The right to bear arms - is one justification obsolete?

Fred, you expend way too much energy to make a fallacious and rather crude materialist point. Destruction is not a correlate of physical work but of formal disruption. Consume a gram of HCN and then wax eloquent to me about the relevance of foot pounds.

Post 21

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 1:27pm

yes weapons are more focused in their application of force - hence more deadly. I think the main purpose is self-defence, primarily from the point that law cannot be everywhere and is often reactive - i.e. by the time the police get there you might be dead. For that, military grade weapons are not needed, only handguns, rifles, etc. I think we have a pretty reasonable standard when we say no machine guns, artillery, tanks, and the like but small arms are Ok.

Post 22

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 2:15pm

So far, I haven't really seen an answer to my line of questioning.

If the 'deterrent/antidote to tyranny' argument is a valid justification for private arms ownership rights - and nobody seems to disagree with that - where is the line drawn in terms of what types of arms a private citizen may own?

For the record, I think the self defense principle is valid, and under the banner of defending yourself against other citizens who wish you harm, we can easily get to firearms being a reasonable limit given that the most likely scenarios involve a home invasion, a crazy shooter going on a spree in public, being remote in the wilderness, etc. Nukes are clearly not relevant for that purpose. There's no debate here.

However, in a hypothetical scenario of a citizen militia taking on a tyrannical government, it isn't out of the question that a long range conventional missile strike on key military installations could be justified, or even a tactical nuke on a high value underground target in a remote area.

Post 23

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 2:29pm

Ted:

Destruction is not a correlate of physical work but of formal disruption.

'Formal disruption?' I'm picturing a lout in a tuxedo; "Pardon me, while I disrupt you." Maybe on some lost episode of 'Star Trek.'

If energy(ie, the ability to do work, exert a force over some distance)is irrelevant to the physical damage deliverable by either automobiles or firearms, then I truly have learned something today here, only, I truly haven't learned anything today here.

Consume a gram of HCN and then wax eloquent to me about the relevance of foot pounds.

Or, slit my throat with a wood chisel! Or eat too much butter! Now I understand!

So that is seriously how you imagine firearms to deliver harm? They do something akin to 'administer a gram of HCN?' Like what, lead poisoning?

"I shot him, and sure enough, within 68 months, he expired from lead poisoning."

And, my 'relevance' is being questioned...

You should update the folks at Remington, Colt, etc., with this insight regarding ft-lbfs and their decades? centuries old? obsession with muzzle energy.

How were they to know? They were supposed to be 'administering grams of HCN' all this time...

OK, when I want to know all about 'formal disruption', I now know where to go.

Post 24

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 2:41pm

Pete:

So far, I haven't really seen an answer to my line of questioning.

If the 'deterrent/antidote to tyranny' argument is a valid justification for private arms ownership rights - and nobody seems to disagree with that - where is the line drawn in terms of what types of arms a private citizen may own?

I think Ted already answered that. A nuclear weapon is too indiscriminate a weapon. You have the right to defend yourself against your attacker, not your peaceful next door neighbors that did nothing to you.

Post 25

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 3:09pm

Kurt:

yes weapons are more focused in their application of force - hence more deadly.

More focused sounds like you mean 'pressure.' Or maybe you mean aimable, directable. But moot. The death statistics belie the 'more deadly,' by far.

We are all more inured to the sight of a speeding massive automobile. We can't see a tiny speeding bullet.

But, we can clearly see the effects of a speeding bullet hitting a body, and a speeding automobile hitting a body, and as deadly as getting shot potentially is, I guarantee you, if you fire ten rounds of .45 into a crowd of people, and if you drive an automobile at even 45 mph into that same crowd of people, you will project far more destruction with the car than the .45. If you manage to hit someone with the .45, it may or may not be fatal. If you manage to hit someone in the crowd with the car, 'chunks' are going to fly. Limbs and heads might even separate from torsos when that much energy hits that much loose meat in skin sacks.

A million ft-lbfs is orders of magnitude more destructive energy than 350 ft-lbfs.

The objective attribute which permits both guns and firearms to project harm is ultimately kinetic energy. (In both cases, stored chemical energy converted to kinetic energy.)

A .45 with 12 rounds can project 12 extremely short duration events of about 350 ft-lbfs each.

A Buick can continuously project million plus ft-lbf events for as long as its 20 gallon tank is full. Hours.

As odd as this sounds, a bullet colliding with a human is the small mass in a small mass/large mass collision, and actually aborbs much more energy per unit mass than the human, by the ratio (M/m)^2. Which is why metal bullets fragment/shatter when hitting flesh/bone. Not good for the human, but usually spectacularly catastrophic for the bullet.

The smaller mass always takes the worst of it.

Cars and firearms are no doubt objectively different tools, but the physics objectively quantifies their ability to project harm. The fringe abuse of several million ft-lbfs events is far more collaterally damaging than the fringe abuse of 350 ft-lbfs events. The key attribute is kinetic energy.

This is trivial to demonstrate. Maintain one set of automobiles at 0 mph. Maintain another set of automobiles at 100 mph. How long will it take both sets to reach Chicago? No, wait a minute, that's not it: how many injuries are going to result from the 0 mph control set?

An automobile that isn't moving(that is a loaded term, it depends on a frame of reference, but you know what I mean)is not a source of danger to anyone.

It is like a firearm that hasn't been fired. Without kinetic energy, both cars and firearms are harmless.

(Yes, Ted, you can drop a .45 on your foot, and it hurts. But, even then, it hurts because it has mass and it is moving, which is why it can hurt.)

(Yes, Ted, you can point a .45 at someone and force them to ingest a gram of HCN without firing it. But, you can drive someone to the desert in a car to do that, too, not the point.)

regards,
Fred

Post 26

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 3:29pm

Pete:

However, in a hypothetical scenario of a citizen militia taking on a tyrannical government, it isn't out of the question that a long range conventional missile strike on key military installations could be justified, or even a tactical nuke on a high value underground target in a remote area.

The military, as predisposed as it is to obey its internal command/control structure, is still comprised of our own citizens. In either scenario:

1] A tyrannical government inviting a strike on its facilities of war.

2] A tyannical government initiating a strike on a rebel factions facilities of war.

...I think there is a probability of sufficient breakdown of military command -- soldiers disobeying orders, and even fragging officers, or entire units going rogue -- to put some drag on either of those circumstances long before we get to those scenarios.

But moot; your question is about 'permission.' Surely, you aren't saying, "Can I walk into the Army/Navy Store and order me up a surplus nuke to go." The obvious answer is and will always be 'no.' Or, "Is it ok, I hope you don't mind, if I build me a nuke out here on my ranch. I'm just asking." Again, the obvious answer is and will always be 'no.'

In the scenario you are describing -- a rogue militia building/obtaining its own nuke -- it isn't asking 'permission' for anything of the government, nor respecting 'lines drawn' anywhere. It obtains what it can, or it doesn't, It keeps what it can, or it doesn't. It prevails, or it doesn't. There is no 'permission' involved in any such scenario as you describe. "Justified" to who?

Notice that Iran, North Korea, etc. does not ask 'permission.' The answer is always 'no,' there is no point in asking. 'Permission' has nothing at all to do with possessing nukes, an entity either possesses them, or it doesn't, always without 'permission' or 'justification.'

The same would always apply internally, I don't see how this 'permission' scenario ever applies to nukes. The answer is plain, obvious, and trivial: "Forever, no."

Which, as you can see with NK and Iran, has no ultimate deciding outcome on whether if, and ditto, internal considerations.

Post 27

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 3:36pm

I think Ted already answered that. A nuclear weapon is too indiscriminate a weapon. You have the right to defend yourself against your attacker, not your peaceful next door neighbors that did nothing to you.

Did you even read the rest of my post? I very clearly made the distinction of the personal self-defense side of the argument and the 'tyranny deterrent/repellent' side. What if your 'attacker' is the government? Not all nukes need to level an entire city. Smaller 'tactical' nukes can take out key underground facilities. Also, conventional precision cruise missiles could be directed at specific targets with little or no collateral damage.

Post 28

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 3:54pm

Yes Pete I read your post! The fact is all of this is just speculation anyways, you don't know that small arms would not be successful in a revolution. Soldiers are not bullet proof. So I still believe it's a good deterrent, you don't believe it is, but since neither of us can test this out, we're just speculating.

If you don't think small arms are hazardous to a soldier's health, ask a few veterans.

(Edited by John Armaos on 12/29, 4:37pm)

Post 29

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 4:16pm

actually, there is no line - it is arbitrary... but since in such a case, it'd more apt to be guerrilla fighting, then the practical would limit, and allow separation of the innocent from the enemy...

Post 30

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 4:51pm

Fred, you are terminally unserious. Do you mean you don't understand the difference between biology and physics? Foot pounds don't kill people, the disruption of their functional form does. Man can be accelerated to escape velocity , 11.2 Km/s with no ill effect and be dropped by a stationary blood clot weighing less that a milligram. Can you explain the relevance of foot pounds to the activity of hydrogen cyanide? Poisons act by disrupting the functional form - arrangement - of the body, not by changing your momentum.

Post 31

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 5:04pm

Here's some interesting statistics on civilian gun ownership. The U.S. has 90 guns per 100 residents, whereas China has only 3.5. Much easier to suppress a nation with only 3.5 guns per 100 residents than one with 90 per 100 resident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Post 32

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 4:37am

John,

But those nine out of ten guns are most likely found in less than one out a twenty homes (except maybe in Texas)!

Pete, Ted, Robert, Fred,

The original question was "is this still valid" for citizens to bear arms, with argument that given the disparity between government and civilian capabilities (armament) that citizens should logically be allowed to own significantly more dangerous weaponry.

If everyone is at least agreed in principle that bearing arms is a justified right, then the focus of debate should be on whether there are justifiable limits as to how powerful such privately owned weapons should be.

Given alone, the argument that civilian firepower is unlikely to be able to match that of a corrupted government is sufficient justification for allowing citizens to arm themselves with whatever weapons might be needed to thwart government oppression. However, there is a separate issue - protection of law-abiding (for want of a better term) citizens from non law-abiding citizens.

Philosophically, I don't see where there is any difference between an AK-47 and a nuclear missile. The only difference is in the extent of indiscriminate destruction either can effect. I see the restriction of the availability and use of weapons as boiling down to a logical strategic decision to protect oneself from one's neighbors. Yes, they have a right to bear thermonuclear weapons in their basement if they want. But their owning such weapons (or simply militarized weapons) poses a a severe threat to my family and friends. And I have a right to protect myself. Restricting private use of such weapons by laws, is a logical strategic means of protecting one's life and property, and therefore a valid argument.

The importance is to keep a rational balance in the risks - something which citizens must ultimately decide for themselves when faced with governmental crisis. As long as government abuses can still be fought with votes, that will always be the first line of defense.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 12/30, 4:41am)

Post 33

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 8:12am

Jay:

re: ... as to how powerful such privately owned ....civilian firepower ....protection of law-abiding citizens from non law-abiding citizens...the extent of indiscriminate destruction either can effect...to protect oneself from one's neighbors... their owning such [objects] poses a a severe threat to my family and friends. And I have a right to protect myself. Restricting private use of such [objects] by laws, is a logical strategic means of protecting one's life and property, and therefore a valid argument.

I don't know how one enters into a physical discussion of 'powerful...indiscriminate destruction...' and so on without objectively considering physics, Ted's unqualified technical illiteracy aside.

A Buick simply parked in my neighbors garage is not a physical threat to anyone. An actually deployed Buick is objectively a million+ ft-lbf dynamic event. In an extreme emergency, like, rushing to the hospital, I can understand my neighbors willingness to subject perfect strangers to his ability to guide a several million ft-lbf dynamic event within feet of my loved ones.

A .50 cal M2 resting in my neighbors basement is not a physical threat to anyone. An actually deployed .50 cal is an 11,500 ft-lbf dynamic event, two full orders of magnitude less than the Buick. In the event of an extreme emergency, like, the tyrannical acts of an over-run government, I can understand my neighbors willingness to actually deploy that .50cal.

When it comes to the million+ ft lbf events, the current tribal tolerance for exposure to fringe abuse of freedom is set at 'for any whim whatsoever, unasked even.'

I am amused to hear Ted, Objectivist extraordinaire, disavow 'physics' on the topic of the objective physical harm exposed to fellow citizens by the potential for fringe abuse of physical objects. Physics is only irrelevant ... to technical illiterates.

This debate seems singularly informed by fear and ignorance of both physics and firearms. (No wonder so many of us drive the way we do...right up until impact.) Informed debate doesn't arise from fear and ignorance, but as is readily seen, legislation often does.

Jay, firearms can be abused. Automobiles can be abused. Objectively, how does your precise argument above apply to objects that, when abused, expose innocents to 350 ft-lbf events, but not to objects that when abused, expose innocents to million+ ft-lbf events?

regards,
Fred

Post 34

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 8:53am

Ted:

Foot pounds don't kill people, the disruption of their functional form does.

How does a bullet disrupt anything relative to that anything without finite mass and velocity relative to that anything?

Here's a bullet. Since 'ft-lbfs' don't matter, it shall forever have zero ft-lbfs of kinetic energy. How does it disrupt?

Tell you what, your target is standing still. It only needs a little velocity to get to the target. Give it a 1 ft/sec velocity, and send it towards its target. Or, send it along at 800 ft/sec, but give it a mass of 0.001 grains. Does it disrupt? Assume you've given it enough velocity to get to the target. When it gets there, how does it pierce the victims T-shirt? Skin? Muscle? Bone? to disrupt anything, because, "ft-lbfs don't kill people..."

You've convinced me with that HCN thing. We need to ban the manufacture and sale of syringes.

Post 35

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 10:45am

Jay, at least though if your neighbor has a decent collection of guns, and for whatever reason a militia is needed, he is your go to guy for distribution of arms, right? I still feel better that I live in the country with the highest number of guns owned per capita.

Post 36

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 12:49pm

I thought I answered it, as did Rand - indiscriminate weapons in the hands of untrained people are a hazard, not self-defense. Self defense should be limited to non-mass weapons, hence .50 MGs, artillery, etc... should not be privately available except under say, a collector licence (as it is now).

Though it would be cool to have my own mortar.

Post 37

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 12:59pm

Kurt I think Pete was asking how one could argue for the right to bear arms on the basis of deterring a military junta taking over the government if the military has more sophisticated weaponry than the civilian population. In my opinion small arms are still effective, soldiers aren't bullet proof, a military junta would not use weapons of mass destruction on it's own population because it relies on them for supplies. There's also a numbers issue, I believe we have 1.5 million standing army? As opposed to how many able bodied men and women that with a few minutes of training can accurately shoot say an MP5? Like the three minutes I needed to learn to shoot one and do so accurately?

Post 38

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 1:12pm

A lot of material here for snitch@whithouse.gov

Post 39

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 - 2:01pm