Thread: We need hammer control NOW!!!

I think we can all agree that hammers aren't a problem...

... it's those semi-automatic hammers that should be banned.

Well, I think all hammers are bad because some hammers have decided to kill people, but the semi-automatic ones are especially immoral creatures. Requiring a background check and a three day waiting period are what we need because they are the next steps toward all out banning of hammers. Banning hammers will get them off the streets just like banning heroin and cocaine got those off the streets. Then criminals won't be able to kill anybody any more.

This doesn't make you come across as intelligible, you know that right?
Drawing comparisons between a gun and a hammer (let along drugs) is absolutely absurd. Any heavy moderately sized object can be used a a blunt force weapon.

Guns aren't the cause of the problem, but they are part of it. There are too many guns in circulation in the USA, it's too easy to get hold of them. And the only argument you can come up with is that government might turn totalitarian one day.

You're right, all weapon controls are inherently absurd.

Legislation against carrying fertiliser bombs or dirty nukes around in public is also completely unnecessary.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

This doesn't make you come across as intelligible, you know that right?
Drawing comparisons between a gun and a hammer (let along drugs) is absolutely absurd. Any heavy moderately sized object can be used a a blunt force weapon.

Guns aren't the cause of the problem, but they are part of it. There are too many guns in circulation in the USA, it's too easy to get hold of them. And the only argument you can come up with is that government might turn totalitarian one day.

Ha ha, what the Hell? My arguments against gun control go way beyond the need to be prepared for possible future of tyranny, but that too is an issue. Do you assume that the United States has magical automatic protection against going totalitarian like so many other countries have? The parallel between drugs and weapons here is that banning them only affects people who give a shit about the law. Can you explain how banning guns or hammers would stop the underground market? It wouldn't. Hammers and guns are small, simple weapons that cannot be taken off the underground market without having a police state. Banning them would just give the bad guys an advantage. I know lots of stories of good people defending themselves with guns. My father stopped two burglars with a gun when my mother and sister were in the house. Under your ideal system, my dad wouldn't have had a gun but the burglars would have. What a great idea!

So, should we ban hammers? Why or why not?

Originally Posted by Xei

You're right, all weapon controls are inherently absurd.

Legislation against carrying fertiliser bombs or dirty nukes around in public is also completely unnecessary.

Bombs are much easier to catch people with, and there is not a major market for them. The underground bomb market can actually be controlled to a significant extent, but even that isn't majorly controllable. The bigger issue is the assholes who want to bomb stuff. We concentrate much more on them than their weapons. That is a rational approach.

Explain how criminals give a shit about gun laws. Also, should we ban hammers? Why or why not? Hammers kill!!!

gun laws.jpg

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Guns aren't the cause of the problem, but they are part of it.

1. Media sensationalism that leads to the glorification and near-celebrity status of crazed gunmen
2. Lack of support for the mentally ill
3. A culture of confrontation
4. Mistrust of local (and federal) authorities
5. A "gun culture" born out of points 3 and 4.

These are the issues that need to be addressed if gun violence is to be reduced. There aren't nearly as many guns in circulation here in Canada, but it's still incredibly easy to get your hands on one. But we don't have nearly as many mass shootings (can't think of any in the last couple years), because we're not faced with problems 1-5 (at least not much).

Our gun violence would drastically shrink if we would end the war on drugs. Gang fighting for turf is a big time reason for gun violence. When alcohol prohibition ended, gun violence went way down, but it went way back up again when weed was banned. It went really bad when Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971. Also, the gang problem we have now, which is a much bigger version of the gang problem we had during alcohol prohibition, rubs off on the rest of society. Drug dealers have money and power, and that makes other people think it's cool to be "gangsta." With that image comes acting like a hard ass all the time, and violence is part of that. Violence is very glamorized by the gangster culture that is so out of hand because of the prohibition of tons of drugs.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

1. Media sensationalism that leads to the glorification and near-celebrity status of crazed gunmen
2. Lack of support for the mentally ill
3. A culture of confrontation
4. Mistrust of local (and federal) authorities
5. A "gun culture" born out of points 3 and 4.

These are the issues that need to be addressed if gun violence is to be reduced. There aren't nearly as many guns in circulation here in Canada, but it's still incredibly easy to get your hands on one. But we don't have nearly as many mass shootings (can't think of any in the last couple years), because we're not faced with problems 1-5 (at least not much).

Completely right, but none of that validates gun ownership. Guns should be regulated (not banned, nothing good comes from things that are banned), laws should be established that prohibits anything but the most basic gun possible.

Education and medical care for all is definitely the long term solution, as it always is. For now a temporary solution involving stricter surveillance might actually work. The middle step of a reform is always the toughest, for things to change, the people must adapt.

Dutchraptor, do you think you can answer my questions?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Bombs are much easier to catch people with, and there is not a major market for them. The underground bomb market can actually be controlled to a significant extent, but even that isn't majorly controllable. The bigger issue is the assholes who want to bomb stuff. We concentrate much more on them than their weapons. That is a rational approach.

I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?

I'll answer this.

First let's assume that there's no radiation leaking out of the briefcase. So no one is being injured by radiation. The only injuries would occur in the event of an explosion. We need to make this assumption because otherwise I would agree with you, as the briefcase is harming people just by existing (radiation).

But assuming you're not dropping a trail of fallout behind you, I would say no. It should not be illegal. Setting off a bomb should be illegal, but carrying one doesn't hurt anyone. By your reasoning, driving a car should be illegal too, because it could potentially run people over. Or imagine an 18 wheeler. That thing could kill lots of people. How about an airplane? Some jihadists have already shown us how dangerous they can be.

And consider someone who works in a quarry. They use explosives every day. Presumably those explosives need to be transported from somewhere to the detonation site. Therefore, someone, at some point, has to be carrying a bomb, or something that could easily become a bomb. Yes, they have a license from some government somewhere, but how does a license alter the physical reality that a person is carrying a bomb?

Originally Posted by cmind

I'll answer this.

First let's assume that there's no radiation leaking out of the briefcase. So no one is being injured by radiation. The only injuries would occur in the event of an explosion. We need to make this assumption because otherwise I would agree with you, as the briefcase is harming people just by existing (radiation).

But assuming you're not dropping a trail of fallout behind you, I would say no. It should not be illegal. Setting off a bomb should be illegal, but carrying one doesn't hurt anyone. By your reasoning, driving a car should be illegal too, because it could potentially run people over. Or imagine an 18 wheeler. That thing could kill lots of people. How about an airplane? Some jihadists have already shown us how dangerous they can be.

I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."

Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.

Originally Posted by cmind

And consider someone who works in a quarry. They use explosives every day. Presumably those explosives need to be transported from somewhere to the detonation site. Therefore, someone, at some point, has to be carrying a bomb, or something that could easily become a bomb. Yes, they have a license from some government somewhere, but how does a license alter the physical reality that a person is carrying a bomb?

Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes.

Originally Posted by cmind

I'll answer this.

First let's assume that there's no radiation leaking out of the briefcase. So no one is being injured by radiation. The only injuries would occur in the event of an explosion. We need to make this assumption because otherwise I would agree with you, as the briefcase is harming people just by existing (radiation).

But assuming you're not dropping a trail of fallout behind you, I would say no. It should not be illegal. Setting off a bomb should be illegal, but carrying one doesn't hurt anyone. By your reasoning, driving a car should be illegal too, because it could potentially run people over. Or imagine an 18 wheeler. That thing could kill lots of people. How about an airplane? Some jihadists have already shown us how dangerous they can be.

I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."

Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.

Originally Posted by cmind

And consider someone who works in a quarry. They use explosives every day. Presumably those explosives need to be transported from somewhere to the detonation site. Therefore, someone, at some point, has to be carrying a bomb, or something that could easily become a bomb. Yes, they have a license from some government somewhere, but how does a license alter the physical reality that a person is carrying a bomb?

Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes. Explosives used in quarries are shipped in separate parts as well. TNT on one train, detonator(s) on another, for instance.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?

It should. Those are actually controllable, for the reasons I stated. They also do not serve self-defense purposes, and they don't qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment. Do you think we should ban hammers?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."

Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.



Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes. Explosives used in quarries are shipped in separate parts as well. TNT on one train, detonator(s) on another, for instance.

When did you stop being an anarchist? You are arguing for laws now. I believe in laws too, but you used to say we shouldn't even have a government.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When did you stop being an anarchist? You are arguing for laws now. I believe in laws too, but you used to say we shouldn't even have a government.

There's nothing about anarchism that says briefcase nukes should be permissible. Not the kind of anarchism that I'd advocate, anyway. Anarchy does not equal anomie, and if I did, I wouldn't be an anarchist.

To answer your question, I came to the conclusion that getting rid of the state wholesale does not always yield immediate benefits with regard to increasing or maintaining liberties. I said in the other thread that I am pro-liberty before I am anti-state. I will support the argument that the government should legalize gay marriage before supporting the argument that the state should not even be involved in marriage, for example.

If a maximally free society is one where the state doesn't exist, I will advocate for that system. If a maximally free society is one where the state still exists, but is minimal, I will advocate for that system. I don't know which one is true.

Whether all of that still makes me a non-anarchist is unclear. I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society, so I believe I still am an anarchist. If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.

Besides, from a purely stylistic standpoint, purist anarchists never get anywhere in the debates I've seen (and been part of). If we argue about gun control or gay marriage, all they ever say is "get rid of the state, presto, problem solved." That's not feasible right now, so they achieve no benefits by arguing in that manner.

Then, who should the body of authority with a rule against briefcase nukes be? What type of rule would you like, if not a government rule? Wouldn't the body with a rule against briefcase nukes qualify as a government?

What do you think of gun control and hammer control?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then, who should the body of authority with a rule against briefcase nukes be? What type of rule would you like, if not a government rule? Wouldn't the body with a rule against briefcase nukes qualify as a government?

It doesn't matter to me what kind of system it is, as long as it does it effectively. If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.

What do you think of gun control and hammer control?

Hammer control is absurd, gun control is often ineffective and unethical.

I dig this guy's videos on gun control:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJf3aoR7MTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh90sEYltV8

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It doesn't matter to me what kind of system it is, as long as it does it effectively. If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.

You just straight up admitted that you are not really an anarchist. I think we can move on now.


"Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World" Liberty Crier

http://libertycrier.com/why-switzerl...-in-the-world/

"The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It should. Those are actually controllable, for the reasons I stated. They also do not serve self-defense purposes, and they don't qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment. Do you think we should ban hammers?

If you actually look at your original argument, you're now just engaging in special pleading. No, I don't think hammers should be banned. Carpenters need to use them. Or maybe somebody just has a DIY hobby or hammer-collecting hobby. Presumably you concur that these are good reasons for allowing the transportation of hammers in public. And yet these reasons have nothing to do with self-defence. So when you object to transporting bombs on the grounds that they can't be used for self-defence, that's an incoherent argument. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to carry hammers or anything else around other than self-defence. Maybe somebody has a bomb hobby. Maybe someone likes to build nuclear reactors. The fact is that your objection to people carrying bombs is currently inconsistent. Whether or not it's easy to hide something is also just special pleading again. This was never important for your analogy. People should be allowed to carry hammers because they are free to do so, not because hammers are easy to hide - that's a nonsensical reason. And what if the hammer wasn't easy to hide? What if it was big and shiny? Obviously this should make no difference. So again it is inconsistent to reject the carrying of bombs on the grounds that bombs are "hard to hide". And anyway, what about bombs which aren't? Hiding a fertiliser bomb in the boot of your car is easy. Based on your current justifications, fertiliser bombs in the boots of cars shouldn't be illegal. And yet presumably you don't actually think that.

Try to come up with some consistent reasons why carrying hammers or guns should be legal, but not bombs.

Hammers can't be used for self-defense? Do you want to make a bet on that?

My point was that bombs can be successfully controlled for multiple reasons (and are) and that none of the arguments for gun legality apply to them. Size is just one factor in the bigger picture of that. You fallaciously assumed I was saying that any one part of that picture can work as a full justification for bomb illegality. The general arguments for gun legality do apply to hammers but do not apply to bombs.

Guns can be used for more than self-defense also. They can be used for hunting, for shooting targets, as props in movies and plays, as hammers, and for other things.

With that in mind, try to consistently justify why hammers should be legal and guns should not.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You just straight up admitted that you are not really an anarchist. I think we can move on now.

Please read my posts in the context of the point I was trying to get across. I very clearly previously said:

I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society[.]

But I am not certain in that. I very clearly express my uncertainty, as one should, and reiterate my position of being pro-liberty before anti-state.

If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.

I think my posts are being written clearly so if you could spend a little more time trying to understand what I'm saying, this discussion will go more smoothly. I'd rather not have to repeat myself because you took a single snippet of my post and took it for the whole thing.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society.

But I am not certain in that.

Then you are not an anarchist.

https://www.google.com/#q=anarchist+definition&safe=off

an·ar·chist
ˈanərkist/
noun
noun: anarchist; plural noun: anarchists

1.
a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.

Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

an·ar·chy

1
a : absence of government

If I understand you correctly, in order to align oneself with a particular point of view, we have to have absolute certainty that it is true? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If I understand you correctly, in order to align oneself with a particular point of view, we have to have absolute certainty that it is true? Is that what you're saying?

No, but you have to believe it. You are on the fence, and you said you don't care if the state exists and don't care if it tells people what to do. Anarchists care if the state exists and want it not to.