Topic: Gun free zone - page 5. (Read 21969 times)

More guns over time in the US.

And the process from A to B was... ?

I agree completely. That's how I got here from being a gun control advocate.

I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.

I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.

+1. And particularly in reference to the moral duty of self defense, I would say that I have a moral duty to do what I can to return home at night and keep providing for my family. I guess a single guy with no family has no moral reason not to stand there and be beaten out of this world with an iron pole.

nobody is taking anything away from you. just dont enter that private property if you dont agree to the terms. i thought ancap is all about voluntary contracts...

the word duty shouldnt even be in the vocabulary of any ancap-believer.

Indeed, I would prefer they not act, or rather - delegate their action - rather than literally firing blind. But they still have the moral obligation to see to their own defense, whether by learning to defend themselves without sight (doable, but not usually worth the effort) or by delegating that responsibility. Certainly I have no obligation to defend them, nor does anyone else who has not explicitly agreed to.

So, though it may be delegated, you cannot just expect someone to take care of it for you. It is your duty to see that it gets taken care of, just as with parenting.

I feel we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. A group of people can indeed decide if people will be allowed to handle guns in their school. But not in another one.


If you take away my ability to defend myself, you are taking the responsibility for that duty. You may not see it that way, but that is the truth of the matter.

This men and women have the full right to react against a physical threat as they think appropriate, but they do not have any moral or legal obligation to react at all.


People are not required to do they own self-defense. So?


Yes, they do! In an organized society a group of people can decide if people will be allowed to handle guns in public or private schools.


There is no implied agreement of protection when an person is allowed to enter a private property (in this case, a school). Unless the owner explicit offers the protection, the property owner do not have any moral obligation to defend an person from an physical threat. However, the person have the full right to react as he/she thinks necessary in face of any physical threat.

Well, if you wish for me to not use my gun to defend you, then I will certainly comply. I will, however, use it to defend myself. You may gain some accidental benefit from that. I apologize, and would advise that if you wish to ensure this does not happen, you stay out of my presence.

No, that is not what I meant. I was arguing over the right that the individual have to choose who will defend him.

On the contrary, it is a moral obligation:
Duties can be delegated. You are not required to do your own parenting, either.

No, they do not. They have the right to choose if other individuals may carry weapons onto their property, but by denying them that ability, they are taking responsibility for their defense while on their property. In a public space, or a space not owned by the individual, no such ability exists.

The legitimate reason to have a gun, is to USE it for its intended purpose. Not for some kind of warm fuzzy secure feeling you get from it. That's a fantasy you invented. Security is a not a feeling, its the ability to defend oneself.

I agree on right vs. duty, but the last paragraph seems to have come from you ass.  Are you sayig I have the right to demand that the police officer who pulled me over to go put his gun back in his car because it makes me uncomfortable?

I've never had to use my home insurance either. Perhaps I should cancel it.

Self-defense is not a moral or legal obligation. The act to react against an imminent physical attack is completely voluntary and cannot be enforced by laws or moral standards. In accordance with your delusional premise (self-defense is a right and a duty of the individual), any person would have the duty to defend itself from an attacker. Disable people, elders or children would have the obligation to react against  any imminent physical attack which they could face. This is, of course, false. There is no moral or legal obligations which forces a disable person, an elder or a child to react against a threat.

A disable person, an elder or children is indeed entitled to defend his body as much he/she can, but at the same time they are entitled to let another person defend their body as much they can. Therefore the action of self-defense is a right and not a duty. Individuals have the right to choice who defend them, whatever is themselves or somebody else.

Individuals also have the right to choose if other individuals should or should not handle lethal weapons near them. A school which not allows individuals to own lethal weapons in their premises is not forcing another individuals to not defend themselves (it is not a duty), but exercising the right to decide who will defend themselves (it is a right).

It does have a bit of a shady history. And then you have left-anarchists and right-anarchists

Maybe the fact that they killed people.  Healthy minds don't do that.

Ahh. The truth comes out. The norm. The reality of life in our violent country.

The majority of users in this thread are not a reasonable cross-section of the US populace. In fact, the majority of users in this thread are fringe on the cusp of believing in conspiracies, anti-government, gun toting, see villains in all the shadows, anti-regulation, pseudo anarchists. They do not represent the US. I suggest you be careful in soliciting their opinion to get a valid take on US culture. However, it is noted that gun culture is rampant in the US, but querying the extreme right end of that group alone will only yield the beliefs of that extreme right end.

I think you are seeing things slightly from the wrong perspective. It's not that gun owners are "scared" of being attacked by citizens or government. These things do happen, even in countries with near absolute gun control such as the UK. My perspective is that gun owners are not afraid of guns. They see them as tools that perform a function. Owning guns is therefore simply a freedom whose abridgement should be opposed as that of any other freedom.

I speak as an emigrant from the UK and former gun control advocate. Shortly after moving to the US, events happened in my life (unrelated to guns or violence) that opened my eyes to the fact that bad things happen to good people. Sometime after, analysis of my situation suggested that owning some kind of firearm might be a good idea (where we lived was a prime spot for people dumping their unwanted dogs). When I got it home, I was somewhat nervous. I had handled a rifle before in the ATC but here was one of those evil handguns in my possession. Within seconds of picking it up, it was clear that it was just metal and plastic, incapable of harming anyone by itself nor inducing some primal urge to kill. Just a thing. Kind-of boring in-and-of itself. I've never had to use it but it's fun to shoot holes in paper and there have been times I've been glad to have it around.