Flip it around. In a world without guns, small weak people are unable to protect themselves. In a world with guns, they are able if they can get a gun.
I think the problem is not the guns, but the culture and the attitudes derived therefrom. So I don’t necessarily want to radically restrict private gun ownership, but I would definitely like to radically reform private gun ownership.
I think a quick look at human history will reveal that the bigger, stronger ones tend to group together to dominate others. In principle, I think you’re right, but it really hasn’t worked out that way in practice.
Absolutely, I’d call the observation I cited one of those “stopped clock” moments.
Being objects, they are unable to play any sort of role, they are not agents. That’s what I meant when I said that they are only tools. Sure, they are tools meant to kill, and if people are opposed to that, they should prevent their manufacture. Especially rather than trust their regulation to an (arguably) racist and classist government. Many individuals are also racist and classist, but they are still less dangerous than a government which embodies those attitudes with minimal consequences. Saying that some people are allowed to kill others is not acceptable to me.
To illustrate, when I was out with my kid about two years ago, I politely explained to an annoying cop that we had opted out of their protection. The cop had a bug up their ass about this and followed us around, dogging our heels with their hand on their pistol, despite us not doing anything unlawful. Just about when I was starting to get fed up and confront them, they left or were called away. Every time but one I have been threatened by a gun, has been by police, when I have been unarmed. So any “control” of guns which leaves them carrying is not an acceptable option. The PR is that it’s for my protection, but when that was questioned, it was quickly demonstrated to actually be about their desire for authority and aggrandizement.
Only when one allows themselves to be intimidated. It sets a low bar for social interaction! If I feared my death, anybody could compel me to do anything. Besides infringing upon my agency, this would also implicate me in the schemes of the oppressors. So, again, it seems like long-term loss for short-term gain.
So if enough people buy guns we should just let the market deicide? Let’s say someone invented a sci-fi style paralysis ray that they could use to freeze people, then exploit them. And let’s say lots of people wanted them for lots of reasons that were mostly bad. Freezing hispanic people, throwing them in trucks, and throwing them over the border. PUAs calling it their ultimate “seduction tool.” Freezing cashiers in robberies. Many problem behaviors. If there were enough people who wanted it, should we just leave it to the conscience of private enterprise, with the government not involved in the regulation, since the government can suck and their restrictions might be racist?
The gov’t is flawed, but you seem too black-and-white about an institution colored by thousands of shades of grey.
No, I simply do not assume that there is a human nature. Being human is what you (or I, or anyone else) make of it. Humans are arguably not quite the same as they were 20, 2,000, or 200,000 years ago. So even if there was some essential core nature - which I am not convinced of - this nature would still change over time. Humans are a self-domesticated species.
In any case, I think that government and economics can be seen to function as large-scale conditioning instruments might not be too controversial.
And if you apply that to people who act like cops with even less oversight and responsibility, you may understand how the rest of us feel about gun fetishists.
Humans don’t have an eternal immutable essence. We’ve changed due to physical/cultural/social evolution and continue to do so. Yet there are a lot of qualities that have persisted outside any domain we control. Being human is mostly what we’ve inherited (physically/culturally/socially), with a small part of that spectrum being what we can make of it.
What relation does this question have to my suggestion of not manufacturing guns? I never said anything about “markets”, which IMO are not A Thing. You might be trying to fit my opinions into a different sort of narrative.
No, my point is that it is pointless to strive to legislate objects when laws are supposedly about behaviors. When people are deliberately conditioned to exploit and control others, they will think that it is a great idea to use whatever tools are at their disposal. But since government is typically authoritarian, they are not very invested in the practice of instead conditioning the populace towards egalitarian practices. The biggest monkey still rules, with the difference that they have a flag and a title.
I don’t think that commerce, markets, or private enterprise are solutions to anything. They function mainly as ways to sublimate the same power dynamics and resource squandering which need to be fixed. But despite the tokens becoming symbolic, the victims are still real.
Perhaps! Although your line of questioning gets me thinking that you might not understand my thoughts on this.
