A new sandpit for long side discussions, idees fixes and so on. Unless directly responding to the OP, all discussions of nuclear power, MMT and conspiracy theories should be directed to sandpits (or, if none is open, message boards).
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
@TerjeP
Seriously you are a numpty if you think, like my son’s friend used to think , that all left wing people want to take guns away from everyone; maybe when we evolve into that sort of human being this will happen.
But now the relevant factor is how responsible the person with the gun can be, how in control of their behaviour are they, how socially intelligent and aware of the community values about guns and driving cars fast and other mostly male behaviours that are threats to other people are they.
Sadly, your senator is not a responsible man and he is one type of person that I would not feel comfortable being around if he had a gun. I have read his emotional response to the Howard Govt decision and it is very similar to the attitude of my mad old uncle who buried all his guns when Howard did his bastard” act.
My old uncle was once a warrant officer who renovated a huge old Queenslander from the army stores. No shame; that was his right apparently.
Toward the end when his wife had to take the kids and get out; he used to sit on the back stairs and shoot mice as they ran past. He walks around naked how apparently carrying a weapon and nobody not even his children are willing to approach him.
We do have them in my family.
If someone is on the side of a fair go for all people and they have demonstrated that behaviour then I would trust them with a gun, with the regulations that we currently have.
I can understand that some people like guns for their beauty and design just like I love really dangerous shoes that wreck my back and I could fall off and down the steps and die even.
But your man thinks he is a better man than the rest of us and that means he will feel free to take my life if he judges me to be less valuable than him and …..he wants more gun ‘freedom’which is not freedom at all.
I want more gun responsibility and less freedom for gun lovers to do their thing, not more gun rights and more freedom for these alpha males to walk around among the rest of us armed and feeling superior and judgemental.
So do we agree then that it should be legal for women to carry firearms for self defence. And for some beta males also. If so let’s take that point of consensus and reform the law accordingly.
By the way you have basically called David a cold blooded murderer. Defamation territory. And rude as well.
@TerjeP
“commenters on a lefty blog saying some people who like firearms are just possibly normal people…”
Who were the people who said this? Which post numbers please? I want to see exactly what they said and whether or not you have miscontrued it.
@TerjeP
Sue me then – I do have the sort of freedom that comes from being one of those with nothing left to lose – but in my world view your man David and your fellow glibertarians have been slandering me and mine for decades now. There is more but whatev… you have lost.
Did you realise how clearly you show a fevered your imagination is when you say that I have “basically called David a cold blooded murderer”. What does basically”” mean in your language?
And you have so totally misunderstood my accusation/assessment/judgement of David’s potential. I did try to explain that I believe from what I have read that he has written that he is more likely than not to be the sort of person who would in a situation choose? an emotional response that would lead him to conclude that it was more rational to just do it and shoot me rather than value my life sufficiently to try another way to alter my behaviour even if it was going to be less efficient.
Do you understand that reasoning – sorry I am not good at talking to libertarians – or will you prefer to jump to another wrong conclusion that allows you to express your superiority over teh lefties in this exchange of views?
I ‘like’ guns as much as I ‘like’ my socket wrench set. Which is to say, I don’t like either but they are both useful tools in appropriate circumstances. Leyonhjelm, a known gun nut, speaks in the Senate about the need for ‘practical self defense’, by which he means short barrel weapons as well as pepper spray and ‘personal tazers’ instead of demanding to know how the dangerously deranged Man Monis got his hands on a shotgun.
At the same time as the idiot Leyonhjelm seems to want to pursue the wider availability of firearms, you know, so ‘a good guy with a gun can take down a bad guy with a gun’, we in Australia are pretty much weekly regaled with stories from the home of freedom about toddlers shooting siblings, one parent and sometimes both. I have become calloused against the human tragedy of these stories because of their frequency and sheer stupidity.
Just on the trope of how ‘good guys with guns can take down bad guys with guns’ I’ve yet to see any evidence of this actually happening in the US.
@TerjeP
Fortunately, Australia does not have the idiotic “Citizens! – Arm yourselves to the teeth!” laws of the the USA. That is why our gun death rates are vastly lower per capita. It’s very simple.
There are a large number of reputable gun law and gun ownership studies which show that strict gun controls and low gun ownership rates save lives.
Fortunately, most Australians do not accept the arguments of the lunatic fringe who argue that the citizenry should arm up.
Look up “High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds” on the net. From that article;
“They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.
More guns meant more deaths, they found. “The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death,” says Bangalore. “Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.
“There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership.
…
“Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership.””
The facts are clear. The call for higher gun ownership is illogical, irrational and counter to all empirical findings.
My mistake. You think he is a hot head style murderer rather than a cold blooded one. You’re entitled to hold to your opinion that the senator is emotionally fragile and prone to violence. But having known him for nearly eight years and having watched his speeches and read his writing since becoming a senator I really don’t know the basis on which you form this view. It is divorced from reality.
@TerjeP
Yep I did know that you wouldn’t understand me and the arguments that underpin my assessment but that’s your problem. I can suggest that this is typical of the way you think and behave; this irrational argument was the total substance of your support for Andrew Bolt’s good character, despite his bad behaviour sometime back.
Let’s not talk about that irrelevant person any more; I’ll just tell you that he’s discredited even with my most anti-Halal neighbour up the street. We in the bush don’t like him any more apparently; do you know if this lack of interest is reflected in the ratings?
I think that you might be suffering from the same problem in understanding the electorate and learning to understand us as Tony Abbott is. What do you reckon?
@TerjeP
Terje, you’re on record on this blog as saying you don’t believe in defamation. Evidently that was just hypocritical cant, though. Why am I not surprised?
Tim – There is no hypocricy. I believe you can damage a persons reputation with dishonest or uninformed statements. I do not believe such damage should be actionable in law. If I did then there are several people here who might be in court for past remarks they have made about me. There is no inconsistency in identifying a remark as defamatory whilst opposing defamation laws. Just as there is no inconsistency in identifying a drug transaction as criminal whilst opposing the law that makes it a crime.
terje
My own view on firearms is that as a matter of general principle, the burden should be on an applicant to show a legitimate purpose for having one. A mere ‘for my own personal safety’ would not suffice. Someone ought to show that they have a well-founded fear for their safety that could not be remedied by any modest and reasonable measure.
The vast majority of people do not need firearms. I’ve made it to 56 years of age without recalling a single incident to which I have been a party in which my access to a firearm would have produced a better outcome. Nor can I recall speaking to an acquaintance, family member or friend where that would have been true, though there were plenty of occasions where the outcome might have become quite a bit worse.
A tiny minority of people have legitimate reasons for possession — professional and sports shooters for example, security guards, police officers, members of the armed forces and if I though hard, one or two other categories perhaps. For such folk, the licence is witness to the competence of the person with the weapon, both to deploy it only in pursuit of their legitimate purpose and otherwise to secure it against misuse by adequate means. There is right now in NSW a serious issue with the mental health of police officers, which for a variety of reasons is being downplayed or not reported and the idea that these folk — who should be on light duties — have fire-arms, is troubling.
For the record, although Mr Leyonhjelm’s politics offend me, I have no reason to suppose that he is likely to use it criminally. As far as I know, he is a law abiding citizen. For the reasons above, that doesn’t mean I’d like him or anyone else to have a firearm, other than as described above.
On the broader issue that started this, it seems to me that there is no 100% fool-proof method of subduing dangerous offenders which does not entail an elevated risk either to the putatively homicidal offender or those seeking to protect themselves and the public. There is always a delicate and volatile calculus to be worked out.
I favour the police having suitable protective clothing, being well trained and well equipped. The kinds of gear and approaches Ikono described seem about right to me. I’m not going to comment on the Sydney Siege because although I suspect that the inquest will reveal that errors were made, in such situations, lack of information can predispose these errors. I do wonder if the inquest will reveal that the weapons of choice were not standard issue 9mm Glocks, and if so, why not?
@TerjeP
Sorry Terje, I don’t buy it. Pointing out that something is defamatory as a way of criticising it implies disapproval of the fact that it is defamatory. In the same way, pointing out that a particular drug transaction is criminal as a way of criticising or attacking the person who made the transaction would imply disapproval of the transaction, and would be inconsistent with the stance that such transactions should not be proscribed because there is nothing wrong with them. The hypocrisy arises from the inconsistency.
Of course, it would be different if you were pointing out someone’s defamation (or the criminality of their drug sale) in order to help them avoid getting into trouble. But that’s clearly not what you did in this instance.
Having said that, it’s obvious we’re not going to agree on this point, so I’ll say no more on it.
I will say, though, that it’s done nothing to disabuse me of my view that “libertarianism” is essentially politics viewed from the perspective of a 13 year-old boy – i.e. to the “libertarian”, “liberty” essentially means “I can swear as my as I want and play my heavy metal music as loud as I want, and I don’t care how much it pisses you off, Mum!”.
@TerjeP
Why are you always whining? Is it a personal predisposition or is it a political stance?
@Ikonoclast
If the officers are on the beat when called to a knife yielding incident, they won’t have much personal protection available, as they obviously can’t go walking around all padded up and carrying yet more heavy weapons; their belts are already used to carry an array of items weighing a total of several kilograms in some cases.
While they are waiting for back-up, they have few safe means of containing a threatening individual, besides talking to them and keeping them occupied. They can gentle corral them by standing in the way but at a distance, but if the individual advances rapidly, they have to consider their personal safety, and what might happen if they let the person escape.
I’ve wondered whether a net (sounds funny, I know) could be effective against a knife-yielding attacker. A net made of chain links (but lighter than chain mail, with bigger chain link diameter) might work. Nets were used in gladiator contests, so presumably they were effective then. A modern chain mail net wouldn’t allow the attacker to strike through the net, at least not easily. If made of kevlar, it would be very strong and still light enough to manoeuvre it.
I gather the cops are going to look at whether there is some more appropriate training they can give their officers, given the rather frequent occurrence of this distressing situation.
I have no particular problem with people using firearms in controlled environments, the gun range or on their farm property, to name two such environments. Carrying weapons for self-defence in civil society should be left to the police.
We’ve had this argument before. There are two stable states with regards to weapons among the general population: there is the state in which most people do not possess firearms, only the police (and perhaps some security officers) are allowed to carry firearms on their person, and those civilians who do possess firearms are only permitted to carry/use them under specific conditions, the type of weapons being restricted as well; the other stable state is where so many people carry weapons in public, you’d be an idiot not to carry heat yourself, as any physical confrontation could escalate to a fire-fight.
Which stable state you prefer depends largely upon your philosophical beliefs concerning freedom and responsibility, especially the balance of government intervention upon personal freedom in the interests of society as a whole. It has a similar mathematical character to the anti-vaxxer vs mandatory vaccination dichotomy.
To put a political context on it, it is fair to say that a neo-con would favour the second stable state over the first, while a social democrat would lean more to the first stable state.
If we carry out the thought experiment of envisaging a society with open-carry laws, no regulation on gun ownership of any sort, what would it really be like in our modern age? How would the law have to adapt, as surely it would need to? Once people are armed in public, any physically aggressive confrontation is a potential fire-fight, so how to police intervene—do they shoot anyone who is menacing towards them? Or do they stay out of it and clean up the mess afterwards? Without going into the moral dimension, there are plenty of ramifications insofar as the law goes. We probably couldn’t afford to give custodial sentences for everyone who got into a fight while armed, so a dilution of the legal remedies and penalties would be necessary.
When a person is accused of murder and they want to wander around freely we place the burden of proof on the state that wants to lock them up. Not just on the balance of probability but beyond reasonable doubt. A person who the police accuse of murder is on the odds a much greater risk to the community (IMHO) than an ordinary person who wants to own a firearm. As such I can’t see why when an ordinary person, with no history of violence, wants to own a firearm we suddenly switch the burden of proof from the state to them. In my view the default for society ought to be that all people are free. And if the state wants to reduce that freedom then the state, not the individual, should face the burden of proof. There are certainly times when reducing freedom can be justified on evidence but the burden of proof should not be on those that want to remain free. Of course some would say the evidence favours gun controls but before we even examine the evidence we ought to deal with this disagreement on who carries the burden of proof.
I’ve never owned a firearm and don’t currently plan on owning one even if the law permitted. Likewise I never intend having homosexual sex and I don’t think anybody “needs” to. But I respect the fact that different people have different interests and live in different circumstances and I don’t think either act should be a crime just because I don’t want to engage in the act. If I lived in a remote location or in an area with a high rate of crime I might want to own a firearm. I certainly wouldn’t visit remote parts of Afghanistan without one although I have friends who recently did. Likewise if I was a female that frequently travelled alone at night in isolated places I might want to own a firearm. Or if I was a witness to a serious crime and due to testify I may also want one.
Tom G Palmer, who I’ve met and who I converse with on a frequent basis, would be dead except for the fact that he was carrying a firearm. His testimony in the Heller case was instrumental in overturning the ban on handguns in washington DC. You can read his personal story here:-
http://www.meetup.com/NOVALibertyGroup/messages/53943172/
Police have training, a pay packet and a badge. But they shouldn’t have more rights than any other citizen. If an ordinary person undertakes the same level of firearm training as a police officer, and they pass the same character test, they should have the same right to carry weapons. Any concern that makes it unlawful for a particular citizen to have a firearm should apply equally to a police officer. Police are generally not exceptional in the firearm training they receive. And why on earth shouldn’t an ordinary citizen be able to wear protective clothing? Police do an important job but they are just people like the rest of us. If there is some special test that shows that police cross some objective threshold of competence, integrity, compassion, character or otherwise that warrant them having a firearm then the same test should be open to ordinary citizens and if they pass the test they too should be allowed to carry weapons.
If a person such as a bodyguard can carry a firearm to protect me because it’s their job, then it is ludicrious that if equally skilled and respectable I can’t also carry a firearm to protect me. Self defence should not just be for the wealthy. Likewise if a security guard can carry a firearm to protect a shipment of gold bullion, she should when off duty be allowed to carry the same firearm to protect her body.
If you limit the scope of the experiment to the USA then Vermont is perhaps closest to the zero regulation scenerio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont
In Vermont you can carry firearms concealed or open carry. You can have machine guns. There are no background checks. No waiting periods. You don’t need a license. No restrictions on the number of firearms you can acquire. It’s pretty much Laissiez Faire when it comes to firearms. You can compare the crime and violence rate with other parts of the US that regulate more strictly. Or with Australia and other countries if you prefer.
“”As such I can’t see why when an ordinary person, with no history of violence, wants to own a firearm we suddenly switch the burden of proof from the state to them.”
What is an ordinary person Terje? Are you ordinary? How do you judge that?
How far back can we go in the history of this ordinary person to determine the probability that they will use their weapon inappropriately?
How about we go back to their kindegarden reports or even check their genes to see if they have that warrior gene? What do you reckon?
Who do you blame for this ‘switch’ from the individual to the state that you see? Who turned the switch and where is the switch located?
Of course if you limit the scope of the experiment you get the results you want but that is not research that is motivated cognition and this sort of thinking makes a person a bit slow to see their own hypocrisy and irrationality.
Okay, I compare the US state with the least gun murders to the Australian state with the least gun murders and surprise surprise the American state has the most gun murders. Who would a thunk it? But don’t feel bad, in the land ‘o cherry picking every year is 1996 and America wins! Guns for everybody!
Sorry for the length of this post, but we might want some actual reality here. Note that Australia’s population has increased by 38% since 1979.
In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total:
2011: 188
2010: 234
2009: 228
2008: 234
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685
The government cuts $500m from programs which assist in Closing the Gap. The PM doesn’t honour the Indigenous people with a proper welcome-to-country. They stay and listen to him telling them they have to stump up and close the gap for him. Bill Shorten points out that closing the gap is a bit harder now, thanks to the recent cuts: several LNP members walk out, disgusted to hear the truth.
@TerjeP
Terje- Leftists are a varied group .Im a Leftist who likes guns ,I grew up around them ,I havent fired a machine gun but I’d love to. I will inherit dads guns one day – its very important to him that they stay in the family .I think guns should be hard to own and those that do should be monitored. Being a Leftie I feel conflicted about it, but cant deny my fascination. I like knives too and have a collection ,I like their weight ,lack of moving parts, and permanence -like jewellery. I also like MMA cage fighting as I can appreciate it on a sporting level and they are consenting adults- but I feel conflicted about that too as it can set a very bad example to young people. As proven by my life so far I am a very non violent person, I have never hit anyone in anger -not even when a child at school. Being a bloke I have been in lots of situations where someone (or a number of someones) were trying to provoke me.
As far as detaining knife wielders goes I reckon long pole ,baton ,net ,and tranquilizer blow dart would work (or just poles and dart) .
Time for a lefty who is also a responsible gun owner to weigh in: I own a number of handguns, which only come out of the safe when I’m going to the range. I regard Leyonhelm’s attitude (that we’d all be safer if we were armed) as dangerously naive. As Tim Macknay wrote upthread, it’s the thinking of a 13 year old boy.
The evidence is in, Terje. There was a sudden drop in firearms deaths in Australia which correlates pretty well with Howard’s buy-back, and Australia and other countries with low firearm ownership are safer than countries with high firearm ownership like the US.
@TerjeP
LOL. The ridiculous Vermont cherry-picking argument again. I recall going down this path of argument before. Instead of considering the data of 27 complete countries which I mentioned, you want to consider the data from one small outlier state. Vermont is unusual in a number of ways.
(1) Vermont is the 2nd least populous of the 50 United States: population 626,562 (2014 est). This is only about 100,000 more than the population of Tasmania.
(2) Vermont is one of the most racially homogeneous states; 94.3% of its population identified as white in 2010. We can deduce from this fact that racist attacks on blacks and shootings of blacks by police are rare in Vermont because black people are rare in Vermont. Also, black poverty is rare again because blacks are rare in Vermont.
(3) In Vermont, the median household income from 2002 to 2004 was $45,692. This was 15th nationally.
(4) Vermont has the second lowest poverty rate of states in the Union (6.8% compared to the national average of 12.6% whereas ten states plus D.C. have over 15% poverty rates).
(5) Vermont’s actual gun ownership is in the mid-range but its gun murder rate is very low.
Plenty of data even in this to show that Vermont is an outlier state and unrepresentative of the whole Union. There is a cherry blossom festival in Montpelier, Vermont and many pick-your-own berry and fruit farms for tourists in Vermont. So, it is very appropriate. You can go cherry-picking in Vermont. TerjeP certainly likes to.
Yeah, I also had a look at Vermont’s profile. It is also the major producer of Maple Syrup in North America. See, high blood sugar is the key. Back in 2013 some loony toons wanted to impose a $500 fee on non-gun owners:
…said one Daffy Duck.
It’s all so obvious to them.
No there was a drop but it was not sudden. In fact it was just a continuation of the previous downward trend.
You can pick some other place with a Laissas Faire approach to firearm regulation if you prefer. There aren’t many such places however. Donald Oats suggested that we could draw conclusions by just imagining some such place. I mention Vermont because I think a real life example is more useful than a mere thought experiment. But I can just imagine a land of milk and honey and AK47’s if that is more scientific.
David Irving – homocide chart here:-
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
@jungney
Libertarians must sit around just making up ways that they can argue that they are paying their way and everyone else is a ‘free-rider’.
Terje, can you tell me when and through what processes a baby who needs help from other people to survive becomes your “ordinary person”.
Is there a special libertarian test you use to determine which type of adult a baby is going to become, or is it a judgement that you make in your bones? Because you have common sense?
What makes the difference between an individual who either makes the right choice and thrives to become a lifter and the others who wrongly, stupidly and lazily, choose to be a free-rider?
What social dynamics do you imagine might be responsible for the difference between Vermont and the other states with very high gun deaths?
By “ordinary person” I just mean to say that people should be free to own firearms and we should remove that freedom by exception rather than the other way around. The exceptions ought to be defined by laws. What leads a person to grow up and be “ordinary” is beyond the scope of this discussion.
What is it with people asking us to imagine answers and imagine what society might look like under a given policy? I offered Vermont to avoid the need for imagining a Laissez Faire society in respect to firearms. You can figure out the specifics if you wish.
@Julie Thomas
I’ve been ruminating on the subject of Libertarians this afternoon. I’m unsurprised that they attract the monicker ‘Glibertarians’ because, well, they are glib, and provide no substance for reasoned criticism. I’ve concluded, without meaning to cause offense to other contributors, that they are sociological simpletons. That is, they lack training or even the capacity for compassion that is at the core of C Wright Mills’ notion of the sociological imagination. This is, in short, an ability to imagine yourself into another person’s shoes.
It’s not hard, to do that, in my view, but my view is conditioned and constructed by class, gender, sexuality, history and ethnicity. Alert to the possibilities for self knowledge offered first by literature and later by the the humanities I set out to explore myself and my Lebenswelt, or ‘life world’ as according to Habermas. The intricacies and subtleties of that project have consumed me in many ways and have been the major project of my life, apart from my kids.
But this project of the self is exactly what Libertarians do not understand. I have a view of your typical libertarian upbringing, obviously without any foundation other than that which derives from reading the words and witnessing the actions of neoliberals and scoundrels of all sorts, in which a male or female child is encouraged to engage with simple but adequate directions to build a small crystal radio. And they did. And it worked. And the world is like that.
As adults such people have found the prescriptions of neoliberalism attractive: you plug this bit in here, that bit in there, and it works. Except, of course, they are now adults with authority who are intent on making the world fit to their simple wiring diagram regardless of the human and ecological costs. As we are seeing with the punch drunk ten-pound-pom Abbott, if the world defies you, then reshape the world o that it fits your (intellectually impaired) understanding of the world which is how it ought to be, not how it is.
It may be genetic, this sort of sociological and compassionate lack of imagination. I hope it turns out to be genetic because, in a future global communitarian polity, the bearers of such defective genes should be deemed surplus to the requirements of a decent existence among the people’s of the earth, in the interests of all life on the earth and to decency in general.
I’m sure that there is a perfectly sound argument for not extermination such defectives like vermin but that should be easily accommodated by a policy that doesn’t exterminate them like vermin but like something else equally redundant.
Terje
How does ‘ördinary man” mean the same thing as “people”.
People are different you know, and there is no ordinary man or woman definition in any thing I have read in my years of being an academic who did research in psychology and aslo some community psychologist work. I read a lot you know.
You seem to think that anything that comes from social science research is imagining stuff and yet it is the growing awareness psychology that has given ordinary people – perhaps you mean average person? mean median or modal person? – insight into the people who are supposed to be leading us.
Did you notice that ordinary people were diagnosing Tony and very interested in discussing what was wrong with him? So it might be in your own interests to imagine things that you have never thought of imagining.
I am not asking you to imagine answers though; try comparing the different societies that already exist. That is one way of doing social science research; compare and contrast and ask different questions than you usually ask yourself about what might be the relevant variables.
I am asking you to understand that there is a very strong link between the child and the man, you know the saying, the child is father to the man? Do children just raise themselves you think?
It goes like this: you plant the seed and create an individual and then water it and fertilize it and then there is some magic time when that child is an adult individual who makes the right choices …. or not.
Do you think it is a magic process or just something that nature does and it’s got nothing to do with society or economics? Is that why this is beyond discussing here? It is a Sandpit and I am sorry if you think I am rude. I don’t think I am being rude at all. Just asking for clarification of your morality.
What is a child in Libertarian theory? Private property?
@Julie Thomas
Yep.
What is a child in Libertarian theory? Private property?
So why then would libertarians who don’t own a firearm and have no plans on owning a firearm defend the position of those that do? Why do hetrosexual libertarians speak up for the freedom of homosexuals? Why do libertarians who don’t smoke, have never smoked and who find the smell of tobacco smoke rather vile, empathise with the complaints of people who do smoke? Why do libertarians on tiny incomes speak out against tax rates at the top end that they themselves do not experience? Why do libertarians defend the free speech rights of people that say things that they themselves find deeply offensive? Why do they defend the right to free association of bikies when they themselves are not a bikie? I actually think libertarians are libertarian precisely because they have looked at the world carefully from the vantage point of many others. Of course others do also. But rather ironically you paint a strawman style figure of libertarians that suggests you yourself lack the capacity to see things from the vantage point of others.
Julie – If you’re struggling with the language try refering to a dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ordinary
@TerjeP
That’s what I mean. Why, if I put the diode in the place marked ‘diode’, and the transistor in the blue coded space, does it not work?
I wouldn’t have a clue as to the thinking of libertarians or why they would engage in any sort of public dialogue. Doing so only exposes them and their locale. If I was one, right now, I’d be taking advice from the guy who owns the local servo which is, in general, that the customer is always right. Take the advice of the US propaganda campaign to normalize the possibility of nuclear annihilation- ‘duck and cover’.
Or are you, as I suspect, so defectively unaware of modern history as to be ignorant of ‘Atomic Cafe’?
Dont bother.. you wont get sense, just theology.
@TerjeP
Terje, plot the figures Ronald provided. There is clearly a sharp drop around 1996 and for a few years after, then the graph levels out again.
The figures you provided are for homicides and percentage of homicides using a firearm. They don’t prove what you are trying to make them prove. It’s the number of firearm deaths that is the important figure.
@TerjeP
I suggest Julle is using ordinary in the sense of ‘normal’ ( and I suggest you know that already, and are using the boring trick of literal interpretation in a misguided attempt to ‘win’ the argument).
Yes that was my point. You don’t have a clue why libertarians think what they think. So it would be best if you ceased offering commentary on it.
That’s kind of like imposing a ban on the use of penicillin and then claiming success because there is a decline in the number of people dying from allergic reactions to penicillin. Whilst ignoring the number of people dying from infections. A daft sort of analysis.
It’s the other way around. I was using the word “ordinary”. As in “ordinary people”. And it was Julie who was trying to score points by going on about no person being ordinary as if this insight was somehow enlightening when in fact it’s just sophistry.
@TerjeP
Terje, possibly the most confused person on the planet. Use the word defamation to scare people. Doesn’t believe in defamation. Uses the word defamation in a non legally binding way which rkobs it of any power. It just doesn’t make sense. Still in my experience this is the mark of true libertarian. Just look at Commissioner Tim, he takes more positions than a library full of karma sutras.
@TerjeP
You’re obviously not familiar with the concept of risk or strict liability. Firearms are inherently very dangerous and therfore possessing one imputes a duty of care such that the owner is liable for any injury even if the injured party was negligent. That’s the reasoning that leads to restrictions and regulations, it has nothing to do with the person. Somentime spent in the legal library might disabuse you ofnthese juvenile notions.
@Val
“I suggest Julle is using ordinary in the sense of ‘normal’ ”
It’s even more difficult for Terje than that; there is no ‘normal’ person.
The dictionary meaning of a word is not The Truth about that concept. Dictionary meanings are for general use and not useful for assessing the ‘normality’ of a person in a situation where behaviour which does arise from the lessons and values we absorb as children can have very negative consequences.
It is not sufficient to assume that someone is ‘normal’ and give them a gun when the evidence is so clear that in reality, as opposed to the dictionary, there is no ‘normal’.
There is no way of determining what is normal without clearly defining the context in which one is making that judgement or assessment.
Terje cries that nobody understands libertarians and how they think.
I think that the problems is that Libertarians know no other way to interact with people – non ordinary people – than to compete with them for money or status – same thing. Jungney’s observations seem to be getting at some of the reasons that may be but since none of us is normal, the explanation will be too complex to describe in any way except as a dynamical system.
The thing that stands out for me about Libertarian thinking is that the number one motivation for a libertarian is to prove they are better than other people; that they have to be the winners and everything is seen through the prism of competition and proving that they are better than the others; the free-riders, the leaners, the lazy and stupid and those who make bad choices.
I am not ordinary – they say I am not ‘neuro-typical’ – and I’d guess that Terje in any other context would vehemently deny that he was ‘ordinary’; I am sure that he would claim to be above-average or extra-ordinary.
So tell us Terje how do Libertarians think. Can we start with the biggest question I have always had for Libertarians and none has ever answered. They simply deny that this is a thing that needs clarification.
What is a child in your theory; property, an individual with all their rights?
How do I value my children who are of an age to be adult individuals who make all the right choices, but clearly to me, they are not aware of all the issues that impact their choices and still need support from their family and community to be what? ‘normal’?
I’m just interested in them being happy and good people who have the skills to also raise good children.
@paul walter
It is a belief system and a very rigid one – and the rigidity of thinking is a key variable – but the benefits of engaging with them are for our own self-development and will benefit of our attempts to build a better society.
Understanding how people can sustain such an irrational and self-serving belief system that bears no relationship to the real world will add to our understanding of the potentials of human nature I think.
I joined the conversation to discuss firearms and firearm policy. The conversation has now been diverted elsewhere. It’s now something to do with the psychoanalysis of libertarians. That’s fine but I’ll pass.