Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[4588686]

Not at all what I described. Refusal to comply with gun laws isn't aggressive.

 

That depends on the gun law.  Even accepting your premise I don't see why that matters unless you dichotomize all moral and political questions into 'aggression' vs 'non-aggression.'  Did Victor Bout ever commit an act of aggression   Not that I know of.  But his fueling of conflicts sure did result in a lot of death and slaughter yet by your dichotomy the federal government was committing an awful act of aggression against a private citizen who was simply moving his property around and making free transactions.  

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

That depends on the gun law.  Even accepting your premise I don't see why that matters unless you dichotomize all moral and political questions into 'aggression' vs 'non-aggression.'  Did Victor Bout ever commit an act of aggression   Not that I know of.  But his fueling of conflicts sure did result in a lot of death and slaughter yet by your dichotomy the federal government was committing an awful act of aggression against a private citizen who was simply moving his property around and making free transactions.  

 

There's lots of acts I might find morally distasteful, but barring that someone commits aggression against me or an innocent, I'm not likely to do anything. I certainly can't imagine using force against someone for owning a rifle with a 14" barrel instead of one with a 16" barrel, but people can be throw in prison for those two inches. That's evil.

[4588686]

There's lots of acts I might find morally distasteful, but barring that someone commits aggression against me or an innocent, I'm not likely to do anything. I certainly can't imagine using force against someone for owning a rifle with a 14" barrel instead of one with a 16" barrel, but people can be throw in prison for those two inches. That's evil.

 

So arresting Victor Bout was immoral?  

[Groo the Wanderer]

buncha numb nuts

[Winchester]

So arresting Victor Bout was immoral?  

 

I'd have to read more about the case against him, but it appears to me that he sold to murderers the US didn't approve of. If only he'd chosen the right warlord types.

[4588686]

I'd have to read more about the case against him, but it appears to me that he sold to murderers the US didn't approve of. If only he'd chosen the right warlord types.

 

That's right.  There is and was an element of hypocrisy in the governments case.  No denying that.  That doesn't really answer the question though or the difficulties Victor Bout poses you your political model

[Winchester]

That's right.  There is and was an element of hypocrisy in the governments case.  No denying that.  That doesn't really answer the question though or the difficulties Victor Bout poses you your political model

 

I don't view it as political. It's moral.

 

Could the people victimized by the criminal gangs Victor supplied view his trade of weapons for money that was likely not morally obtained as part of the criminal actions taken against them? I think there's a case for that.

 

But the organization that arrested him obtains all its money under threat of violence. So it's a little more complicated.

 

I am more than willing to entertain that the many individuals committing what are objectively acts of assault, kidnapping, and murder, are doing so with the very best intent. Perhaps with noble intent. Every time the DEA kicks in a door in the name of enforcing crimes against vice, they commit breaking and entering, then commit assault. The people they assault often are not very nice people. Often, the people they confront are murderers. The world may well be better off with them out of commission. That doesn't make the DEA's actions morally good.

[4588686]

I don't view it as political. It's moral.

 

Could the people victimized by the criminal gangs Victor supplied view his trade of weapons for money that was likely not morally obtained as part of the criminal actions taken against them? I think there's a case for that.

 

 

Why, though?  What has he done wrong?  He had private property and sold it to somebody.  What's wrong with that?

[Winchester]

Why, though?  What has he done wrong?  He had private property and sold it to somebody.  What's wrong with that?

 

I think I answered that.

 

And any weapons he bought from governments or government officials were not the rightful property of the sellers.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Winchester

[Groo the Wanderer]

:popcorn:

[4588686]

I think I answered that.

 

You've said it was likely part of criminal activity against them but I don't see why that is the case given your views on violence and economics.  That's not snarky.  I just don't see how he did anything wrong within your moral parameters   

I think I answered that.

 

 

You've said it was likely part of criminal activity against them but I don't see why that is the case given your views on violence and economics.  That's not snarky.  I just don't see how he did anything wrong within your moral parameters   

 

 

And any weapons he bought from governments or government officials were not the rightful property of the sellers.

 

Who says he bought them from governments?  If he bought them from private arms manufacturers would it then be alright?  

[Groo the Wanderer]

:lies:

[4588686]

:lies:

 

What did I lie about?

[Groo the Wanderer]

nuttin.  just wanted to use that emote

 

 

:blues:

 

carry on, carry on

[Winchester]

You've said it was likely part of criminal activity against them but I don't see why that is the case given your views on violence and economics.  That's not snarky.  I just don't see how he did anything wrong within your moral parameters   

 

 

You've said it was likely part of criminal activity against them but I don't see why that is the case given your views on violence and economics.  That's not snarky.  I just don't see how he did anything wrong within your moral parameters   

 

 

 

Who says he bought them from governments?  If he bought them from private arms manufacturers would it then be alright?  

Government does not engage in voluntary exchange, and he was trading with people who were attempting to violate the property rights of others. That's how it's wrong. The rules for voluntary exchange rule out many things you might think would be perfectly acceptable to an an-cap.

 

He did buy his arms from governments, though.

 

Selling arms in an of itself is not a crime. Even if one gang says one may not sell arms to a different gang. If I buy an F-14 and put missiles on it, I do nothing immoral. Is selling weapons to a criminal enterprise an immoral act? Yes. In this case, another criminal enterprise arrested him for it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Is it okay to kill people who refuse to cooperate with the gun laws, but don't do anything aggressive?"

 

i don't see why. it'd be like every other nonmurderous crime, jail, fines, etc etc. we only use death penalty for murder, sometimse, now.

it'd be like the war on drugs, somewhat, at least if it were like japan. (where they actively raid people they think have guns. but i do acknowledge that drugs cause harm etc to oneself necessarily, and guns aren't inherently like that)
reading further, as has been said, there's a difference between a capital offense and police using force when force is used against them. one could also say when a person violates the law, they are committing the initial act of aggression. then again, one could say the government making the law is the first act of aggression. the thing i suppose is that we have a system of laws and government, etc, you ahve to abide by it. some laws are just, some are not, but we have to take the good with teh bad, for the most part. just like poeple who have drugs or do other crimes and have people raid them etc.

i don't see what the issue is with guns, why one has to get on their horse about unjust laws etc. i can see to an extent a right to self defense and all that, but when we see japan and its ban and the sparse deaths etc... we should really question whether its wise to allow poeple contraptions that are meant to kill so easily etc.

one day people may look back, in a future utopia, and wonder why we'd have ever let guns remain legal. course, if it was trulyu a utopia, the gun wouldn't be needed in the first place, per self defense etc, but.

 

 

 

 

"

Yes, rates of homicide by guns would go down if we had a complete gun ban. Britain has an extremely lower gun homicide rate. But do you know what Britain also has? A much higher violence rate. No guns does not equal no violence, it just equals violence minus guns. I've done karate since I was four. I have known and still know hundreds of people in my life that can kill without a gun with just as much ease. Do not think that people will somehow not figure out how to kill just because they don't have a gun in their hand. In fact, it's easier to get away with it without a gun. Guns make noise, snapping a person's neck from behind does not.

"

 

jackie chan at sandy hook, even jackie chan, wouldn't have been able to pull off nearly as many deaths, though. and anyone without a gun, wouldn't be able to kill as many people on rampages. and it overall makes it much more burdensome to kill, to the significant extent that deaths are significantly reduced.

all around, then, the death rate would be lower proportinoal to how much we enforce gun controls, bans. look at japan, as i said.
 

Edited January 12, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[4588686]

Government does not engage in voluntary exchange

 

That's just not totally true.  People vote for the bodies that levy taxes and they are free to leave if they wish.  

 

 

and he was trading with people who were attempting to violate the property rights of others.

 

To murder others.  

 

That's how it's wrong. The rules for voluntary exchange rule out many things you might think would be perfectly acceptable to an an-cap.

 

So people who own private property have to ensure that the people they sell their private property use what is now the buyers property in a morally acceptable way?

 

He did buy his arms from governments, though.

 

I've never seen any accounting of where he bought all his arms from and I don't know how that can be confirmed since there is a lot of dispute where and to whom he sold guns.  

 

Selling arms in an of itself is not a crime. Even if one gang says one may not sell arms to a different gang. If I buy an F-14 and put missiles on it, I do nothing immoral. Is selling weapons to a criminal enterprise an immoral act? Yes. In this case, another criminal enterprise arrested him for it.

 

So you your system what could be done to stop a Victor Bout.  If Victor Bout owned his own factory and sold the arms that he produced to men who he knew or thought were committing genocide what recourse would people have to stop him?  Just some individual decides that he's not using his private property correctly and kills or imprisons him of his own accord? 

[KnightofChrist]

The State, currently run by the Party of Death, wants more gun control in the name of the innocent victims of criminals and mad men who did not and will not obey the laws. The State wants to serverly limit or slowly snuff out the right of the people to keep and bare arms. Punishing innocent people for the crime of others. But if the State and the Party of Death actually cared about innocent victims it would target a industry that directly targets innocent victims and murders them for money every day. Instead they fund it and advocate for it. A State that funds the mass murder of children cannot be trusted to limit or take away the people's ability to protect themselves from a unjust State.

[4588686]

The State, currently run by the Party of Death, wants more gun control in the name of the innocent victims of criminals and mad men who did not and will not obey the laws. The State wants to serverly limit or slowly snuff out the right of the people to keep and bare arms. Punishing innocent people for the crime of others. But if the State and the Party of Death actually cared about innocent victims it would target a industry that directly targets innocent victims and murders them for money every day. Instead they fund it and advocate for it. A State that funds the mass murder of children cannot be trusted to limit or take away the people's ability to protect themselves from a unjust State.

 

So the party that supports the death penalty, carved out the legal space for torture, and launched the war in Iraq is the party of life?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

So much effort, now.