No One Needs a Gun!

in anarchy •  4 months ago

gun.jpg

Image Source

In the wake of another shooting, the statists are back with their broad-sweeping statements about what humanity as a whole needs and doesn't need, then using these statements to beg for more government regulation.

Some will confine their statements to specifics, like "no one needs an AR-15" or "no one needs [this or that feature, magazine size, etc.]." Others speak less specifically and claim that "no one needs any type of gun."

This sort of statement isn't just found in the gun control debate. Do these statements look familiar?

No one needs 3 houses!

No one needs to earn seven figures a year!


Let me ask a couple of questions in response:

  1. Is need a fair metric for morality?
  2. Is lack of need a reasonable justification for the use of violent force?

First, I'll elaborate on question number one:


What does "need" mean? A need is a requirement. But that definition demands a subject: a requirement for what? I need a gun in order to own a gun. I need a gun in order to hunt with a rifle. I don't necessarily need a gun in order to survive.

Is that what they mean when they say "no one needs a gun"? That it's not essential for survival? Well guess what, no one needs anything other than the basic essentials for that. You don't need a house, you don't need the convenience of grocery stores, you don't need art, you don't need music, you don't need the internet, you don't need the ability to read... I could go on and on.

There's no logic to making need a metric for moral judgements.

If you're scratching your head over question number two, I'll elaborate on that for you too:


If you say I don't need a gun and the government agrees with you, here's what will happen:

  1. Government makes guns illegal.
  2. Government creates some type of program to confiscate all guns.
  3. Government enforces confiscation program through threats of fines and jail time.
  4. Government punishes resistors by acting on their threats.
  5. Government violently oppresses and even kills anyone who attempts to fight back.

My example is of a broad illegalization of all guns. But the same logic applies to any regulation. Don't try to say that government actions are not violent. Everything they do is backed by the threat of violence (arrests) or extortion (fines). And if you resist, they will make that violence into something more than a threat.

Is lack a need a rational and just cause for this kind of force?


I've got a few statements that I'd like to say in response to anyone who claims that "no one needs a gun":

No one needs other people policing what they do and don't need.

No one needs an owner.

No one needs a violent ruling class.


So please mind your own business and stop trying to use violence to force your beliefs on me.

~Seth

P.S. I don't own a gun. I've never shot a gun. I don't even care about guns... What I do care about is freedom. No one has the right to tell anyone what they can and can't own.


Spam Alternate.jpg

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I want to answer your from the European side of life ....
the freedom aspect looks very important to you. But think about this:

firearms1.png

the freedom ends when the negative aspects for the others are bigger than the individuality....

Think also on the war on drugs! On one side there are very restrictive laws again many drugs ( no freedom!) on the other side thousands of people are killed indirectly by the pharma industry (oxycodon, fenatyl...)
Next theme: USA is the biggest porno producer in the world.....
Nude Persons are not allowed in media or even in your own garden...
This is very contradictionary for me.....

·

the freedom ends when the negative aspects for the others are bigger than the individuality

No your freedom ends where another's begins. It's only logical. Drawing the line anywhere else is prone to the arbitrary whims of the line-drawer.

This is why all government action is immoral. They operate s owners who get to choose what rights you have, if any. And then use violence against you if you choose to ignore their arbitrary decrees.

And America isn't the only country with a gun violence problem. And it isn't proven that gun control works at all. There are plenty of countries with strict gun control that still see a lot of gun violence. There are also countries with loose gun control laws that don't see much gun violence.

Take Canada as an example. It's pretty easy to get a gun here, and the number of guns per capita is the 10th highest in the world, but there isn't a whole lot of gun violence compared to the US. Let's compare that to England, a country with very strict gun control ranked 82nd in the world in guns per capita, but they see more gun violence there per capita than Canada.

It isn't a gun problem. It isn't a law problem. It's a culture problem. And using the violence of government to try and solve it won't fix anything.

·

The "firearm-related deaths" statistic does not seem to exclude suicides. According to the CDC, in 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by firearm compared to 11,008 homicides. That's two out of three deaths by firearm being self-inflicted.

Do we believe that all of these suicidal peoples' lives would have been saved if they had no access to firearms? That they wouldn't have just found another way to end their lives?

Hehe the titel of your blog distracted me to think this was actually about gun control. But what you write is even more interesting. What do we actually need, and what does the government thinm that we need. In most countries these are elected so the SHOULD be making these kinds of decisions on your behalf, but reality is so often sooooo different

·

The only person eligible to make decisions on your behalf is you. No one else has the right to do so. Certainly no one has the right to do so for millions of individuals.

I would love to take you shooting some time. Indeed the word "need" is nowhere to be found in the 2nd Amendment. Of course the hundreds of thousands or millions who choose guns to defend themselves may not have needed them but I bet they are glad they had them.

·

I was actually going to go shooting for the first time with a friend of mine a couple weeks ago! But something came up.

When I say I don't care about guns, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in giving them a try ;)

·
·

they are like Pringles, once you pop you can't stop ;)

All this stuff to remove rights from people is something made on purpose and made by groups who have agendas that are directed to removing people's rights little by little.

If they want to make illegal gun because they kill people, well, we need to also make illegal cars, knifes and many other things that also kill people. Why doesn't the government make illegal junk food since it KILLS SO many people and make them sick. Well they dont do that because there is a big business in the middle so the priority is money, it is very evident.

·

Well said. Thanks for the comment.