Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Rederic]

I think that every member of Congress should be forced to view the bodies of these children in the mortuary.

[Steve3007]

I think that every member of Congress should be forced to view the bodies of these children in the mortuary.

To what end? What decisions would you expect those politicians to make differently after having that experience?

[Present awareness]

It’s not about gun control, it’s about allowing military machine guns in the hands of the public, including the mentally ill. Hand guns and hunting rifles are fine and murders will still happen with them, but at lest the numbers will be down!

[GE Morton]

From a Libertarian perspective, is he right? A true Libertarian, as I understand it, is in favour of punishing people for such crimes after they have occurred but will not countenance any restrictions on individual liberties before they have committed a crime . . .

Yes, but keep in mind that many laws are preventive in intent --- they restrict behaviors that have a strong probability of causing harm, and one may be convicted of committing them even though no harm has actually resulted from the behavior. Incitement to riot, for example (a restriction on free speech), solicitation for murder, and even traffic laws like speeding. So in principle it may be constitutional to restrict firearms possession for certain people if there is a strong probability that harm will result from such possession. A determination by a court that harm is highly likely to occur if Alfie possesses a firearm would satisfy due process.

Maybe groups like the NRA and ACLU have a point though, when they objected to Obama's rule restricting gun ownership for mentally ill people? They argued that this law violated the second amendment rights of mentally ill people because they would have had their freedoms restricted without adequate due process - without their day in court. It restricted people's right to bear arms for people who were deemed unable to handle their own disability benefits, the reasoning being that if their mental illness was so severe that they couldn't handle this, then they shouldn't be allowed to handle a gun.

Yes indeed. That "reasoning" is preposterous. An unwillingness or inability to manage money does not imply murderous tendencies. Most "mental illnesses" (the scope and definition of which changes with each edition of the DSM) do not involve violent behaviors. That restriction is way too broad. Any restriction must be based on facts pertaining to the specific individual whose gun rights the government seeks to restrict.

But anyway, from the perspective of a Libertarian, I can see why they would be unwilling to stop anyone from owning any kind of weapon until they've perpetrated their first mass shooting, because up until that point they are simply exercising their right to freely go about their business without outside interference.

Well, they don't have to commit mass murder to be forbidden to possess guns. Any crime of violence would furnish sufficient grounds. In those cases the restriction is not a "prior restraint," but a punishment for a crime of which the person has been duly convicted.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... al-illness

The author's conclusion concerning those stats showing a correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides is myopic. Of course there will be a positive correlation. If no one owned guns there would be no gun homicides, just as if no one owned an automobile there would be no traffic fatalities. But the ownership rates do not explain the high US rates of gun homicide. For example, the US ownership rate is about twice that of Switzerland and 3 times that of Canada, but the homicide rates are 4 times that of Switzerland and 6 times that of Canada. So there is clearly some other factor in play.

[LuckyR]

Maybe groups like the NRA and ACLU have a point though, when they objected to Obama's rule restricting gun ownership for mentally ill people? They argued that this law violated the second amendment rights of mentally ill people because they would have had their freedoms restricted without adequate due process - without their day in court. It restricted people's right to bear arms for people who were deemed unable to handle their own disability benefits, the reasoning being that if their mental illness was so severe that they couldn't handle this, then they shouldn't be allowed to handle a gun.

I've also read that critics of Obama's ruling said that it unfairly stigmatizes people with mental illnesses by implying that they are behind gun violence:

"The rule also perpetuates, critics said, the stigma that people with mental illness are behind gun violence in America. In reality, studies show people with mental illness are more likely to be victims, not perpetrators, of violence, and that very few violent acts — about 3 to 5 percent — are carried out by those with serious mental illness."

from here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... al-illness

Although, on the other hand, critics of gun control also seem to take the seemingly contradictory position that the problem of gun violence is actually a mental illness problem.

But anyway, from the perspective of a Libertarian, I can see why they would be unwilling to stop anyone from owning any kind of weapon until they've perpetrated their first mass shooting, because up until that point they are simply exercising their right to freely go about their business without outside interference. Until they harm others, the reason why they want the weapons is their business alone. And Libertarians would also presumably be unwilling to force treatment for mental illness on anybody and to force taxpayers to fund mental illness treatment.

You do bring up a valid point. Most of the mass shooters/drivers are diagnosed post hoc as "mentally ill" with the only diagnostic criteria being the perpetration of the event itself. Therefore bans of weapons beforehand would not be helpful. OTOH using the "logic" on display in several recent threads, perhaps there should be additional scrutiny/bans etc on guns for families with sullen, withdrawn, white sons.

[Steve3007]

Yes, but keep in mind that many laws are preventive in intent --- they restrict behaviors that have a strong probability of causing harm, and one may be convicted of committing them even though no harm has actually resulted from the behavior. Incitement to riot, for example (a restriction on free speech), solicitation for murder, and even traffic laws like speeding. So in principle it may be constitutional to restrict firearms possession for certain people if there is a strong probability that harm will result from such possession. A determination by a court that harm is highly likely to occur if Alfie possesses a firearm would satisfy due process.

Well, they don't have to commit mass murder to be forbidden to possess guns. Any crime of violence would furnish sufficient grounds. In those cases the restriction is not a "prior restraint," but a punishment for a crime of which the person has been duly convicted.

There appears to me to be a bit of a contradiction here. In the first paragraph you appear to be arguing against what I think of as the Libertarian view: that individuals should be left alone until they harm others. Any concept of preventative laws - of curtailing people's freedom because we hold the opinion that they might cause harm in the future - is anti-Libertarian as I understand it. The fact that this opinion is held by a judge in a court doesn't alter the fact that it is an opinion. Your example of "incitement to riot" is different. It is the same, essentially, as instructing somebody to commit a crime. It is therefore direct, not future potential, harm, in the same sense that a mafia boss ordering a "hit" is a crime.

But in the second paragraph you appear to say that a crime of violence actually has to have been comitted before any restraint on gun ownership.

Yes indeed. That "reasoning" is preposterous. An unwillingness or inability to manage money does not imply murderous tendencies. Most "mental illnesses" (the scope and definition of which changes with each edition of the DSM) do not involve violent behaviors. That restriction is way too broad. Any restriction must be based on facts pertaining to the specific individual whose gun rights the government seeks to restrict.

It's often not practicable to narrow preventative restrictions on liberty down to careful considerations of each individual case. So the debate, as with so many other political debates, is over the trade-off between individual liberty and societal cohesion.

For example, the US ownership rate is about twice that of Switzerland and 3 times that of Canada, but the homicide rates are 4 times that of Switzerland and 6 times that of Canada. So there is clearly some other factor in play.

If I had to guess as to what that factor might be, I would say it's due to the US culture of individualism and mistrust of authority that traces back to the reasons for the first settlers to leave Europe and strike out for the new world and the later war of independence against a monarchy. The upside of this trait is the dynamism and creativity that we all know. A possible downside might be the lethal combination of the creation of an unusually large minority of people who feel alienated by society (or hold various paranoid views about government) and a conviction that the people must be armed to defend themselves against despotic governments and other armed people. Every silver lining has a cloud!

[GE Morton]

There appears to me to be a bit of a contradiction here. In the first paragraph you appear to be arguing against what I think of as the Libertarian view: that individuals should be left alone until they harm others. Any concept of preventative laws - of curtailing people's freedom because we hold the opinion that they might cause harm in the future - is anti-Libertarian as I understand it . . . . Your example of "incitement to riot" is different. It is the same, essentially, as instructing somebody to commit a crime. It is therefore direct, not future potential, harm, in the same sense that a mafia boss ordering a "hit" is a crime.

No, it is not different. Both cases (incitement to riot and preventive revocation of gun rights) are attempts to forestall probable outcomes. Probability is never certainty, of course. A speeding driver may well reach his destination without injuring anyone. But most libertarians, I believe, would hold that agents must refrain, not only from injuring others, but from threatening others or placing them at heightened and avoidable risk of harm.

But in the second paragraph you appear to say that a crime of violence actually has to have been comitted before any restraint on gun ownership.

No. The thrust there was that prior commission of a violent crime is prima facie evidence of a propensity to commit violence. And if the restriction is imposed as part of the sentence for a violent crime of which the person has been duly convicted there will be no objection from libertarians. The problematic cases are those in which no conviction has occurred and perhaps no crime has even been committed yet, but the person has exhibited recent violence, made threats (verbal or behavioral), or has a history of violence or recklessness which a court determines place others at unusual risk. But the probability of harm must be high, and the evidence supporting that probability must be "clear and convincing" to a court.

It's often not practicable to narrow preventative restrictions on liberty down to careful considerations of each individual case. So the debate, as with so many other political debates, is over the trade-off between individual liberty and societal cohesion.

Well, justice consists in securing to each person what he or she is due. It is intrinsically about individuals. If a restriction on liberty or other infringement of rights cannot be justified for a particular individual then that restriction may not be imposed on that individual. "Societal cohesion" (whatever that is) does not trump individual rights.

If I had to guess as to what that factor might be, I would say it's due to the US culture of individualism and mistrust of authority that traces back to the reasons for the first settlers to leave Europe and strike out for the new world and the later war of independence against a monarchy. The upside of this trait is the dynamism and creativity that we all know. A possible downside might be the lethal combination of the creation of an unusually large minority of people who feel alienated by society (or hold various paranoid views about government) and a conviction that the people must be armed to defend themselves against despotic governments and other armed people. Every silver lining has a cloud!

There is a simpler explanation, though not one politically correct "progressives" wish to hear. Over half the homicides committed in the US are committed by blacks, who comprise about 13% of the population. The per capital rate for homicides by blacks is about 7 times the rate for whites, and the the rate for all violent crime by blacks about 3 times the rate for whites.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... mmit-crime

https://infogram.com/us-crime-in-black- ... p49q0okmwy

[Sy Borg]

If Americans don't care about saving themselves then it's hard to muster much care from outside. It does seem to be an extraordinary amount of pointless suffering and waste for ... what? So that military grade weapons remain in easy reach for any lunatic who seeks revenge?

The biggest issue is that, if they have the kind of civil conflicts that many there are itching for, that will harm the economies of other countries.

[Steve3007]

No, it is not different. Both cases (incitement to riot and preventive revocation of gun rights) are attempts to forestall probable outcomes. Probability is never certainty, of course. A speeding driver may well reach his destination without injuring anyone. But most libertarians, I believe, would hold that agents must refrain, not only from injuring others, but from threatening others or placing them at heightened and avoidable risk of harm.

The key point here is the interpretation of the word "probable". There is no hard, all-or-nothing, objectively existing dividing line between acts that clearly infringe on the freedoms of others (for example by physically harming them) and acts that clearly don't. There is a continuum. But laws, by their nature, have to draw dividing lines. I think the reason for debate about the subject is that it seems to be a matter of personal preference where exactly to draw this line. And that personal preference is often based on ideological convictions as to what kind of bunch of people (a.k.a. "society") we want to live in, and now much ideological commitment we have to the concept of individual liberty.

No. The thrust there was that prior commission of a violent crime is prima facie evidence of a propensity to commit violence. And if the restriction is imposed as part of the sentence for a violent crime of which the person has been duly convicted there will be no objection from libertarians. The problematic cases are those in which no conviction has occurred and perhaps no crime has even been committed yet, but the person has exhibited recent violence, made threats (verbal or behavioral), or has a history of violence or recklessness which a court determines place others at unusual risk. But the probability of harm must be high, and the evidence supporting that probability must be "clear and convincing" to a court.

Again, the question of what consistutes a "high probability of harm" is open to debate.

Also, if no crime has been committed, I suggest it would be pretty difficult to have a court assess every single individual in the country to see if they have exhibited some kind of tendency to violence in the past. Easier just to have blanket restrictions on weapons and accept that this infringes on the rights of some peaceful people to bear arms in order to protect the rights of others.

Well, justice consists in securing to each person what he or she is due. It is intrinsically about individuals. If a restriction on liberty or other infringement of rights cannot be justified for a particular individual then that restriction may not be imposed on that individual. "Societal cohesion" (whatever that is) does not trump individual rights.

Yes, "societal cohesion" is a vague and perhaps inappropriate term. I'm really talking about the general character of the environment in which we all have to exist. It goes back to the continuum I was talking about above, and the fact that some forms of harm are more direct and traceable, while others are indirect, and there's no simple "harm/no-harm" dividing line. If theoretically giving people individual freedoms means that in practice, down the line, everybody is less free, then arguably those theoretical freedoms aren't worth as much as we think they are.

An example would be the suggestion by the US president, yesterday, that part of a solution to the problem of school shootings, which would also uphold the general right to bear arms, is for teachers to carry guns. It's a suggestion that's been made before by others. On the one hand, I can see the Libertarian argument for it. But on the other hand, I step back, do a sanity check, and think: would I really want to live in a society (or "collection of people", if you don't like that word) in which school teachers have to carry guns?

A related issue is that of material equality. In my view, there is nothing inherently wrong with inequality. Equality is not a goal in itself. Inequality drives ambition and innovation. But if society (collection of people) were to reach a level of inequality such that the rich have to protect themselves with gated communities and private security firms then I would argue that the freedom which led to this level of inequality ultimately makes everyone less happy. I would argue that it's generally beneficial to limit some freedoms even if they don't directly harm, or risk harming, others. I would say that some of those limits to freedom would take the form of taking part of people's income, in the form of taxation, to fund various things that I would regard as public services, because a society/bunch-of-people in which those services are available to all will tend to benefit everybody.

These are the the kinds of concepts that I tried to summarise with the imperfect term "societal cohesion".

There is a simpler explanation, though not one politically correct "progressives" wish to hear. Over half the homicides committed in the US are committed by blacks, who comprise about 13% of the population. The per capital rate for homicides by blacks is about 7 times the rate for whites, and the the rate for all violent crime by blacks about 3 times the rate for whites.

This is not an explanation. It's a statistic. An explanation is a proposed reason why an act occurs. This is simply a statement about which group is predominantly performing that act.

The biggest issue is that, if they have the kind of civil conflicts that many there are itching for, that will harm the economies of other countries.

If I was a Libertarian minded American I think I might try arguing that the general free-market philosophy in the US, which results from the commitment to individual liberty (including the right to bear arms) is what has made the country a rich market for other countries' products and supported the global economy. So it's swings and roundabouts.

[Rederic]

If semi-automatic weaponry were banned & people got upset about it, we could send them our thoughts & prayer s.

[Steve3007]

If semi-automatic weaponry were banned & people got upset about it, we could send them our thoughts & prayer s.

Continuing with the satire: We could have a cue card with "send thoughts and prayers" written on it.

[Sy Borg]

Trump's idea of arming teachers has promise, though. If teachers each have a gun in a safe then the first thing angry boys with machine guns need to do is take out the teachers, and then they have a free run at the kids. The time spent chasing and hunting down teachers trying to get to the safe is time not spent shooting students, so this should save some lives during ensuing school slaughters.

It's probably best to only arm teachers, teacher aides and cleaners with rifles and pistols, though. Semi automatic weapons, grenades and nuclear warheads should only be operated by school principals and senior teaching staff in the case of especially difficult students and alumni.

Also, let's face it, any student who turns up to school without a bullet proof vest, helmet, body armour and weaponry is basically asking to be killed. These deaths are ultimately entirely the fault of the students and their parents for being too soft and weak to defend themselves. That's why it's so disappointing that the the poor old NRA keeps being blamed for political purposes. Doesn't anyone take responsibility for themselves any more?

[LuckyR]

If Americans don't care about saving themselves then it's hard to muster much care from outside. It does seem to be an extraordinary amount of pointless suffering and waste for ... what? So that military grade weapons remain in easy reach for any lunatic who seeks revenge?

The biggest issue is that, if they have the kind of civil conflicts that many there are itching for, that will harm the economies of other countries.

Not sure what you mean. A majority of voters are in favor of some form of gun control. It just so happens that the legislature (a tiny fraction of total voters) does not.

[Sy Borg]

If Americans don't care about saving themselves then it's hard to muster much care from outside. It does seem to be an extraordinary amount of pointless suffering and waste for ... what? So that military grade weapons remain in easy reach for any lunatic who seeks revenge?

The biggest issue is that, if they have the kind of civil conflicts that many there are itching for, that will harm the economies of other countries.

Not sure what you mean. A majority of voters are in favor of some form of gun control. It just so happens that the legislature (a tiny fraction of total voters) does not.

Exactly. If one's government doesn't care about its people why should anyone else?

It's a sad fact of life that that people can rarely be saved from an uncaring government by outsiders. Any attempt to even opine tends to be met by resistance and resentment for "interfering".

[Steve3007]

It does seem that the majority of US citizens are in favour of various stricter forms of gun controls, but there does always seem to be this relatively large minority whose ideological attachment to the second amendment and obsessive paranoia about government and "socialism" cause them to lose touch with reality. That recent speech by Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, was unhinged. Raving about how the teenage survivors of the Florida shooting are political puppets, and how anybody who advocates any form of gun control "hates freedom" and is a "socialist". It was worthy of some of the most extreme nutters we've had on this site, like Dachshund or Grunth. And this organisation, the NRA, of which this man is the chief, has the 100% wholehearted support of the democratically elected US president. It absolutely beggars belief.

It always seems to be this obsessive attachment to some kind of abstract ideology, whether it's the ideology of "individual liberty", of religious scripture, of Socialism, Communism, Libertarianism or anything else, that is most likely to cause people to detach themselves from reality and disappear down a rabbit hole of paranoia. And the result often seems to be something that common sense tells us is insanity but which seems like the logical conclusion to a rational argument to the ideologue. In this case, the insane conclusion is:

Individual liberty = school teachers in shoot-outs with school invaders.

It's when I think of my own kids' schools and the teachers there that I know, and imagine them with guns, when the almost comic-book madness of this proposition really hits home.