AIER An Economy Is Neither a Family Nor a Firm; It Is a Catallaxy
A friend who is more Liberatarian posted the above link on FB with this quote from it:
I mean even the author's statement states how wrong he is... "libertarians judge society and government policy by how well individuals are able to fulfill their goals" I mean to fulfill this simple goal a government's policy has to support a lot of "higher goals". Some include maintaining:
A professor once told my MBA class that the primary reason we are and can be as successful as we are is because we were lucky enough to be born in America. A wonderful place that balances personal success with safety nets / support.
Now there are some countries that allow "some individuals to fulfill their goals very well" while others fall far behind and their capabilities are squandered.
I always think of governments / societies as a whole bunch of people rowing a boat in a race against every other country. It is best for the country if all the rowers are trained, capable, motivated a rowing. It is bad if a large chunk of the rowers are:
A friend who is more Liberatarian posted the above link on FB with this quote from it:
"Unlike progressives and conservatives, libertarians judge society and government policy by how well individuals are able to fulfill their goals; libertarians do not suppose that individuals who comprise the large collectives that we call “countries” do or should aim at fulfilling the non-existent higher goals of these large collectives."Now what is odd about this piece is that the author starts by talking about countries and governments, then he goes off to discussions regarding economies. Now I agree that economies are somewhat natural and have no real goal. However I totally disagree that governments should have no "higher goal"...
I mean even the author's statement states how wrong he is... "libertarians judge society and government policy by how well individuals are able to fulfill their goals" I mean to fulfill this simple goal a government's policy has to support a lot of "higher goals". Some include maintaining:
- peace
- property rights
- law and order
- helping the poor to attain their full potential
- world class infrastructure
- etc
A professor once told my MBA class that the primary reason we are and can be as successful as we are is because we were lucky enough to be born in America. A wonderful place that balances personal success with safety nets / support.
Now there are some countries that allow "some individuals to fulfill their goals very well" while others fall far behind and their capabilities are squandered.
I always think of governments / societies as a whole bunch of people rowing a boat in a race against every other country. It is best for the country if all the rowers are trained, capable, motivated a rowing. It is bad if a large chunk of the rowers are:
- untrained
- unmotivated
- lazy
- disabled
- etc
Thoughts?
132 comments:
Libertarians want to be free and they want someone else to pay for their freedom.
--Hiram
Actually, the word "catallaxy" describes the proper formulation very well. "I don't care who you are, you want to buy it or not? Maybe we can do something on the price."
"Catallaxy or catallactics is an alternative expression for the word "economy". Whereas the word economy suggests that people in a community possess a common and congruent set of values and goals, catallaxy suggests that the emergent properties of a market (prices, division of labor, growth, etc.) are the outgrowths of the diverse and disparate goals of the individuals in a community.
Aristotle was the first person to define the word "economy" as ‘the art of household management’.[1] As is still a common method of explanation today, Aristotle tried to explain complex market phenomena through an analogy between a household and a state, take for example the modern analogy between the national debt of a country's government and a simple consumer's credit card debt. Aristotle used a common Greek word 'oikonomia' that meant "to direct a single household," and used it to mean the management of an entire city-state.[2] The word catallaxy aims to provide a more accurate and inclusive word for the market phenomenon of groups of households, in which participants are free to pursue diverse ends of their own.
First discussed by Ludwig von Mises, the term catallaxy was later made popular by Friedrich Hayek who defines it as "the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market".[3] "
The author's starting paragraph is what I found interesting...
"There are many different ways to distinguish libertarians from progressives, progressives from conservatives, and conservatives from libertarians. Here’s one of my favorite ways. Both progressives and conservatives regard the country to be an entity with purposes. In contrast, libertarians understand that the country (as opposed to its government) has nothing that can meaningfully be called “purposes.”
And then he jumps to:
"In sharp contrast to an individual, a household, and an organization such as a business firm, what is today called an “economy” has no purposes. The economy has no hierarchy of goals that it or its participants pursue. Each American, each American household, and each American firm (for-profit and not-for-profit, and governmental) has a hierarchy of goals that it pursues, and each does so by acting within the American — actually, within the global — economy. But these many attempts to fulfill individual goals are no part of a collective effort to fulfill higher goals.
The American economy has no goals. It is not an economy; it is not a goal-directed entity, such as a household. An economy, properly speaking, is a catallaxy. According to F.A. Hayek, a catallaxy is “not a single economy but a network of many interlaced economies.”
Libertarians recognize this reality. Progressives and conservatives deny it."
With this in mind... Does he think the USA should be dissolved and the borders opened?
Or do the individuals in the USA have a very strong reason to give up some of their freedoms in order to maximize their personal gains?
Can illegal immigrants really dissolve America simply by crossing the border, or perhaps overstaying their visa? It's an interesting question.
--Hiram
I guess I am taking it a step further.
Why do we even need Borders or the US, State or Local governments in the mind of a true Libertarian?
What is the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist?
What "higher goals" does a Libertarian have for government?
And how does one separate a "country" from its "democratically elected government"?
I mean if we are what we eat...
it seems to me that
We are who we elect....
"Both progressives and conservatives regard the country to be an entity with purposes. In contrast, libertarians understand that the country (as opposed to its government) has nothing that can meaningfully be called “purposes."
Libertarian Platform
"... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ..."
Libertarianism is all about freedom to not get measles vaccines in hopes that it is someone else who gets the measles.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I frustrated my Libertarian friend by asking him about that... There seemed to be no good answer.
Gov't should not force people to get a shot...
People's freedoms should not impinge on another's health...
Jerry,
Them there are very vague fighting words...
1. establish Justice?
- Justice: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
- Justice: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2. insure domestic Tranquility?
- tranquility: the quality or state of being quiet and peaceful
3. promote the general Welfare?
- Welfare: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
4. secure the Blessings of Liberty?
Liberty: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
How do ~320,000,000 people best balance these often conflicting priorities?
I mean, if
- no one had guns, no one would die from guns
- if everyone was vaccinated, few would suffer diseases
- if everyone shared their income more freely more people would be better off
- etc
Maybe personal freedom WITH personal responsibility?
But... unfortunately people who think are responsible sometimes lose their gun, pass on disease, sell questionable products.etc.
And others sick, die, lose money, etc.
So? Lack of personal responsibility on your part does not require transfer of your responsibility to me, abridging my freedom. If your irresponsibility harms me, the law should protect me, not you.
The law is not going to protect you if:
- you are shot with a lost / stolen gun
- you get the measles because your innoculation was weak
- you are damaged by someone with little money / insurance
You will just be dead injured or financially destitute.
That does not alter the fact that I was not responsible for my injury, someone else was. If I am robbed because someone else wanted the money, why does government want to make me responsible for giving the thug my money?
You said...
"Maybe personal freedom WITH personal responsibility?"
My point is that personal freedoms sometimes lead to others being harmed.
Therefore we limit personal freedoms in many instances to protect the freedoms of other citizens.
We have stop lights that limit my freedom to go through an intersection when I wish... All to protect other drivers from my making a choice that may harm them, and our disrupt the flow of traffic.
That is why the word "WITH" was used. The function of government is to establish laws that "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ..." Nowhere in there is government supposed to make someone else responsible for my irresponsible actions. You drive through a stoplight and hit me, YOU are responsible. If you don't have insurance, you are still responsible. If you were drunk, you are still responsible. If you fell asleep or were drunk or were on your phone, you are still responsible. The law doesn't prevent the accident, it just places the responsibility where it belongs. Contrary to the belief of gun control advocates.
Please remember that I am happy putting irresponsible gun owners in jail for losing their weapon(s). Especially if that weapon is involved in a crime.
Society has given them the freedom to own a weapon. If they can not do this responsibly they should pay a consequence.
As for the victim of a broke no insurance light runner... I think they want money, care, etc more than they want someone to point at.
But what about those who irresponsibly broke in and STOLE the weapon? Doesn't the responsibility for misuse of that weapon belong to the one who not only misused it, but acquired it illegally?
The auto accident victim needs care, etc., but the responsibility for that accident and care belongs to the one responsible for the accident, regardless. I agree it is more important to fix the problem than to fix the blame, but to suggest that the responsibility somehow shifts away from the responsible party to some other-- the victim or the taxpayer-- makes zero sense to me.
Put another way: you have the freedom to be irresponsible, but you have to pay the price when something goes wrong because of your actions. The law cannot protect you from yourself (or should not) and it really cannot prevent someone else from harming you. They can only assign legal liability and punish after the fact. Why do you think all these mass shootings happens in "no guns allowed" zones?
Jerry,
The person who bought the weapon and did not secure it adequately is problem #1.
We pay a lot of money every year to decrease the number of people who run red lights, speed, etc. It does not make us responsible, it just means we pay the bill.
And when an individual is harmed by an uninsured motorist... We in society pay even more.
Unfortunately society often pays the price when people are irresponsible. ;-(
Just think of how many disability payments the tax payers make due to someone's unintentionally self inflicted injury.
Because some idiot was allowed to purchase a semi automatic weapon...
And they did not take good care of it...
Some facts and data
Facts and Data
With that last article in mind... Was the Las Vegas concert a "gun free zone" in your opinion?
Even though there were dozens of armed officers present and on guard?
I believe it was, and that exceptions were made for the police. We know that 100% of school shootings occur in gun-free zones. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "our Constitution is suited to a moral people, and no other." Only personal responsibility prevents crime; laws cannot. We have laws only to deter the law-abiding from things we [mostly] all agree we shouldn't do to one another.
For example, someone intent on multiple murders is unlikely to be deterred by a "gun free zone."
If the shooter had no gun... There would be no mass shooting...
But the shooter has the (limited) right to a gun, and the victims have a right to life. How do you resolve that conflict with a law? There are laws against murder, both man and God's. The shooter willingly violated that law. You think a misdemeanor weapons possession will deter him?
It think if we make losing one's weapon a felony may be a good start.
Please distinguish between "losing" and "having it stolen out of your locked house." Then explain to me how, because of this law, no one will ever lose a gun again.
Lost or stolen is the same to me.. The "responsible owner" should be doing more.
"We know that 100% of school shootings occur in gun-free zones."
Huh? There have been plenty of school shootings in places with armed security.
Even your citation recognizes there is no preventing a gun from being stolen by a determined thief. Laws require the reporting of same have been on the books for a long time and are no problem for the legitimate, responsible legal firearm owner. That should be the limit for the owner's responsibility. What more do you want?
Federal law makes it a crime to have a gun within 300 yards of a school-- a "gun free zone." Districts that allow CCP teachers to carry are probably breaking the law in response to recognizing that criminals break laws.
My solution is simple.
Freedoms come with responsibilities...
Sean,
Even Parkland had an armed resource officer
Of course usually the shooters seem to come with much more than a hand gun...
Your solution is to surrender everyone's liberty in exchange for a little (largely imaginary) security. No deal.
No liberty lost...
You just need to submit to a background check...
Register your weapons...
Take responsibility to keep them secure...
Report if they have been stolen or you have lost them...
Have them taken away if you start to go crazy...
Pretty basic "responsible citizen" stuff
Definitely small potatoes compared to what others are losing because of our current gun culture, where children, concert goers and co-workers have to fear for their lives doing normal stuff. :-(
"... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ..."
It would be nice if we could go back to the original text of the Constitution. Well-regulated militias don't shoot school children.
Moose
Excellent point.
I am pretty sure the founding Father's did not foresee AR15's and dead innocent civilians on the streets...
For all who do not know. AR15s are not automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons. They are semi-automatic and they do NOT "automatically" shoot people who come into their presence. And Moose, what you miss is that a "militia" is a group who own their own weapons.
Liberty is lost when you are forced to submit to a background check and the record is kept. Or when you must register your weapon-- a well-known precursor to confiscation and in some places, an open invitation to thieves.
Liberty is lost if I am held responsible for the thief that stole my gun. Reporting it is a sensible requirement, so I might eventually retrieve my property, but also because it legally absolves me of responsibility for the use the thief makes of it.
And if I am /certified/ crazy and a danger to myself or others in a court of law-- that is, due process-- then and only then should I be deprived of my right of self-defense. The "red flag" laws are a red flag saying liberty is being trampled.
Definitely small potatoes compared to what others are losing because of our current gun culture, ...
Studies say guns are used defensively millions of times each year, compared to the few dozen mass shootings or thousands of gun homicides. Once again you are looking at what one side of the debate says about the issue, rather than actual data.
"guns are used defensively millions of times each year"
Source please... I have never needed a gun to confront another armed person in all my years... Nor have any of my friends / family...
And certainly not an assault rifle... And for all practical purposes the AR15 can be used as an automatic weapon.
"And Moose, what you miss is that a "militia" is a group who own their own weapons."
And can be called forth by the Government to bear arms. Also, they don't shoot children.
Moose
common knowledge
Wild guess you mean you "never needed a gun to confront another UNarmed person..." I am guessing you are male, 6'2" and weigh about 16 stone. You would not need a gun against a 5'1' 110-pound woman. The other way around would be different.
As for "assault rifles" there is no such thing. Assault STYLE weapons, yes, and Congressional testimony testifies of the need for such for self-defense (and a popular hunting rifle). Who are YOU to decide what gun somebody else wants for self defense? Maybe we should have a law that says criminals are not allowed to use guns?
From your source...
"My own preliminary conclusions:
1) We still don’t really know how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) there are each year."
Doherty offers his own analysis of reasons why reported numbers might be both too low or too high in his 2015 article, “How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns.”
And from that piece...
"So, how many DGUs are there, really? My conclusion is the same is it was when I wrote my 2008 book Gun Control on Trial: There isn't any real way to know for sure. Some of the anomalies in the basic Kleck/Gertz numbers make one wonder if they are reliably accurate, including the small number of gun-wounded folk showing up in hospitals compared to how many might be expected from the over-2-million-DGU figure, or how many burglaries there are compared to the number that people claim to have used guns to defend themselves from them, and a difficult-to-believe large number of women who seem to have DGUs from the Kleck/Gertz numbers when compared to the much smaller percentages of women who own guns or are involved in recorded justifiable homicides."
Who am I to decide?
I will not decide, but our society will if children keep dying...
And if you take away guns used for defensive purposes, a lot MORE children will die. Is that what you want? What you miss is that a large number of these "defensive uses" are simply "brandishing." Criminal sees gun and backs/runs away. Exactly what we want to happen. And the "uglier" the gun (AR15 with a grenade launcher) the more effective it is for that purpose. You are trying to justify an indefensible policy.
You must think there are a lot of violent criminals in this world who are afraid of a gun fight. Which of course makes little sense.
However as I have said... Dead children will lead to change...
I think a lot of criminals are cowards who carry a gun, especially shooters of children. Faced with armed opposition, they run. A million times a year.
And "dead children" is just more leftist propaganda. More kids die in swimming pools every year than by mass shootings.
Most criminals are just after money...
They are not out to harm nameless strangers...
And you are correct, there are other innocent victims...
Children, church goers, concert goers, co-workers, etc...
It is quite the trade off... Some unknown amount of money for a known number of lives.
And please remember that usually personal protection is done with a hand gun... Not an assault rifle that can be bump fired.
And the best "deterrent" is done with an ugly gun, like a semi-automatic "assault style" rifle that only LOOKS like an assault rifle. And you don't have to bump-fire it to make it look menacing; you don't even have to fire it. Point being that your proposal would disarm victims and leave criminals unaffected.
To be on topic, government's purpose is to protect us from outsiders and from others. Denying us the right of self-defense is decidedly NOT a proper function of government.
That is a matter of opinion.
You are entitled to hold that opinion. It seems contrary to established law and common sense.
Apparently the legality is fine...
The government has a long history of deciding which weapons should be allowed into the public sphere.
And the assault rifles have only been available to the public since ~1970.
As for simple common sense...
No group of innocents can be killed by a bump fired rifle if no one in the general public is holding a bump fireable rifle.
Fine. How many people are killed each year by a bump-fired legally-possessed firearm? How many people have defended themselves each year by simply brandishing such a weapon? Compare and contrast.
And your formulation is amiss. If "no one in the general public has..." such weapons, what prevents a criminal from having one? There are many laws against murder. Do you think some misdemeanor gun charge is going to prevent a determined criminal from murdering innocents, especially disarmed innocents?
Oh, and "assault rifles" have NEVER been available to the general public. Your cite says so.
"After the assault-weapons ban expired in 2004, gun makers quickly reintroduced them and sales were brisk.
"One of the things that we have seen in recent years after the assault weapons ban ended in 2004 was this really huge explosion of these boutique kind of rifle companies that are producing these very high-end rifles that are very customizable," said Alain Stephens, who's part of NPR's criminal justice team and a former member of the military.
On several occasions, AR-15 sales have spiked when there's renewed talk about banning them.
Laws vary by state, but in Florida, for example, anyone who is 18 or older with a clean record can purchase an AR-15-style rifle with no waiting period.
Republican lawmakers in the state have proposed several steps that include raising the age to 21 for the purchase of all guns, and imposing a three-day waiting period.
However, the Republicans who control the legislature are not calling for a ban on AR-15s or any other gun, and the steps fall far short of what gun-control advocates want to see."
So please help me understand an example of exactly when someone would...
"brandish their AR15 to save their life"?
Maybe when they are marching around their home in military fatigues doing gun drills?
Formal testimony before Congress, prior to the grossly ineffective and badly misnamed "assault weapons ban" A young man in a wheelchair, and I paraphrase greatly, wanted an "ugly gun" that he could wield with one hand. He lived in a dangerous neighborhood but did not want to shoot anybody. He believed the "ugly gun" saved his life. When intruders broke in and saw him with the weapon, they fled.
He is welcome to his belief...
But society gets to decide what is best for the general welfare of all Americans.
"And "dead children" is just more leftist propaganda. More kids die in swimming pools every year than by mass shootings."
Funny. "Dead children" is exactly the propaganda of the right when it comes to abortion rights. In the case of the leftist propaganda, there actually ARE dead children, though.
Moose
"But society gets to decide what is best for the general welfare of all Americans."
No, they don't. People have certain "inalienable rights, that among them are LIFE..."
Why do you believe that YOU, speaking for "society" have the authority to abridge that fundamental right? Can I, speaking for society, forbid you from having a car because cars can kill people?
No court of law denies the authority of the USA Government to put boundaries on which weapons private citizens are allowed to own...
Are you saying that private citizens should be allowed to own any weapon they wish?
Speaking of "the right to life… :-(
no court of law has yet ruled that the government may ban a weapon purely on the basis of its appearance rather than its functionality. That is all the "assault weapons ban" was, as was the very reason it was proposed-- not because it was the weapon of choice for criminals and insane murderers.
And I should point out that the Las Vegas shooter was the one doing the murders, not the government. This was a special case in which even an armed victim could not have stopped the carnage. However, the hotel the shooter used was in fact a gun free zone, so obviously no one could possibly have been shot from there. :-/
Assault Weapons Ban
It seemed like a very normal event since any mass murderer with an assault rifle can kill from a secure location... And there is nothing any armed citizen will be able to do about it. Please remember that it took 10 minutes to even get to his room and the police were well armed.
It seems any crazed murderer can obtain a firearm illegally and kill somebody with it, and no law can stop it. So what do you propose, another law?
We don't have to make it so easy for them...
I mean now all they need to do is steal one of the millions out in the public space...
Or just buy one on line...
I advise. And maybe melting down a million or so of those unnecessary weapons. :-)
It is interesting how you resist my common sense solution that allows pretty much everyone to have / keep their gun.
G2A's Simplified Gun Policy Goal Statement:
1.Ensure that trained, responsible people can keep and carry their hunting and self defense weapons.
2.Ensure these weapons are removed from the homes of scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible people.
3.Minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA when the system fails and a scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible person does not have their weapons confiscated.
G2A's Supporting Policy / Tools
1.Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or ownership transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop holes.
2.Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders. (Red Flag Laws)
3.Improve NICS, and State and Agency reporting into the database.
4.Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
5.Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.
6.Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
7.Allow trained school personnel to conceal and carry.
8.Limiting clip sizes to ~15 or fewer bullets
9.Banning weapons that are bump fire-able.
The good news is that Florida bill addresses some of these common sense changes. CNN Florida Gun Law Awaits Govs Signature
You know how we have different classes of all kinds of things? Why not do that with guns? Single-shot hunting rifles and shotguns? Class A. Zero or short waiting period. No major regulations. Each successive class would be based on the danger posed by such a weapon and they would come with successively longer waiting periods, background and psych tests with periodic follow-up tests, registrations, etc. etc. EVERYONE would have the opportunity to have the guns they want, and we the people can protect ourselves from the overabundance of them in our society without running afoul of the ill-fitting and misinterpreted 2nd Amendment.
Moose
More talking points, all with fallacies of one sort or another. Lather, rinse, repeat. Moose actually has a better proposal here, but it seems to overlook the fact that there is basically only two classes of weapon involved: a single shot rifle or shotgun, and semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and handguns that fire only one bullet per pull of the trigger. and we already have background checks and waiting periods for all of them sold through commercial dealers (including Internet and gun shows).
Oh, and the "ill fitting and misinterpreted Second Amendment" is vastly preferable to a mishmash of ill-conceived, ineffective and misinterpreted "gun-control laws." what is the possibility of having a law which controls crime, rather than some inanimate object?
Moose,
That is kind of what Canada does
Jerry,
We need to regulate the secondary market
We can have as many classes as we want. We get to decide. Not gun owners. Not the NRA.
Moose
Apparently 1/3 of Americans own guns.
That is a pretty big voting block. :-)
Not my point. Most Americans favor more regulations on guns.
Moose
It looks like you are correct.
I mean even a gun user like me is in that boat.
"We can have as many classes as we want. We get to decide. Not gun owners. Not the NRA."-- MOose
Back to being wrong again. "We" do not get to abrogate individual rights, nor should we be in the business of making law based on some ridiculous and irrelevant distinction.
Of course "We the People" get to determine which weapons are allowed in our society and what the licensing process is.
Or are you saying that our banning automatic weapons is somehow illegal?
Bump fireable seems like a pretty real distinction
'"We" do not get to abrogate individual rights, nor should we be in the business of making law based on some ridiculous and irrelevant distinction.'
Wow, I mean, I know you're wrong on most everything, but I didn't realize you could be THIS wrong about something. In my suggestion, there is no ban on any particular type of weapon, so there's no abrogation of anyone's right to get one. And we make distinctions all of the time. In Minnesota, one can sell alcohol in a convenience store, but it can only be of a certain class. If you want to buy the hard stuff, you have to go elsewhere.
An AR-15 with a bump stock is a different class of weapon than a shotgun or a .22 caliber rifle, or any number of other guns. You want one, you have to meet the requirements.
Moose
I think Jerry is referring to this strange statement he made earlier.
"People have certain "inalienable rights, that among them are LIFE..."
Somehow he is equating "having and AR15" to be necessary to stay alive.
And of course we know that our society can execute citizens legally...
So I think he is incorrect on many counts.
You all keep throwing that word "AR-15" around as if it is some demon to be exorcised. It is not. It is a semi-automatic rifle, just like all other semi-automatic rifles except for certain cosmetic features, such as those that Congress defined as an "assault weapon." The "assault weapons ban" was a misnomer, since assault weapons have been banned since the 1930's. It was ridiculed by the NRA and others as an "ugly gun ban" because that is exactly what it was. And I note
Let me ask, what is it that you propose that will stop criminals from committing crimes? And will whatever that is prevent law-abiding citizens from defending their lives with their legal firearm of choice?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is likely a duck...
I have been very clear about what I propose. (see below)
What is your proposal to reduce the number of innocents being killed each year?
G2A's Simplified Gun Policy Goal Statement:
1.Ensure that trained, responsible people can keep and carry their hunting and self defense weapons.
2.Ensure these weapons are removed from the homes of scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible people.
3.Minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA when the system fails and a scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible person does not have their weapons confiscated.
G2A's Supporting Policy / Tools
1.Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or ownership transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop holes.
2.Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders. (Red Flag Laws)
3.Improve NICS, and State and Agency reporting into the database.
4.Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
5.Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.
6.Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
7.Allow trained school personnel to conceal and carry.
8.Limiting clip sizes to ~15 or fewer bullets
9.Banning weapons that are bump fire-able.
And exactly which of your proposed anti-rights laws will stop all criminal activity? Exactly which of those laws CAN be used by a totalitarian government to prevent the right of self-defense?
"You all keep throwing that word "AR-15" around as if it is some demon to be exorcised."
Did I? I merely suggested that it get put in its proper class, with the associated regulations appropriate to the class.
So much fear. And the people with more guns have more fear. One would think it would be the opposite. Weird.
Moose
By your logic, slander, libel, and incitement should be legal.
Moose
I think Moose is on the correct track.
Gun extremists simply live in fear.
Fear that they will be attacked and now fear that our government will fall.
Jerry,
Please remember that if our government ever falls and becomes Totalitarian... They will have the real machine guns, explosives, missiles, armored vehicles, tanks, air force, etc...
Sacrificing children today for your unfounded fears seems a poor trade off.
Jerry,
Just curious... Where do you think criminals get their guns from?
I think, as your cite says, criminals get their guns through criminal means. So passing a law that only affects law-abiding citizens accomplishes exactly nothing except disarming the potential victim. Does that sort of law make sense to anybody? "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It's not a slogan, it's common sense.
As for fear, worries about some law abiding citizen shooting "the children" seems like the worst kind of fear-mongering, just so government can have a monopoly on armed force. Don't say it cannot happen.
Jerry,
But the unfortunate reality is that citizens are shooting the children, women, etc.
And you refuse to track the guns past the initial owner...
I prefer not to track the guns at all. Who tracks, and to what purpose? Dictators love to confiscate guns; why make it easy? When one "social justice news" printed the names of owners, gun thefts multiplied. Laws are really good, sometimes, at punishing the offender after the act. They are largely worthless for prevention.
And the number of crimes committed by permit holders is FAR below that of the general public. Look it up if you don't believe.
Again with your irrational fears.
So sad.š©
Irrational? Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
side with Hitler, do you?
Please note that in all the examples that were listed... The government / Invader won...
The point being:
We are sacrificing innocent citizens so scared people can have big guns that will make no difference if a real army comes in with missiles, bombs, automatic weapons, tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc.
Jerry, It is okay to be scared... Or so I used to tell my little girls...
Ah, but when the government "won" it was always with "good intentions" and only later on did the evil befall (or at least in the case of Hitler). And you should see the movie "Red Dawn."
None of that should be an excuse why people should be deprived of the right to defend their own lives with a weapon of their choice, against the more common sorts of attack, something that takes place a million or more times per year.
You are still blaming an inanimate object for the use that humans may make of it. If you really want to curb violence, start with the people using guns to commit violence.
No. I am blaming the easy access of unnecessary inanimate objects for the death of mass numbers of people.
There will always be bad or insane people... One does not need to make it easy for them to get very destructive weapons.
Please remember that both versions of Red Dawn were fiction. If our HUGE American military fails us... Some rednecks with AR15s won't make the difference.
Again your fear is unfortunate.
Again, you are assuming that a law, ANY law, can prevent a crime that has not been committed. And you reserve the right wholly unto yourself to decide who needs or may have access to a self-defense weapon.
Someday people will get tired of losing spouses, children, friends, etc to random shooter and then others will decide... I just give guidance.
G2A's Simplified Gun Policy Goal Statement:
1.Ensure that trained, responsible people can keep and carry their hunting and self defense weapons.
2.Ensure these weapons are removed from the homes of scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible people.
3.Minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA when the system fails and a scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible person does not have their weapons confiscated.
G2A's Supporting Policy / Tools
1.Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or ownership transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop holes.
2.Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders. (Red Flag Laws)
3.Improve NICS, and State and Agency reporting into the database.
4.Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
5.Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.
6.Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
7.Allow trained school personnel to conceal and carry.
8.Limiting clip sizes to ~15 or fewer bullets
9.Banning weapons that are bump fire-able.
I mean you fear some future enemy...
They are growing to fear neighbors, co-workers, strangers, etc...
Let's examine YOUR fears-- that some nutjob will open fire indiscriminately. First of all, that is the tiniest fraction of all gun owners, and many or most of these shooters are NOT legal gun owners. Curtailing the rights of legal gunowners will do nothing except disarm more potential victims, not just of mass shooters but the far more common garden-variety criminal.
Second, please note that mass shootings almost always happen in some sort of gun-free zone. According to research published by the Crime Prevention Research Center, more than 98% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. So, we already have a law, that makes matters worse rather than better. Want to try another?
How about disarming the police, who routinely use clip sizes of 17? We already have a law against illegal possession of a firearm. How's that working out? There are no Internet loop holes, nor gun show loopholes. All registered dealers must comply with NICS. Ever wonder why nobody ever commits a mass shooting at a gun show? All those guns...
It is not even worth showing you sources...
Your confirmation bias filter is simply too rigid... How old are you?
"When experts discuss normal cognitive changes in aging, they sometimes refer to crystallized intelligence versus fluid intelligence.
Basically, crystallized intelligence refers to everything one has learned over time: skills, abilities, knowledge. This increases as people get older, because crystallized intelligence is a function of experience, practice, and familiarity. This can lead to what some people refer to as “wisdom.”
Crystallized intelligence gets better or stays stable as people get older. This experience and wisdom does enable older adults to compensate for some of the decline in processing speed and other ability. It also means that older adults may perform better than younger people at those mental tasks that require depth of experience or knowledge.
Fluid intelligence, on the other hand, refers to abilities related to processing power, taking in new information, problem-solving with new or less familiar information, and reacting quickly.
Fluid intelligence is at its peak when we are younger adults, and then declines over time."
So, we are back to insults, and repeating endless canards, rather than thinking logically and factually? You are the one proposing a change, remember, and you need to justify the pros and cons of why that change should be made.
No insults intended. I am just trying to think to reasons that your thinking can be so rigid and logic resistant.
Age is simply one of the likely reasons.
it is like dealing with a strong elastic band... Sometimes I think we are making progress and then suddenly you snap back to the Conservative talking points.
Oh well...
My thinking is "rigid" because I can see no logical reason for your obdurate disagreement. Even when presented with known and obvious facts you simply deny them. Talk about confirmation bias!
It is not government's job to make everything "nice" for everybody. "If wishes were horses, all men would ride." If there is a cancer within the society, it is not within government's role to either diagnose nor to treat it, and certainly not to try to prevent it since it already exists. Mass shootings have risen drastically in the last half-century not because there are more guns, but because there are more people. One might even argue that the creation of gun-free zones, a misguided attempt at prevention, helped exacerbate the problem. Instant and widespread notoriety is doubtless another. Government can oppose evil, ignore evil, or become evil.
You are likely "rigid" because you are an older White Christian male who feels threatened by changes within our society... It is an unfortunate reality of life...
"Mass shootings have risen drastically in the last half-century not because there are more guns, but because there are more people."
Prove this belief... Please remember that AR15 type weapons were not even available in public until 1970...
I can prove there are more people, but that's not the point. There are more people who feel justified in anything they do, more notoriety for them when they do it, and none of the more traditional moral compunctions that govern a society. Laws cannot.
Mass shootings have risen drastically. Look it up. Please remember that mass shootings do not require an assault style weapon. Mother Jones has tracked them by location, date, fatalities, wounded, and type of weapon. Of the 48 total mass shootings since 2004, 13 featured semiautomatic or assault rifles. Six of those, though, were from 2015 and 2016 alone [the notoriety/copycat problem]. You should note, though, that they were not all AR-15s.
Number of attacks is less important than number injured / dead per attack
Once we moved from revolvers, bolt actions, pump actions, etc... Things got worse...
Then when we went to AR15 type weapons they got REALLY BAD.
For Your Convenience. Calculated from all the MJ Data
No Assault Rifle Attacks 72
Avg # of Fatalities 7
Avg # of Injuries 5
Avg # of Victims 12
Assault Rifle Attacks 26
Avg # of Fatalities 13
Avg # of Injuries 34
Avg # of Victims 47
36% of attacks involve assault rifles
186% increase in fatalities per attack
680% increase in injuries per attack
392% in number of victims per attack
Not sure where you got your numbers, but I become suspicious when you tell me that some number of assault rifles were used. Assault rifles are not available to the public. Period.
Most mass shootings do not involve rifles. About half of those that do are standard semi-automatics, and half are "AR style" rifles, the most popular hunting gun /class/ in America. So, here's a headline for you: "Fifty-two people were shot and 10 people were killed in what police called a 'despicable' spate of violence over the weekend in Chicago." Which of Chicago's strict gun laws failed, here? How many of these were done with AR-15s? Is it remotely possible, in your mind, that that the mind of the shooter matters far more than the tool used?
The data comes from the MJ spreadsheet as my post notes
As for Chicago gun problem, it comes from out of State
This one even has a graphic
Thank heavens for those Red states that will sell a gun to anyone and not follow it through licensing. :-( So many people killed by those weapons.
And then there is this: "...found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states."
So, it isn't that there are guns in Chicago, nor that Chicago gun laws aren't tight enough, it is that people intent on acquiring a gun will do so, and will commit heinous acts with it. And, I should point out, that law-abiding citizens will NOT be able to defend themselves if this "easy" (but well regulated) access to firearms is curtailed. Why is this simple logic so difficult to understand? "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
If all the states had strong laws / licensing and people had a liability if their gun is used in a crime...
Where do you think the criminals would get their guns?
It is like saying that the border bar / state is not responsible for minors getting killed in car accidents on the way home after drinking too much.
If all the states confiscated every gun, criminals would still get guns or they would use knives or dynamite. Guns are an essential part of their criminal enterprise so they will go to the length necessary to acquire them, or a substitute. Law-abiding citizens obey the laws. Criminals do not. QED.
Let me give you this. If there were stiffer penalties for the use of a gun in a crime, there may be a deterrent effect. However, if a gun is used to murder someone and the penalty is death, what is that additional penalty?
And a question: What law would you propose that would have prevented only one of the two men in this story from having a firearm?
hero with an AR15
So according to your logic... We should make it really easy to get drugs because criminals can get them any way... And law abiding citizens won't take them anyway.
The hero did not need an AR15 to stop the gun man... Any rifle would have done fine. Or did the man expend dozens of rounds during the encounter?
According to my logic we have enough restrictions on guns and on drugs, neither of which prevent people from breaking those laws. And again, you set yourself up as the decider of what any given law-abiding citizen "needs." The man did not HAVE another rifle set aside just for "crazed mass shooter." If that's what you want, you should offer to buy one for everybody.
The reason AR-15s are so often used in mass shootings is because they have been demonized so thoroughly by the anti-gun crowd and therefore carry some special terror that boosts the gunman's ego and seems to increase the threat. I saw one law enforcement outlet recently say they would release the name of the suspect once and only once, with no photo or background information. If everybody did that we would have a lot fewer such instances, IMHO. Even without more gun laws.
Here is one reason crazed shooters like AR15s
And here is another
As I said, because it's "scary." Another reason why some people like them for self-defense. Any mass shooters you know using bump fire? The AR15 can be fitted with a grenade launcher, too, but the grenades are not available. Does that make it more dangerous?
You keep dodging the distinction between criminals and the law-abiding.
No grenades. No Problem.
No 100 round clips. No Problem.
As long as folks like you are happy flooding the market and not holding people accountable for securing their weapons. Law abiding vs criminal is hard to separate.
Of course they bump fire into the crowd. What else could explain these increases?
36% of attacks involve assault rifles
186% increase in fatalities per attack
680% increase in injuries per attack
392% in number of victims per attack
A huge increase in injuries and a large increase in deaths...
These are not signs of a hunter / sniper.
For Your Convenience. Calculated from all the MJ Data
No Assault Rifle Attacks 72
Avg # of Fatalities 7
Avg # of Injuries 5
Avg # of Victims 12
Assault Rifle Attacks 26
Avg # of Fatalities 13
Avg # of Injuries 34
Avg # of Victims 47
36% of attacks involve assault rifles
186% increase in fatalities per attack
680% increase in injuries per attack
392% in number of victims per attack
Odd. Only the first statistic is certainly true: "NO assault rifle attacks."
And statistics don't tell me anything. Semi-automatic rifles have been around a long time. The AR-style semi-automatic rifles have been around a relatively long time. WHY, suddenly, have we had a large uptick in the number of mass shooting incidents? Is it remotely possible that we have an increased number of people feeling entitled to any action to air their grievances, especially if they can be "famous" by committing these heinous crimes? Did you know there is an actual "contest" among these nutjobs for who can create the most carnage? Is that the fault of a common sporting rifle? Notice the number who suicide at the end? Would you argue this is the result of a rational decision about what to do and what weapon to do it with?
Our society has chosen to make very dangerous weapons easily available to all, including the nut jobs.
Now our children and other innocents pay the price.
"very dangerous"? "easily available"? That sounds like some very subjective opinions. Permit me to disagree.
As for "pay the price," our current gun laws actually ENCOURAGE the slaughter of children in gun-free zones. That is a terrible price for trying to control inanimate objects while ignoring human aberrant behavior.
Unfortunately a citizen with a hand gun is no match for a prepared nut job with an AR15 and Body armor.
And the nut job usually is okay with dying.
But please continue to exercise your strong powers of self delusion.
Exactly. So tell me again how depriving the citizen of a handgun is supposed to help that situation? Laws do not PREVENT crime, they can only punish or, at best, deter criminals who fear getting caught and punished. Somebody willing to die to accomplish their evil ends will usually succeed. Only a brave and prepared citizen or law enforcement officer may limit the carnage.
No depriving of hand guns required...
G2A's Simplified Gun Policy Goal Statement:
1.Ensure that trained, responsible people can keep and carry their hunting and self defense weapons.
2.Ensure these weapons are removed from the homes of scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible people.
3.Minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA when the system fails and a scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible person does not have their weapons confiscated.
G2A's Supporting Policy / Tools
1.Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or ownership transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop holes.
2.Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders. (Red Flag Laws)
3.Improve NICS, and State and Agency reporting into the database.
4.Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
5.Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.
6.Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
7.Allow trained school personnel to conceal and carry.
8.Limiting clip sizes to ~15 or fewer bullets
9.Banning weapons that are bump fire-able.
Where do you get this stuff?
Feel free to conjure up as many imaginary boogeymen as you like-- "prepared nut job with an AR15 and body armor"-- But you are talking about the tiniest fraction of all homicides, bordering on negligible. You want to make law for the exception rather than the rule, and fail to recognize the problem is in the evil of the human mind, not in the tools used. Every citizen could be given a grenade launcher AND the grenades, but only the evil or deranged few would ever use it on another human being. And even a few of them would be discouraged by the knowledge that everybody else had one. Unless, of course, we set up "grenade free zones."
You are forgetting that I am fine with conceal and carry.
Please note that no where in my recommendations do I limit handguns.
Odd, I see no exception for handguns-- the overwhelming majority of homicides and suicides-- in your policies 1,2,3,4,5,6,or 8. And I think you have no idea about how to define 9, nor a reason for it (though banning bump stocks is OK with me).
Post a Comment