Tag: guns

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_borderExcellent article re: Second Amendment Task Force

Posted on by Marissa

Another excellent post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

“What a sea change it would be for Americans to finally have some peace of mind, knowing that a dedicated government entity exists solely to protect their rights, not infringe upon them.”

The establishment of the Second Amendment Task Force is great news indeed. The federal government is actually working to protect our rights, rather than working to violate them. What a revolutionary concept.

bookmark_border“You have a right to self-defense and the use of just force …”

Posted on by Marissa

Check out this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

My reaction: So? Whether or not your abuser can get a gun is none of your business. Whether or not your abuser can carry a gun concealed is also none of your business.  The only thing that is your business is that your abuser doesn’t harm you, and doesn’t contact you if you don’t want them to. And preventing these things is the whole purpose of a restraining order.

As long as a person is not harming you or contacting you against your wishes, the things that they do are none of your business. The objects that another person owns and/or carries are none of your business.

You have a right not to be harmed or contacted; you don’t have a right to prevent others from owning or carrying any object that they might potentially use to harm you. If you demand control over the objects that other people are allowed to own and/or carry, you are now the one who is harming others, and you are now the abuser.

As the FPC correctly points out: “You have a right to self-defense and the use of just force against unjust force. Period.”

bookmark_borderRestricting guns at polling places is not “good news”

Posted on by Marissa

Somewhat old news by now, but I agree wholeheartedly with this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

As FPC correctly points out, violating people’s rights is not “good news.”

Additionally, what is striking about Everytown’s post is that they equate the existence of guns with “armed intimidation.” They do realize that a person can possess a gun without using it to intimidate others, right? It’s almost as if it doesn’t occur to them that a person could just…exist. With a gun. Not using it to intimidate anyone. This shouldn’t be a revolutionary concept, but apparently, it is. Having a gun on your person is not the same thing as “armed intimidation.” Possessing a gun, in itself, does not intimidate anyone.

Furthermore, Everytown’s statement that “armed intimidation has no place in our democracy” is another example of the pompous, self-righteous, stuck-up, and condescending attitude that I discussed in an earlier post. What the heck is “our democracy,” anyway? Democracy is a form of government in which decisions are made based on what the majority of people prefer. There’s nothing positive about this. It allows the majority to violate the rights of unpopular minorities. Yet so many people speak of “our democracy” as if it’s something of supreme importance, something sacrosanct, something whose goodness is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be explained. To me, this is just another way of saying, only people like us matter. Only people who act like us, think like us, and live like us. No one else’s feelings, perspectives, viewpoints, or experiences matter. It’s “our” democracy, and everyone else can go to hell. We don’t like guns; therefore no one should be allowed to have them. Who cares about the fact that possessing a gun has no impact on anyone but yourself, and therefore isn’t anyone else’s business? As usual, the basic moral truth that people have a right to do anything that they want to, as long as it doesn’t harm others, is thrown out the window. To the worshippers of “our democracy,” only the majority’s perspective matters. If they don’t like something, then it should be banned. The rights of unpopular minorities – as well as the entire concept of people having rights, for that matter – are completely disregarded.

Enough about your democracy. Individual rights are what actually matter. And banning guns at polling places violates them. This is the opposite of “good news.”

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.