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

[Steve3007]

No, Steve.

"No" to what, exactly?

When the government enacts a law prescribing a punishment for some behavior it makes a threat, a threat made plausible by its past actions enforcing that law. Speculative "possible" actions by some unspecified agent do not constitute threats. If your neighbor threatens to shoot up the school your kid attends he is attempting to limit your freedom. He is not threatening it merely by owning a gun.

If you think that possible actions by unspecified agents don't constitute threats then you shouldn't get a job in the insurance industry. Of course they constitute threats.

I don't define freedom that way. [as freedom from physical restraint]

Yes. I know you don't. That was my point (note the bold):

I disagree that freedom is the natural condition of all people/animals, unless (as I discussed above) we're talking about a definition of "freedom" that means: not physically restrained. As I said, I don't think that is what most people would understand by the word, in the context of people, societies and governments. In that context, it's clearly not what you mean by the word. You seem to define freedom as: having no risk of punishment for one's actions by the government. In that sense, I am not free to commit murder. But in the narrower sense, of course, I am free to to that. I'm not physically restrained from doing it.

And here:

If you think that repealing the second amendment would reduce people's freedom then you do not define freedom in that narrow way. [as freedom from physical restraint]

Since you appear to have missed my point I'll try again.

You have made the point that governments restrict our freedoms by enacting laws. Sometimes that's necessary to stop us from harming others. Sometimes not. So far so good.

Political freedom means, classically, freedom from restraints imposed by other moral agents, especially by government. It does not mean, as FDR claimed, freedom from fear or freedom from want. Nor does it mean freedom from risk, or freedom from responsibility.

Incorrect. It does not mean that (the bold part). As I said it does not mean freedom from restraints. As you have now conceded, it means freedom from the risk of something unpleasant happening, a.k.a. freedom from a threat of something happening if we take a particular course of action. For example, if I don't pay my taxes I risk an unpleasant prosecution. I am threatened with that. This fact is not altered by changing the source of that threat. It is true whether the source of the threat is an agent called "the government" or an agent called Nikolas Cruz or any other agent.

So when I said this:

If the situation where I live had reached a stage where my kids' teachers had to bring loaded guns into the classroom I personally wouldn't regard that as an enhancement of their, or my, freedom.

...and you replied with this:

It wouldn't be. But neither would it be a diminution of your freedom.

...you were also incorrect. An increase to the level of threat is a reduction of freedom. As with the restrictions on my freedom imposed by the government threatening me with punishment for various acts, we can argue about whether those reductions on my freedom are a necessarty evil or not. We can argue about whether some greater freedom is achieved by them. But we cannot deny that they are both reductions in freedom. As I've said, you appear to have this lopsided view that it is only threats from government that restrict freedom.

You seem to be equating risks with threats.

Yes! Of course I do, as do most other English speaking people.

Threat = a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.

Risk = exposure to danger.

If I am exposed to a threat then I am at risk from that threat. This is true by definition.

The presence of guns in a community does indeed increase the risks of being shot. But unless you're hyper-risk-averse, that slightly increased risk will not limit your freedom. Indeed, you probably accept greater risks every day. In the US your chances of being killed in an auto accident on any given day are almost three times greater than being shot. Similarly, your kid runs a greater risk of being killed while being driven to or from school than in being shot while there.

A slightly increased risk slightly reduces freedom. A significantly increased risk significantly reduces freedom. The risk from automobile accidents reduces my freedom to walk across roads when I feel like it. I accept the existence of automobiles and the consequent reduction in my freedom as a pedestrian.

---

To avoid trying to make too many points in one post, and thereby clouding the issue, I'll deal with other things later.

[GE Morton]

GE you are working your backside off the defend the indefensible. Your weak rationalisations in the face of extraordinary tragedy might hold a little validity except that every other western nation has successfully dealt with the issue.

What "indefensible" position do you think I'm trying to defend? Are you suggesting I'm defending school shooters and other mass murderers?

If you think my arguments are weak, Greta, you have an intellectual obligation to show their weaknesses by refuting them. Characterizing an argument without refuting it is merely an ad hominem.

Other nations have not "dealt successfully with the issue," because they have never faced the same issue. European nations all have an authoritarian heritage; the US has a libertarian one. Firearms ownership has never been commonplace in Western Europe; it has been ubiquitous in the US since the colonies were founded, due to the threats from Indians and the absence of law and order on the frontier. Nor do European nations enshrine the "right to keep and bear arms" in their basic laws, which cannot be overridden by legislatures by mere majority votes. For most Europeans gun restrictions are a ho-hum issue. For Americans they are a casus belli.

The solutions are there . . . Do you think other western nations have banned guns? . . . No. The smart thing is to conduct background checks and ensure that the legislative rights of gun ownership are counterbalanced by legislative responsibility, as routinely occurs in issues that have not been politicised.

Well, many people in the US would be eager to hear of those solutions. You realize, don't you, that background checks have been required since 1996? To be sure, there are problems with it. The disqualifying data must be forwarded to the NCIS by the States, and about half the states are derelict in their reporting, with less than 80% of ineligible persons included in their records. Even the NRA supports background checks, though it has argued that they will do little to reduce gun violence. They've been proved right, simply because there is an endless supply of black market and gray market firearms available. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is like trying to keep pot away from teenagers.

I support background checks, and would support any effort to make them more effective. But any thought that they will solve, or even substantially lessen, the problem is a pipedream.

[GE Morton]

"No" to what, exactly?

"No" to your claim that "freedom" means freedom from fear and risk. In the liberal tradition beginning with Hobbes and Locke it refers to freedom from restraints forcibly imposed by government, including the freedom to speak one's mind, practice the religion of one's choice, travel where one wishes, pursue any honest livelihood, enter into any desired relationship with any other willing person, etc., without restraints or penalties imposed by government. If you can find a source prior to the 1930s or so that gives the term any broader meaning in a political context I'd be eager to peruse it.

If you think that possible actions by unspecified agents don't constitute threats then you shouldn't get a job in the insurance industry. Of course they constitute threats.

We have a 4-term issue going on here. You're correct; there is a meaning of "threat" which is semantically equivalent to "risk." Here are the meanings given by Merriam-Webster:

Definition of threat
1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2 : one that threatens
3 : an indication of something impending: the sky held a threat of rain

I have been using the term intending definition #1. You are seeking to use it to mean definition #3.

Only "threat" in the first sense --- a declaration or action by a moral agent indicating an intent to do harm --- is morally relevant.

Violating or restricting the liberties of a moral agent can only be justified for morally relevant reasons --- to redress a harm committed by him, prevent one about to be committed, or eliminate a threat (in the first sense) posed by him. We do not restrict people's liberties because of something they might conceivably do, but have expressed or otherwise indicated no intention of doing or any significant probability of doing.

You need to reflect on where following the latter principle would lead. Merely living in a community with other persons exposes each of those persons to risks of harms, inflicted intentionally or by accident, from one or more of the other persons in the community --- risks they would not run if they withdrew to isolated cabin in the woods.

Granting government the power to reduce threats as you define it, if exercised consistently and diligently, leads to and can only be accomplished by a totalitarian police state.

Incorrect. It (freedom) does not mean that (the bold part). As I said it does not mean freedom from restraints. As you have now conceded, it means freedom from the risk of something unpleasant happening, a.k.a. freedom from a threat of something happening if we take a particular course of action. For example, if I don't pay my taxes I risk an unpleasant prosecution. I am threatened with that. This fact is not altered by changing the source of that threat. It is true whether the source of the threat is an agent called "the government" or an agent called Nikolas Cruz or any other agent.

Covered above. Freedom, in the liberal tradition, means freedom from restraints imposed by government. (Perhaps we need to clarify "restraint" as well. Being locked in a cell is a restraint; but so is a threat (in sense #1) of harm if one engages in a certain behavior). You are, of course, entitled to freedom from restraints imposed or threatened (in sense #1) by Cruz, as well as by government. Indeed, it is the purpose of government to see that Cruz does not impose those restraints upon you. Government, however, may not impose restraints on Cruz merely to prevent something he might conceivably do, but has expressed no intention of doing.

[Rederic]

How about drink driving?

[Sy Borg]

GE you are working your backside off the defend the indefensible. Your weak rationalisations in the face of extraordinary tragedy might hold a little validity except that every other western nation has successfully dealt with the issue.

What "indefensible" position do you think I'm trying to defend? Are you suggesting I'm defending school shooters and other mass murderers?

You appear to be against sensible regulation to reduce harm caused by too many military grade weapons in the community. Try defending that to the kids of shot up schools, and their families and friends. Indefensible. History will make this clear.

Rehulation has been made much harder because successive irresponsible governments (aside from Obama's who tried but was stymied by Congress) have allowed the problem reach an unprecedented level.

[GE Morton]

You appear to be against sensible regulation to reduce harm caused by too many military grade weapons in the community. Try defending that to the kids of shot up schools, and their families and friends. Indefensible. History will make this clear.

What sensible regulations would you suggest? You mentioned background checks, which I support and are already in place. Have another?

What distinguishes a "military grade weapon," in your mind? AR-15 rifles work just like any other semi-auto rifle, and other rifles of the same caliber will do just as much damage.

I don't see any rebuttals to those "weak" arguments, Greta.

[Sy Borg]

You appear to be against sensible regulation to reduce harm caused by too many military grade weapons in the community. Try defending that to the kids of shot up schools, and their families and friends. Indefensible. History will make this clear.

What sensible regulations would you suggest? You mentioned background checks, which I support and are already in place. Have another?

What distinguishes a "military grade weapon," in your mind? AR-15 rifles work just like any other semi-auto rifle, and other rifles of the same caliber will do just as much damage.

I don't see any rebuttals to those "weak" arguments, Greta.

It's nonsense that any other rifle would do as much damage - the whole point of a semi automatic weapon is to do more damage than a manual one, obviously.

So, background checking, licensing and removing as many military grade weapons from the civilian populace as possible would be the way to go, what apparently most Americans want to happen. However, the NRA and it's arms company sponsors do not want that to happen, so it doesn't.

[GE Morton]

It's nonsense that any other rifle would do as much damage - the whole point of a semi automatic weapon is to do more damage than a manual one, obviously.

You seem to be equating semi-auto weapons with "military grade" weapons. Perhaps you missed my earlier comment that most modern rifles and even shotguns, and ALL useful handguns, are semi-auto. Since those make up the majority of firearms now held, you're right --- banning all of them would never fly.

[Sy Borg]

It's nonsense that any other rifle would do as much damage - the whole point of a semi automatic weapon is to do more damage than a manual one, obviously.

You seem to be equating semi-auto weapons with "military grade" weapons. Perhaps you missed my earlier comment that most modern rifles and even shotguns, and ALL useful handguns, are semi-auto. Since those make up the majority of firearms now held, you're right --- banning all of them would never fly.

Nicole Hockley, who lost her child in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, explained the gun's appeal another way: The man who killed her son, she said earlier this year, "chose the AR-15 because he was aware of how many shots it could get out, how lethal it was, the way it was designed, that it would serve his objective of killing as many people as possible in the shortest time possible."

As I noted, many Americans would rather destroy their nation with civil war than submit to firearms regulation.

[LuckyR]

You seem to be equating semi-auto weapons with "military grade" weapons. Perhaps you missed my earlier comment that most modern rifles and even shotguns, and ALL useful handguns, are semi-auto. Since those make up the majority of firearms now held, you're right --- banning all of them would never fly.

Nicole Hockley, who lost her child in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, explained the gun's appeal another way: The man who killed her son, she said earlier this year, "chose the AR-15 because he was aware of how many shots it could get out, how lethal it was, the way it was designed, that it would serve his objective of killing as many people as possible in the shortest time possible."

As I noted, many Americans would rather destroy their nation with civil war than submit to firearms regulation.

Hyperbole much? Murder rates are dropping in the US.

[Sy Borg]

As I noted, many Americans would rather destroy their nation with civil war than submit to firearms regulation.

Hyperbole much? Murder rates are dropping in the US.

Ignoring history much? Do you seriously expect Americans to come together in a united front at this point?

[LuckyR]

Hyperbole much? Murder rates are dropping in the US.

Ignoring history much? Do you seriously expect Americans to come together in a united front at this point?

For gun control laws? Perhaps. For gun confiscation? Not going to happen.

[Sy Borg]

Ignoring history much? Do you seriously expect Americans to come together in a united front at this point?

For gun control laws? Perhaps. For gun confiscation? Not going to happen.

I don't expect Americans to come together on any major issue whatsoever. The schisms and hatreds I'm seeing today are like nothing I've seen in my life.

[LuckyR]

For gun control laws? Perhaps. For gun confiscation? Not going to happen.

I don't expect Americans to come together on any major issue whatsoever. The schisms and hatreds I'm seeing today are like nothing I've seen in my life.

What level of consensus would qualify as "come together"? 2 out of 3? 4 of 5? If you say 99 out of 100 I will agree with you, but then again that is true for every country in every era.

[Sy Borg]

I don't expect Americans to come together on any major issue whatsoever. The schisms and hatreds I'm seeing today are like nothing I've seen in my life.

What level of consensus would qualify as "come together"? 2 out of 3? 4 of 5? If you say 99 out of 100 I will agree with you, but then again that is true for every country in every era.

Let's see what they do about this mass murder situation. All signs are that nothing, or at best little, will be done.

The schisms in the US are getting deeper because it is obviously wildly irrational and foolish to allow shopkeepers to sell lethal weapons to any old Joe without due care. Imagine just letting everyone over 18 drive without compulsory instruction, licensing or registration of vehicles. That risk, however, is deemed unacceptable and so people's freedom to drive is curtailed. When is a risk deemed unacceptable?