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

[Sy Borg]

So that's it then. Mass shootings will have to be a fact of life in the US. Generations of children will have to live with the fear of being torn apart by the bullet of a AK-15 because the cowards in Congress will refuse to act.

And all because the US government & shooting lobby refuse to ban semi-final automatic rifles which have no function but to tear limb from limb as many people as possible.

The selfish attitude of the shooting lobby & so called libertarians will doom generations of children to live in fear. They will just have to hope that someone near & dear to them doesn't pay the price for someone else's 'right's.

Agreed 100%.

When it comes to issues where the US is interested, no challenge is too great. When it comes to protecting children for mass shootings, suddenly the "can do" attitude evaporates and everything about regulation is too difficult, and backed by numerous flimsy excuses. GEM's weak rationalisation for school shootings is a case in point, focused only on numbers of deaths, ignoring circumstances, who is dying and, especially, the impact on national morale. I note that this numbers argument is not raised by the same conservatives when it comes to terrorists on US soil.

[Rederic]

So that's it then. Mass shootings will have to be a fact of life in the US. Generations of children will have to live with the fear of being torn apart by the bullet of a AK-15 because the cowards in Congress will refuse to act.

If they live in fear of being shot while at school, then they should certainly fear riding in an automobile, since their risk of being killed is 42 times greater (633 child auto deaths in 2015, vs 15 from school shootings). And they should fear going home, where their risk of dying in a house fire is 28 times greater (271 deaths in 2015).

The difference is that automotive deaths are usually accidents, same with fires. Mass shootings of children are deliberate & the weapon used was designed to maim & kill large numbers of people. If you try to deny the facts then you're irresponsible.

[Sy Borg]

Also, the Constitution has been changed before, eg. slavery. Amendments are made from time to time.

[Steve3007]

Your wording in the above quote reveals the issue. "Feeling free" is not the same as being free. That you are reluctant or hesitant to do X because you are uncertain of the consequences of doing X, does not mean than you are not free to do X. Nor are we unfree if "we restrict our freedoms;" we are only unfree if someone else, another moral agent, restricts our freedoms, physically or by threat (in the sense defined). Personal, internal
inhibitions, whether due to worries about the "general risk of crime" or any other source, do not constitute restraints on our freedom, in any morally relevant sense. Moral issues arise only when one moral agent violates the rights of another, or threatens to do so.

Yes, you made it clear that this is your view not only here but also in the earlier post in which you quoted a distinction between three definitions of the word "threat". Here:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 30#p306030

You've made it clear here and in that post that you see a fundamental difference between explicit threats by other individually identifiable moral agents and general threats of potential harm from a pool of other moral agents who have not yet been individually identified. The definition of "freedom" that you use is such that the former is regarded by you as a reduction of freedom and the latter is not regarded as a reduction of freedom. And therefore (in your view) the former warrants the passing of freedom-restricting legislation and the latter does not.

I disagree. I don't think it is always necessary for there to be an explicit declaration of intent to do harm by a particular individual in order for legislation to be passed which (like all legislation) restricts freedoms. And, for reasons previously discussed, I don't accept your slippery slope argument that this leads to a police state. (Stated by you here and in that earlier post.)

There is a "general risk of crime" in every community of 2 or more persons. We may not impose real restraints on the liberties of moral agents merely in order to prevent crimes they could conceivably or hypothetically commit, but are highly unlikely to commit and have indicated no intention of committing. As I said, the contrary principle, if taken to its logical conclusion, yields a police state.

As I explained earlier, I still maintain that the abortion analogy shows that things can exist on opposite ends of a continuous spectrum/slope, with no objectively existing barrier (i.e. no barrier whose position all fair minded, clear thinking people would agree on) on that spectrum/slope, and yet our common sense tells us that an argument for one end does not facilitate an argument for the other.

I see nothing wrong with destroying a single celled embryo. I see it as wrong to destroy a newborn child. There is no objectively existing hard dividing line between the two which shows clearly to all fair minded people where right turns to wrong.

I don't think citizens should be routinely allowed to own live hand grenades. I do think they should be routinely allowed to own scissors. There is no objectively existing hard dividing line on the continuum between the two.

Allowing the destruction of single celled embryos doesn't give others an excuse to kill newborns. Banning the ownership of hand grenades doesn't give others an excuse to ban scissors. Agreeing where to place a dividing line between single celled embryos and newborns, or between hand grenades and scissors is difficult, and, in both cases, often leads to intractable arguments, because it is subjective. It depends on the type of society in which we wish to live - the trade-off between safety and individual liberty that we believe to be acceptable.

You've said that we have no right to expect freedom-limiting legislation whose purpose is to keep us safe from general dangers. I disagree. That doesn't mean I believe in a totalitarian state in which we attempt to eliminate all forms of potential danger and it doesn't mean that I give others an excuse to argue for that. I believe that some level of safety-ensuring legislation is desirable in order to make life tolerably safe.

So (to use Greta's earlier example) I believe that people who drive cars should be legally required to pass a driving test first, even though they have absolutely no intention of running anybody over and, individually, are unlikely to do so. They have no criminal intentions; no intentions to restrict the freedoms of others. We restrict people's freedom to drive until they've passed a test because we want to reduce the general incidence of road accidents. We want to make the roads safer.

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.

Yes we do.

Legally requiring people to pass driving tests (even though they haven't threatened any harm to anyone and, for all I know, might be extremely unlikely, as individuals, to cause any harm) has not so far led to a police state and I don't believe that it will.

Likewise, I believe that people who drive cars should be legally required to have them checked to ensure that they reach a particular level of road-worthiness that means they reach a particular level of safety. Cars that are deemed to be beyond that level are not permitted to be driven. Again, the owners of those cars show no sign of deliberately wanting to hurt anybody and, individually, are probably unlikely to do so.

Likewise, I believe that people who own firearms should be legally obliged to learn how to use them and that there is a level of danger above which their ownership and therefore potential use should not be allowed without restrictions. Deciding on the precise values of all these levels, just like deciding the precise number of weeks after which abortions should be forbidden, is the difficult part.

But my central point is that when you say that legislation has no role to play in reducing the general risk - the fear - of something harmful happening, I disagree.

[Steve3007]

While we're on the subject of cars, a quick reply to this one:

2. If I fail to wear a safety belt in a car or a crash helmet on a motorcycle, am I (potentially) harming anybody but myself?

In the case of seat belts you might, because if you are dislodged from the driver's seat you may lose control of your vehicle and cause a worse collision. But traffic safety rules are of a different ilk than general laws --- they are conditional upon use of a public service or asset. The owners of an asset may impose any conditions for use they please. That is true even when the owner is "the public." A law which demanded that you wear a seatbelt while driving your tractor on your own farm would violate your rights --- your right to run whatever risks you choose to run. A law requiring you to wear one while driving on a public road does not --- because you have no right to drive on that road; you have only a conditional privilege and a vote, in common with all your joint owners, on what those conditions shall be.

I think that this concept of the publicly owned road as a place where we have no automatic right to drive without various safety-related restrictions applies equally to other public spaces in which we might want, for example, to carry a firearm. In spaces that the public are allowed to freely enter, there are laws whose purpose is to increase the general level of safety.

[Fooloso4]

Greta:

... the Constitution has been changed before ...

Indeed. The Constitution was in effect changed when the second amendment's clause regarding a well-regulated militia was ignored. We do not have nor do we need a well-regulated militia for the simple reason that we now have a standing army, national guard, etc. If a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state then the right to bear arms to secure the state is no longer legitimate. The right derives from the need for a militia. When that need no longer exists the ground of the right no longer exists. It is a contingent right based on a specific stated purpose.

This is how the Supreme Court understood the amendment until in 1977 the NRA, until then by and large an apolitical group, brought Republican politicians to power who were intent on reinterpreting the amendment. At the time Chief Justice Warren Burger called the theory that the amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms a “fraud”. Unfortunately, the long-standing meaning of the amendment was undermined by money and power. Perhaps the problem of mass shootings will eventually return the amendment to its original meaning. And wouldn’t that be ironic given the right’s endorsement of originalism.

[GE Morton]

quote=Rederic post_id=306450 time=1519939971 user_id=39424]

The difference is that automotive deaths are usually accidents, same with fires. Mass shootings of children are deliberate & the weapon used was designed to maim & kill large numbers of people.[/quote]

Your claim was that school kids must live in fear of being shot. How one is killed is irrelevant; you're just as dead either way.

If you try to deny the facts then you're irresponsible.

The stats I gave you are the facts --- facts which parents and teachers should point out to any kid who lives in fear of being shot at school.

[GE Morton]

Indeed. The Constitution was in effect changed when the second amendment's clause regarding a well-regulated militia was ignored. We do not have nor do we need a well-regulated militia for the simple reason that we now have a standing army, national guard, etc. If a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state then the right to bear arms to secure the state is no longer legitimate. The right derives from the need for a militia. When that need no longer exists the ground of the right no longer exists. It is a contingent right based on a specific stated purpose.

You might want to read the actual Heller decision and the historical sources cited therein, including the English Bill of Rights and the bills of rights in the various state constitutions in effect when the US Constitution was drafted. The right to keep and bear arms had always been construed as a right held by all individuals, whether or not they were members of a militia. No one was ever prosecuted for keeping a firearm while not a member of a militia.

Burger is the one perpetrating the fraud, not Scalia in Heller.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[GE Morton]

I think that this concept of the publicly owned road as a place where we have no automatic right to drive without various safety-related restrictions applies equally to other public spaces in which we might want, for example, to carry a firearm. In spaces that the public are allowed to freely enter, there are laws whose purpose is to increase the general level of safety.

I actually agree with you on this point. If the public wishes to ban firearms in certain public places --- courthouses, schools, arenas, etc. --- it may do so, via the same rationale offered for seatbelt requirements and anti-smoking rules. The public may adopt any rules it wishes for the use of its property. Whether those restrictions are wise or not is another question, of course.

Naturally, the question will arise: Well then, why not ban firearms on public streets, sidewalks, parks, forests and other public lands? Ban firearms for anyone breathing public air?

The public ownership principle would not apply to natural commons --- publicly managed resources which are true public goods, i.e., non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Use of those resources by all persons is a natural right, not a state-granted privilege.

[Sy Borg]

The idea is regulation, not banning. I don't want to keep going round in these circles.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

You might want to read the actual Heller decision and the historical sources cited therein, including the English Bill of Rights and the bills of rights in the various state constitutions in effect when the US Constitution was drafted.

The Constitution is not the English Bill of Rights or the bills of rights of the various states. None of this stands as evidence of what the amendment means. What is the meaning of the clause regarding a well-regulated militia? If there is a right to bear arms what legitimizes restrictions on any weapons?

The 2008 Heller decision was 5-4, close enough to show that the issue is not so clear cut. When the next challenge comes to the court the decision is as likely to be based more on the makeup of the court and the escalation in the number of mass murders than the merits of the case. It is possible, however, that the amendment itself will be repealed either because of its ambiguity or because it will become obvious that things cannot remain as they are and something must be done at a fundamental level. Whatever the authors of the amendment may have thought about muskets should not put a stranglehold on an age where weapons are far more powerful and deadly than anything that could have been imagined at that time.

[Rederic]

quote=Rederic post_id=306450 time=1519939971 user_id=39424]

The difference is that automotive deaths are usually accidents, same with fires. Mass shootings of children are deliberate & the weapon used was designed to maim & kill large numbers of people.

Your claim was that school kids must live in fear of being shot. How one is killed is irrelevant; you're just as dead either way.

If you try to deny the facts then you're irresponsible.

The stats I gave you are the facts --- facts which parents and teachers should point out to any kid who lives in fear of being shot at school.
[/quote]

Can you explain to me how the cause of people dying is irrelevant. I understand that once a person is dead, they're beyond caring about the method of their death.

Are you saying that someone taking six months to die, in excruciating pain from cancer, is the same as someone dying of sudden cardiac arrest.

Can you imagine the shear terror experienced by these children in the moments before their death. Have you no empathy with these children or their parents. Are you ok that these shootings can carry on, as long as your right to own a AR-15 isn't violated?

[Steve3007]

Can you imagine the shear terror experienced by these children in the moments before their death. Have you no empathy with these children or their parents. Are you ok that these shootings can carry on, as long as your right to own a AR-15 isn't violated?

In my view this is disingenuous. As a rule, I don't think it's particularly helpful to paint a debate as a fight between the righteous (oneself) and the evil (one's opponent). Usually, both parties have somewhat similar underlying aims but differ as to the most effective means for achieving them. I may personally have disagreements with people who oppose restrictions on firearms ownership but I think that at least some of them present arguments which seek to show why restrictions on gun ownership are harmful. i prefer to try to confront those arguments rather than simply dismissing them as lacking empathy or imagination.

[GE Morton]

The Constitution is not the English Bill of Rights or the bills of rights of the various states. None of this stands as evidence of what the amendment means.

Er, yes, they are evidence of what the amendment means. They indicate how "the right to keep and bear arms" was understood at the time.

What is the meaning of the clause regarding a well-regulated militia? If there is a right to bear arms what legitimizes restrictions on any weapons?

The militia clause is a prefatory clause offering one reason for protecting that right, perhaps the reason seen as most compelling in the post-revolutionary period. But it does not imply that it is the only reason. Read the Heller decision for an explanation of prefatory and executing clauses. Also for an explanation of the types of weapons covered.

It is possible, however, that the amendment itself will be repealed either because of its ambiguity or because it will become obvious that things cannot remain as they are and something must be done at a fundamental level.

Possible, but highly unlikely. Constitutional amendments must be passed by 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress then ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

Er, yes, they are evidence of what the amendment means. They indicate how "the right to keep and bear arms" was understood at the time.

How others understood a right to bear arms cannot substitute for how the authors of the amendment understood it or how we are to understand it. The clause regarding a militia can be read as a corrective to how others understood that right - one has a right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia.

The militia clause is a prefatory clause offering one reason for protecting that right, perhaps the reason seen as most compelling in the post-revolutionary period. But it does not imply that it is the only reason.

If the right to bear arms was such a well established principle then why the need for giving any reason?

Read the Heller decision for an explanation of prefatory and executing clauses.

Calling it “prefatory” is nothing more than an attempt to explain it away. There is nothing in the structure of the statement that leads us to take it to mean anything other that that the clause is integral to its meaning. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said that:

... it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.

To do so sets a dangerous precedent by which we can pick and choose which clauses matter.

Also for an explanation of the types of weapons covered.

Rather than tell me to read something tell me what you think is the reason the amendment distinguishes between what weapons are and are not permissible.

Possible, but highly unlikely. Constitutional amendments must be passed by 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress then ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States.

I think the possibility increases in direct relation to the frequency and scale of shootings and the ability to marshal the forces of public outrage through political and economic action. If being pro-gun becomes enough of a political and economic liability things will change. No one lasts in politics without an instinct for self-preservation. We have not yet reached the tipping point, but if and when it occurs there will be few who will still stand in favor of current legislation.