Something to remember in light of the Lott controversy...


February 5, 2003, 11:58 PM
This is an excerpt from "Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder.

I think it is particularly salient in light of the controversy surrounding John Lott's statistics.

"So it is that when we defend the right to own and carry firearms with utilitarian arguments like those of John Lott, we are in no sense defending an individual right. We are, instead, simply trying to convince a majority of our fellow citizens to permit us to exercise such freedom because there's something in it for them. This is an attempt to purchase Liberty, an implicit admission that our "rights" are subordinate to, and dependent upon, the desires and wishes of our fellow citizens."

Perhaps we need to rethink our approach to this whole argument?

If you enjoyed reading about "Something to remember in light of the Lott controversy..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 6, 2003, 08:49 AM
I always base my arguments against gun control laws (and other onerous "control" laws) on the simple fact that my life is my own to do with as I please, and because it's my own, it's mine to defend. If my right to defend myself is denied by force of law, gov't is saying that my life is mine only when it's not in danger. This is a degree of slavery, and there is no such thing as a morally acceptable degree of slavery.

February 6, 2003, 09:43 AM
I'll side with 45 King on this argument. After all, we are individually responsible and accountable for our lives within the framework of the law.
It's always struck me as odd that as a firearms owner and promoter, I have no problem with people who do not want to possess firearms, yet the anti's want to take them away from us for no good reason I have ever heard. The ones which really get me are the ones who just want to own them but nobody else, and they really believe they have a position which justifies this nonsense.:rolleyes:

Oleg Volk
February 6, 2003, 09:51 AM
Even if I had no use for guns and no notion of a right to keep them, I would be persuaded by the logic of the antis. Pretty much every one of them said they'd use deadly force by government proxy to make others obey their edicts. So even an otherwise useless weapon is likely to be used beating off assaults by those who wish it removed. And if they feel so strongly about getting us defenseless, what exactly do they have inmind for when that condition is achieved?

February 6, 2003, 09:55 AM
Oleg-I don't think I quite follow your stance. Maybe it's because I see no logic in their argument? Maybe it's because I know how to read the Constitution and the BOR?

February 6, 2003, 10:14 AM
Delmar, I think Oleg means that the antis have made their self-negating logic obvious enough that even if he didn't care one way or the others about guns, he would see their desired end result.

By his phrase, "I would be persuaded by the logic of the antis." he did not mean that he would follow them.

February 6, 2003, 11:56 AM
John Lott's arguments aren't utilitarian. They're merely conclusions based on observations.

Guns don't cause the behavioral tendencies to exist. Rather, it's quite the other way around.

If you enjoyed reading about "Something to remember in light of the Lott controversy..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!