods in Europe are largely outside the law
as far as ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding citizens are concerned.
Shouldn't the NRA go in, as a charitable organisation, with their strong
[fixed] opinions on self protection? Shouldn't they be handing out guns
to all these decent citizens? Those downtrodden by drug dealers, loan
sharks, immigrant gangs, money launderers and all the antisocial bullies
surfing the tidal wave of lawlessness?

Will my shiny, new, NRA gun bring me new respect for my "rights" when
the @sshole next door plays loud music all night? Will my shiny new gun
close down the street gangs brought up on hatred for authority? Will my
shiny new gun stop the police and fire brigade from being stoned by the
local kids when they deliberately set fire to apartment blocks every
other night? Will my shiny new gun stop me being mugged on the way back
from the shops? Will my shiny new gun stop my car being scratched up by
gang members endlessly proving their cave-manhood to each other?

If I do use my shiny new gun it is not the hundreds of thousands of
lawless thugs nationwide who will suffer. It is me. It is my family and
property which become the default scapegoat for revenge.

The unarmed police are completely powerless to stop local crime yet
claim for themselves the *only* authority for maintaining the law. So
where is my NRA gun? I want it now! The NRA can afford it and get huge
discounts from their sponsors and suppliers for bulk buying. I want my
NRA gun to level the local playing field with my .45 "Leveller." I want
to wave it in the street and shout: "Are you feeling lucky, punks?" I
want my citizens rights to security and peace back!

Guns obviously work in America. Just ask the NRA! They say there is no
crime thanks to guns. I've heard that all the prisons in the USA are
completely empty except for a few overnight drunks who just needed
somewhere to sleep it off in comfort.

I've heard that the few police, who are still left in active service,
are all doing voluntary work as gardeners. Or helping little school kids
across the road. Anything to productively pass their empty, working
hours away before early retirement. I even heard that they disarmed the
American police because the people could easily protect themselves. And,
it's all thanks to the NRA's policies on universal gun ownership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

I see by your map that the Great Lakes, the Mediterranean, Hudson's Bay,
Lake Chad, the Caspian sea and other places like that are completely
without any murder rates. Maybe you should relocate to one of those places? Just sayin'.

Unless you are worried by the danger of drowning.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote this crap:

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 11:09:23 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:38:46 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is the owner is given instantly increased power
to be judge, jury and executioner while receiving little or no training [nor
screening] for any of these tasks.

You're absolutely correct. That is a real problem with gun ownership.

However, keeping guns out of the hands of honest citizens doesn't take them out
of the hands of criminals. And it's not as if most people can afford to hire
security guards who have been trained and screened and so on to protect them.

The obscenity known as North Korea wouldn't last a fortnight if there was
widespread gun ownership on the part of the ordinary people who live there.

A thing can have problems and still be better than the alternative - one
possible example being a country where people are helpless when criminals
confront them, and so call for more and more police powers to protect them,
even ones that conflict with civil liberties.

John Savard

Guy walks into a restaurant with a loaded AR15.
I'm concealed carry. Can I drop him? Can I drop him if I feel threatened?

How do you know that it's loaded?

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:38:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

It
doesn't really matter what a government does, as long as what it's
doing has a high degree of popular support. A government that follows
Snell's concept of "limited" is one that can't operate according to
the desires of the citizenry it serves.

Ouch.

I think you might be persuaded, judging from some of your previous posts, to
amend that to at least include an obligation on the part of governments to
respect minority rights.

No. I don't recognize any concept of "obligation" on the part of
government in the abstract. Governments are nothing more than
mechanisms of organization created by societies. A government that
creates a slave-based economy and slaughters its neighbors is no less
legitimate than any other.

A government that is structured around the concept of democracy,
rights, and the protection of those rights across all its citizenry,
including minorities, is certainly obligated to do those things. That
includes the U.S. government, of course. And I certainly prefer to
live in a society that has created such a government. But that's the
extent of it.

The Saudi government, the Chinese government... these are under no
obligation to respect minority rights, nor even to recognize the same
rights we do.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:47:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

However, you have admitted in a previous discussion we had on this subject,
that there are certain things, like Negro slavery or the Holocaust, that
outrage the moral sense of humanity. Even though they were legally authorized
by governments in power.

I'm not sure I've quite said that. I do agree that specific acts have
outraged a great many people at specific times, and those two examples
demonstrate that.

To be clear, however, governments in the short term do not necessarily
represent the will of society.

Maybe the concept of 'natural rights' is an oversimplification, but we do need
a way of talking about justice that allows us to criticize the things
governments do. If the assumption is that our rights are what our governments
give us, it's hard to do that.

The problem here is separating "government" from "society", of
treating government as an external entity beyond societal control.
Government does give us rights. Society defines rights, and government
is just a mechanism for managing them, for creating an organized legal
system, for defining and enforcing laws.

And if rights are strictly direct human creations, it would normally appear
that government is the process by which humans would create rights. Well, at
least democratic government. But without an _a priori_ concept of rights, how can we say governments should be democratic?

We can't. Perhaps governments shouldn't be democratic. History
certainly suggests otherwise, with the most successful societies
having been oligarchies. Democracy may represent an experiment that
will not succeed. Humans are odd, not solitary animals but not herd
animals, either. But we are social, and like all social species we
have a dominance hierarchy. We are not created equal, we do not
function as equals. We have natural leaders, and natural followers.
And I imagine that means that democracy is somewhat unnatural, and may
not produce stable, long-lived societies.

Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:38:46 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is the owner is given instantly increased power
to be judge, jury and executioner while receiving little or no training [nor
screening] for any of these tasks.

You're absolutely correct. That is a real problem with gun ownership.

However, keeping guns out of the hands of honest citizens doesn't take them out
of the hands of criminals. And it's not as if most people can afford to hire
security guards who have been trained and screened and so on to protect them.


This is just a rehashing of NRA propaganda. Keeping guns out of the hands
of honest citizens will immediately reduce their chance of being killed by
a gun.
Taking action to reduce the guns in criminal hands would be done at the
same time.

obscenity known as North Korea wouldn't last a fortnight if there was
widespread gun ownership on the part of the ordinary people who live there.

I don't agree. Those people have been browbeaten for so long it would make
no difference.

A thing can have problems and still be better than the alternative - one
possible example being a country where people are helpless when criminals
confront them, and so call for more and more police powers to protect them,
even ones that conflict with civil liberties.

Evidence? The experience of he UK seems to say the opposite. On the other
hand where the number of guns suddenly increases as in the aftermath of
Nigeria's Biafran civil war the country ends up being terrorised by
criminal gangs.

Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 20:09:21 UTC+2, wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is

The only problem with gun ownership is that more people should own
guns.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

The problem of gun ownership is this; Only those who don't want guns should
be allowed to own them. But we don't don't do that.
So in the UK we just ban handgun ownership. That does the job.

wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 12:37:38 PM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 20:09:21 UTC+2, wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is

The only problem with gun ownership is that more people should own
guns.

I didn't write "the problem with gun ownership is" , that was chrisbcritter's doing.

Now, that being said, guns are good equalizers. For the most part that is a positive.

Rubbish!

Equality is a good equaliser,

wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 11:06:06 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

So it's just twice as depressing as Massachusetts.

Vermont has Stellafane.

Vermont is only a few hours drive from NYC.

Vermont is only a few hours drive from Montreal.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/rea...rld#.dq0pvvzXG

So why such a high suicide rate? Perhaps it's the availability of guns.