rigorousintuition.ca

Not to be repetitive...but I am going to re-post some of my comments from the other Virginia Tech thread...and create a separate thread. (The other one is more about the actual details of the incident. This is more about the philosophy behind it all.)

I don't know that I am very hopeful about getting too much response to this subject. PC liberals have a tendency to evaporate whenever common sense rears it's ugly head.

Anyway...

It's amazing how some people don't get it-- Virginia Tech was designated by leading officials as a "safe zone" in forbidding concealed weapons (otherwise legal in Virginia).

In doing so they obviously turned it into a 'slaughter zone'. This mass murderer was able to walk on to the campus with impunity.

Dream's End stopped by (in the other thread) to simply announce that my insistence on the right to defend myself is "disgusting". As I told him over there-- he needs to construct an actual argument. No independent/thinking person responds very well to high-handed "announcements" ...whether from the pope or PCers.

And then the idea was expressed of substituting the right to defend ourselves with...kindergarten training programs? Clearly, that isn't going to be of any use to the occasional insane person. So again, wrenching away from us a right to defend ourselves (including the use of deadly force if necessary) is absurdly presumptuous and spectacularly inconsistent. Apparently it's OK for guys wearing blue hats and a piece of tin on their chests to carry weapons because they are...what? Magically morally superior?

And the problem is that the guy with the blue hat is usually ten minutes away (at the donut shop). Ten minutes in the Virginia Tech scenario (and a thousand other scenarios) is utterly useless. Not to mention...the early reports are that (similarly to Columbine) the "law officers" can be seen hiding behind trees off-campus while the slaughter was ongoing.

What is this bizarre presumption that some have...to say "You may not have the right or the means to defend yourself. Only...uh...that guy over there may have the means." How odd. How nonsensical.

Thirty-three people died yesterday, for the cause of political correctness. What a tragedy.

Ever heard of road rage? Do you want these people to be armed? With *guns?* *That* defies common sense in my opinion.

It's not the "right to defend yourself" that I found disgusting, it's the idea that the "solution" here is for a bunch of college kids to be strapping sidearms onto themselves for a trip to Pre-calculus. Nevermind the pervasive rumors that there is often heavy drinking on college campuses, dazzle us with your mathematical skill. How many students would have to be armed on that campus of around 26,000 to give say a 50% chance of someone being armed and trained sitting in that German class of 25 students? Or even among the 100 or so students that seem to have been in the various classrooms he went into?

So, since I maintain that this "solution" is no solution whatsoever, then it is an attempt to use this tragedy to push the agenda. For what it's worth, I can't see how on earth "gun control" laws would have helped much either and I will not be sympathetic to the use of this incident in that direction either. There are so many handguns out there right now that even if they were made illegal tomorrow they'd be easily obtainable for decades. And by the way, if you think you and the Mrs. Rothbardian, should there be one, are going to fend off swat teams with your own cache, you are deluded. They will always have more firepower than you. But I have no objection to people who've had safety training having weapons in their home. That is not at all what the VA incident is about.

After Columbine, I saw the same argument..."it was staged to justify draconian gun control laws." What I'm trying to figure out is, what guns do you want that you can't legally own? You need a FULLY automatic? Because that crackdown never came. Cho could have gotten those guns from Walmart. There are questions about Columbine, but if the intent was to make guns illegal it failed dramatically. If on the other hand, the intent was to get us all fearing each other, especially our young people and the gradual acceptance of reductions in civil rights overall...then Columbine was a "success."

I can even think with my paranoid hat and stipulate that for full fascism to take hold, seizure of weapons would be a big step. But, again, VA is not an example of that. I would wager that most colleges do not allow weapons on campus and I would wager that this has been the case for many, many years.

Your Rambo approach is unrealistic and disrespectful to the dead and the mourning.

yathrib--

Thanks for visiting my lonely little thread. Anyway...the 'roadragers' already have guns. Gun-toting roadragers are routine these days...even with an abundance of gun laws.

All the bad people already have guns. It's the good (law-abiding) people who have been stripped of their ability to defend themselves. That is highly immoral, in my view. And it resulted in 33 deaths yesterday.

DE--

That's kind of amazing 'double-think', isn't it? You're not disgusted with self-defense rights, but you're disgusted with students who might enact self-defense rights. Makes no sense.

I notice you're not touching my argument about the absurdity of having a self-defense prohibition for one group of humans...whereas the 'blue hat' humans have no such prohibition. It is absurd for one group to be viewed as 'qualified' and another as 'unqualified'. For one thing, corruption, misconduct, excessive violence and unnecessary deaths (i.e. murder) perpetrated by 'blue hats'...are absolutely huge.

And I have no need to calculate these mathematical odds-- If it was an accepted part of our American culture that everyone was allowed to carry self-defense measures on their person (up to and including deadly force) AND there was not the ridiculous restrictions we now have, in using that force...this insane 'bad guy' would do all the calculating for me.

Nevertheless...to help you with your math problem--if only one of the 25 or 100 students had been armed, many (if not all) of the 33 students who died yesterday for the cause of political correctness would probably still be living.

In any case, you're not touching the arguments and the simple logic of...a right to defend oneself, and the immorality and presumption of taking that away from someone.

You seem to want to promote and prolong a Darwinian struggle, Rothbardian. I don't wan't to take away your right to defend yourself, even to the death, I just think no one should automatically have the right to carry around a gun, even for the purpose of self-defence. It's uncivilized, and its bad for the health of your soul to be concerned to such an extent about your physical safety that you are forced to consider carrying a gun. It's terrible to live in an environment where your physical safety is such an issue, but to live in a land that therefore allows you to carry a gun for self-defence is an even greater tragedy.

Yours is, quite literally, the magic bullet cure. You don't want to address the underlying issues, you just think that if you have a gun you'll be able to insert a bullet in "the problem" and "the problem" will go away. That's both lazy and rash.

You see nothing wrong with people being "paid what they're worth," or "paid what the market dictates," but you want a gun to protect yourself from poor people? That's funny, and sad. And stupid.

There is a War on Drugs, but there is corruption, and people with no better options are always going to be craving the next hit. So you want to be able to insert a bullet in them when they come knocking at your door? Don't even think about fighting corruption, or defusing the War on Drugs - just insert a bullet in the victim of these things when he/she comes knocking at your door! Problem solved!

And equipping everyone so inclined with the means necessary to insert a bullet in the "lone nut" is similarly short-sighted, I think.

Okay... Who are the "good" people? Are all the road ragers card carrying criminals? I don't know, but I doubt it. At least some of them are good, law abiding middle class citizens until they're not,

rothbardian wrote: Gun-toting roadragers are routine these days...even with an abundance of gun laws.
.

yeah, like those harsh laws that still allow guns to be sold like expensive semi-concealed, semi-regulated candy. Oh, the humanity.

On the topic of good people who go wrong:
http://thismodernworld.com/3685

I'm personally split on the issue of gun control, I don't think it's a left/right issue either.

Oh and here's part of Whitman's (above link) eerie suicide letter: "I don't quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I don't really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can't recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Quite lucid.

"To Whom It May Concern: I have just taken my mother's life. I am very upset over having done it. However, I feel that if there is a heaven she is definitely there now...I am truly sorry...Let there be no doubt in your mind that I loved this woman with all my heart."

Whitman returned to his home at 906 Jewell Street and stabbed Kathy five times as she slept [6], leaving another note that read:

"I imagine it appears that I brutally killed both of my loved ones. I was only trying to do a quick thorough job...If my life insurance policy is valid please pay off my debts...donate the rest anonymously to a mental health foundation. Maybe research can prevent further tragedies of this type."

Whitman the next day, killed 14 people, or so.

It strikes me, how so lucid and clear after his actions he was - and how clean his background was before "snapping".

erosoplier--

You also are dodging the simple points I have made, AND erecting some ridiculous 'straw men' in the process.

I simply want freedom. And I see utter presumption and illogic in the idea of one human (or group of humans) declaring that the other humans may not have the right to self-defense.

If some madman begins shooting, PC libs (and many PC cons) demand that I sit there and wait patiently while the guy with the magical 'blue hat' finishes his donut and gets over to my location...whereupon I will have been long dead. It's sheer nonsense and madness.

And as to your 'straw men'--I want a gun so that I can presumably "shoot some poor people"? And I want to shoot people who "knock on my door"? And I want Darwinianism? I don't believe in any version or application of Darwinianism.

What I want is for those 33 people to be alive. But because your PC views prevail in the American community...they're dead.

yathrib (on edit)--

My comment would be that if someone decides to go from being 'good' to being 'bad'...laws against guns won't do any good.

I agree with you, rothbardian, it defies common sense that people could expect an island of unarmed students to experience peace and security in a sea of gunners. Virginia and its strict gun laws got what it's been asking for by allowing that school to remain unarmed.

rothbardian wrote:What I want is for those 33 people to be alive. But because your PC views prevail in the American community...they're dead.

No, "views" don't kill people. People kill people. Isn't that what the NRA type people always say (replace 'views' with 'guns')? Blaming attitudes and perceptions are pointless. Its the action that matters.

Yeah, maybe if 100% of the students at Virgina Tech packed heat then maybe instead the shooter would have killed 2 people or so and not 32. He still would have killed. But in your scenario, now the potential for "isolated incidents" becomes more widespread when everyone has a gun.

Anyone can 'snap'. Snapping with access to a gun versus snapping with access to no particular weapon?

As for the gun control laws in Virgina. If they were repealed say, last year, do you think people would have gravitated to the idea to begin sporting guns in class in a percentage enough to have been able to prevent this tragedy?

NO

Strangely enough, most people feel no need, despite no law in weapon-legal areas, because they feel or want to feel safe and secure enough in their environment to not have to carry a gun. These are the prevailing attitudes. Not the "PC" institutionalized views that you are talking about.

I am all for the right to bear arms. If we ever lose that you can kiss what little freedom we DO have goodbye. My advice is to own a gun and know how to handle it properly.

Peace and non-violence should always be the first priority. Make no mistake about that. But it is important for a citizentry to be armed to keep governments honest. It may not appear to be working since the government is pretty fucking corrupt, but you just wait and see what happens if they ever try and disarm us. You will thank god for all those rednecks in arizona and texas.

I really dont fit in with the right to bear arms crowd, I am actually very liberal and left leaning in my politics, for the most part. I dont really care much for those right wing NRA types, they tend to really go overboard with the whole gun thing. But I am a gun owner, and I know how to use it should the occasion ever arise. I do not support any form of gun control, period, and I am certainly not ashamed to admit that.

I'd be more than happy to see all guns banned, but I mean all guns..., like, ALL GUNS. I'd venture to say we would leave Iraq in hurry.

Before I get into a debate about issues which have been debated well and in depth from both sides and presuming that there is no way to eliminate all guns I'd like know who, exactly, should be allowed to have guns.

Banning all guns would be fine with me, as long as it is 100% across the board and nobody, including governments, can have one. Id certinaly love to see that. I dont particularly like guns but they are an important part of sustaining any notion of real freedom against tyranny. Bottom line.

To assume we can ban all guns is utopian, it makes great literary fiction but it is not reality.

I'm all for keeping guns legal and i'm very sympathetic to the argument that "if they ever came for us" or "if the time ever came where our freedoms were stomped", or "the day when they finally make their grab for power".

The assumption is that there are going to be sudden changes. As if "they" weren't already in complete control, or as if "they" weren't already, quietly and gently chipping away at our liberties. Or as if "they" didn't have the patience necessary to wait out attitudes or to understand that although they are in control, to wage for greater control, is ultimately unsustainable - as history shows.

Again, i'm all for guns to protect the citizenry by citzenry against tyrany. Lone shooters who walk the halls of campuses aren't representatives of "THE TYRANY" anymore than a gang-banger thug who grew up poor in L.A. and who shot a store clerk is.

They may be products of the tyranny, but they're victims like the rest of us. In such circumstance, we are using guns to protect ourselves from ourselves - which sounds cliche, i know. There are much larger issues going on in society that cause people to want to kill people. I agree that eliminating guns is only a band-aid to the problem. Sure as fuck isn't a solution. Basically what i was trying to say is guns against the "tyrany" is good. Guns against the people by the people, are bad. Unfortunately I don't know any way we can seperate the issue.

Best thing to advocate is more education, in my opinion.