Tag: gun control

bookmark_borderEverytown’s logical fallacies on Stand Your Ground laws

Posted on by Marissa

In a recent social media post, the Firearms Policy Coalition called attention to anti-rights organization Everytown for Gun Safety’s “research” regarding Stand Your Ground laws.

(Everytown refers to these laws as “shoot first laws,” which many commenters on the post correctly point out is a manipulation of language designed to make said laws seem reckless and unreasonable, when in reality they are not.)

“Shoot first laws are unpopular,” Everytown proclaims in large font at the very top of their page, blatantly committing what is possibly the most basic logical fallacy, equating popularity with goodness. Contrary to what Everytown presumes, how popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Okay, Stand Your Ground laws are unpopular. So what? What does that have to do with whether they are good or bad? Nothing.

“Legal experts and advocates also oppose Shoot First laws,” Everytown continues. A similar point applies here: the fact that legal experts and advocates oppose these laws, has nothing to do with whether the laws are good or bad. There’s no rule stating that whatever experts and advocates think is automatically true. Experts and advocates are simply people, just like anyone else. They could be right in their beliefs, or they could be wrong. 

“In 2012, the NAACP called for a repeal of these laws due to their effects of increasing crime and promoting racist violence.” The same point applies here: the fact that an organization called for a repeal of these laws, has nothing to do with whether or not the laws should actually be repealed. There’s no rule stating that organizations’ policy positions are automatically correct. Organizations can be right in their policy positions, or they can be wrong. An additional point also applies here: just as the popularity of a law is irrelevant to its goodness or badness, the effects of a law are irrelevant as well. The fact that a law would increase crime and/or “racist violence” has nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad. Goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law or policy, not the effects. Additionally, I do not see how it would be possible for Stand Your Ground laws to promote “racist violence,” because Stand Your Grounds laws do not have anything to do with race.

And furthermore, there is a very important point to make about the NAACP itself. Over the past five years, through the positions that it has taken and statements that it has issued regarding the statue genocide, the NAACP has established itself as an organization dedicated to inflicting horrific, unbearable pain on innocent people, destroying everything that makes life worth living, and obliterating from the face of the earth every person who is different from the norm. Due to the bigotry, cruelty, aggressive intolerance, and complete moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the NAACP, I would argue that there is a very strong negative correlation between whether the NAACP has expressed support for a policy position, and that policy position’s likelihood of being right. In other words, the fact that the NAACP called for a repeal of Stand Your Ground laws is strong evidence that these are good laws that should not be repealed.

“And in 2015, the American Bar Association also released a report recommending the repeal of Shoot First laws.” A similar point to the ones that I’ve made above, applies here: the fact that the ABA recommends repealing Stand Your Ground laws, has nothing to do with whether they actually should be repealed. There’s no rule stating that the ABA’s position on an issue is automatically correct. The ABA might be right on an issue, and also it might be wrong.

“According to an expert quoted in the report, ‘If our aim is to increase criminal justice system costs, increase medical costs, increase racial tension, maintain our high adolescent death rate and put police officers at greater risk, then this is good legislation.'” I don’t see how a criminal justice system would cost money, and so I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase “criminal justice system costs,” whatever the heck that means. I also don’t see how increasing medical costs is a bad thing, because in every transaction, the buyer of a product or service pays money and the seller of the product or service receives the exact same amount of money, so every transaction is a net neutral. Furthermore, I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase racial tension, because they have nothing to do with race. Most importantly, as I’ve stated above, all of this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Stand Your Ground laws are good or bad. The effects of a law have nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad, because goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law, not its effects. By listing all of these irrelevant factors as if they are somehow significant, the ABA and their alleged expert demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes good and bad legislation.

So, yeah. Stand Your Ground laws are correct, because people have the right to use deadly force against people who trespass on their property. Trespassing on other people’s property is wrong, and therefore people forfeit their rights if they do it. It’s morally abhorrent to focus one’s criticism on the victims of wrong actions – as Everytown, the NAACP, and the ABA do – rather than the perpetrators.

bookmark_borderActually, guns *are* cool

Posted on by Marissa

The anti-rights organization, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, recently made a social media post which read: “It may seem like a small hand gesture, but when those who have a platform use even an imaginary firearm for celebration, it sends a message that guns are cool and fails to recognize their lethality or that they’re the #1 killer of kids. We can do better.”

My question for Brady: What exactly is wrong with sending the message that guns are cool? In my opinion, guns are cool. And judging by the comments on the post, many other people feel the same way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that guns are cool. People have a wide variety of different interests. Some people find Disney movies cool, some people find horses cool, some people find rap music cool, and some people find guns cool, to give just a few examples. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. People have a right to like things, to be interested in things, and to find things cool. Guns are no exception to this.

Regarding the claim that using imaginary guns for celebration “fails to recognize their lethality”… I fail to see why this is a problem. First of all, guns arguably do not have any “lethality” at all, because it is the people who use guns who are responsible for any deaths that may occur, rather than the guns themselves. But even if one accepts the claim that guns possess lethality, this does not create any obligation for people to “recognize” this. As mentioned above, people have a right to like things. People are not obligated to actively recognize every negative aspect of the things that they like, every time those things are mentioned.

Regarding the claim that guns are “the #1 killer of kids”… this strikes me as ageist. If guns were the #1 killer of adults, would this somehow be less bad? Additionally, as mentioned above, one could make the argument that guns are not a killer of anything, because it is the people who use guns who are responsible for any deaths that may occur, rather than the guns themselves. 

In conclusion, it’s Brady that needs to do better. Criticizing people who have done nothing wrong is unacceptable. The people at Brady need to respect the full spectrum of human diversity, rather than criticizing and shaming people who have different likes and dislikes than they do. 

bookmark_borderThe idiocy of Martin Heinrich

Posted on by Marissa

“There’s no law enforcement application for a bump stock. There’s no military application for a bump stock. There’s no self-defense application for a bump stock. These devices are tailor-made for mass shootings. Ban them.” – Sen. Martin Heinrich

It is exasperating and exhausting to keep seeing statements like this. 

The non-aggression principle, the rule that determines objective right and wrong, states that people have the right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. This means that, unless owning a bump stock violates the rights of someone else, each person has the right to own a bump stock. 

Does owning a bump stock violate anyone’s rights? No, it does not.

Does owning a bump stock, in and of itself, hurt anyone? No, it does not. 

Therefore, each person has the right to own a bump stock. It really is as simple as that. 

Why does Heinrich care about the fact that bump stocks (allegedly) have no law enforcement, military, or self-defense applications? Why does he think this fact is relevant to the question of whether or not bump stocks should be banned?

It isn’t.

There is no moral rule stating that if something has no application, then it should be banned. There is no requirement that something have an application in order to be allowed to exist. The only requirement is that the thing not violate the rights of others. Bump stocks meet that requirement. Therefore, people have a right to own them. They cannot be banned. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people are not required to prove to him that their possessions have an application in order to be allowed to own those possessions. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people do not have a right to do only those things that he has deemed useful or necessary. 

People have a right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. That includes owning bump stocks. 

bookmark_borderBiden’s moral bankruptcy on gun rights

Posted on by Marissa

“The way we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no social redeeming values. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturer.”

On Thanksgiving, Joe Biden, the President of the United States, uttered these disgraceful words.

To echo Biden’s word choice, the fact that the President of the United States would say this is truly sick. These words are so deeply wrong and demonstrate such complete moral bankruptcy that it’s difficult to even explain why. But I will attempt to, anyways, because it would be unacceptable to let such an egregious statement go unrebutted.

First of all, it’s bizarre that Biden would call it “sick” that something is allowed to be purchased. The default state of existence is for all things to be allowed. The burden of proof always must rest on those who wish to ban something, not on those who wish for it to continue to be allowed. In other words, in order for something to be banned, there must be good reason for banning it. Regardless of whether or not you think semi-automatic weapons should be banned, it is not “sick” for them to be allowed; it is simply the default. Only the active commission of bad deeds can accurately be characterized as sick. Omitting an action, such as the action of banning semi-automatic weapons, cannot accurately be characterized as sick, no matter how strongly you feel the action should be done.

And then there is the fact that actually, semi-automatic weapons should not be banned, because doing so violates everyone’s rights. People have a right to do anything that they want, as long as that thing does not harm anyone else. Purchasing, owning, and possessing semi-automatic weapons does not harm anyone. Only shooting people with them does. Therefore, it is morally wrong to ban semi-automatic weapons. Biden is literally calling the failure to violate people’s rights “sick.”

Even more appalling than Biden’s claim that the failure to violate people’s fundamental rights is “sick” is his claim that respect for people’s fundamental rights has no value. It’s disturbing that this even needs to be stated, but individual liberty is valuable for its own sake. People’s ability to make their own choices and to do the things that they like is valuable for its own sake.

Some people like semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, it is inherently valuable for people to be allowed to purchase semi-automatic weapons, because this enables the people who like semi-automatic weapons to purchase something that they like. If semi-automatic weapons were banned, then people who like semi-automatic weapons would be deprived of something that they like. Their well-being and happiness would decrease. Their lives would be made worse.

Contrary to Biden’s claim, the rationale for allowing semi-automatic weapons to be purchased does not lie solely, or even primarily, in the profit made by the gun manufacturer. It lies in the benefit to the gun purchaser. When a person purchases something, both the buyer and the seller benefit from the transaction; otherwise the person wouldn’t have chosen to purchase the item in the first place. The rationale for allowing semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is the inherent benefit to people in being allowed to purchase something that they like.

A fundamental and obvious truth is that it is inherently beneficial for people to be able to do something that they like. And it is inherently harmful for people to be banned from doing something that they like. The fact that the President of the United States does not recognize this is disturbing beyond belief.

It is one thing to argue that the common good outweighs the benefits to individual people of being able to do what they like. But that is not what Biden is arguing. Biden is arguing that the ability of individual people to do what they like does not matter at all.

It is one thing to argue that the importance of safety outweighs the importance of individual rights, liberty, and freedom. But that is not what Biden is arguing. Biden is arguing that neither individual rights nor liberty nor freedom has any value at all.

It is one thing to argue that the harm done by shootings outweighs the harm done to individual people by banning them from doing the things that they want to do, and therefore that it is worth it to harm people in this way because doing so prevents even worse harm. But that is not what Biden is arguing. Biden is denying that harming individual people is at all bad. He is arguing that the happiness and well-being of individual people does not matter at all.

Individual rights. Liberty. Freedom. The ability to make choices. The ability to do the things that one likes. The ability to live in a way that matches up with one’s preferences. Happiness.

When you think about it, these are all different ways of phrasing the same thing. And Joe Biden, the President of the United States, is claiming that these things have “no social redeeming values. Zero. None” He is claiming that these things have “not a single, solitary rationale.” To be clear, Biden is not claiming that the value of these things is outweighed by the value of something else, or that these things ought to be sacrificed for the sake of something that is even more important. He is claiming that these things have no value whatsoever.

In reality, not only do these things have value, but they are the only things that do. Without them, there is no reason to live at all.

We now live in a nation whose president is unable to see any value whatsoever in the things that make life worth living. Now that is just sick.

bookmark_borderThere is no right to “feel safe”

Posted on by Marissa

“Canadians have the right to feel safe in their homes, in their schools, and in their places of worship. With handgun violence increasing across Canada, it is our duty to take urgent action to remove these daily weapons from our communities. Today, we’re keeping more guns out of our communities, and keeping our kids safe.”

These words by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are despicable and disturbing on many levels.

Most importantly, neither Canadians, nor any people for that matter, have the right to “feel safe” anywhere. Safety is not a right; liberty is. What that means is that people have the right to do anything they want, as long as it does not directly harm anyone else. People have a right not to be harmed; this is what restricts the things that others are allowed to do. People do not, however, have a right to feel safe. This is because the things that some people require in order to feel safe would actually require violation of the rights of others. For example, say that a person, in order to feel safe, requires their environment to be made gun-free and/or restrictions to be imposed on the ownership or possessions of guns by others. Achieving these conditions would require other people to be harmed by having their freedom to own and possess guns taken away. People do not have a right to anything that would violate the rights of others. Therefore, people do not have a right to feel safe.

Trudeau also errs when he claims that he has a “duty to take urgent action.” Actually, because the action taken by Trudeau violates people’s rights, Trudeau does not even have the right to take this action, let alone the duty.

Additionally, Trudeau errs in citing the increase in handgun violence across Canada as a reason for violating people’s rights. The conditions that exist in a particular place, or at a particular time, actually have nothing to do with which policies governments should implement. This is because the sole purpose of government policies should be to specify which rights people have, and to punish people who violate the rights of others. The moral principle that I explained above, which determines the rights that people have, is universal and objective and does not change based on what conditions happen to exist in a particular place or time. Therefore, government policies with regard to guns should have nothing to do with the amount of gun violence that happens to exist in the country. The only policy that any government should have with regard to guns is a policy stating that people have a fundamental right to gun ownership and possession. People’s rights are not dependent on living in a country that happens to have low gun violence rates.

Also, why is Trudeau bragging about “keeping more guns out of our communities”? Why is this considered good? Guns are morally neutral. Having lots of guns in a community is in no way a worse state of affairs than having few guns in a community, so this statement does not make sense.

Plus, why does Trudeau specifically mention “keeping our kids safe”? What does a person’s age have to do with the importance of keeping that person safe? Apparently, the safety of adults does not matter to Trudeau.

Trudeau needs to place less emphasis on “communities” and more emphasis on individuals. He needs to place less value on safety and more value on liberty. Trudeau needs to stop his morally bankrupt and illogical behavior that has inflicted enormous harm and punishment on innocent people. He needs to stop obsessing about “kids” and “safety” and “communities” and start actually respecting people’s fundamental rights.