Random Thought on Gun Control Philosophy

[GW]

I was just contemplating some political philosophy, regarding gun control of course. But this could apply to any nanny-state politics.

To believe that gun control works requires a belief that people are inherently good, that they can be trusted to comply with the law. At the same time, to believe that there is a need for gun control requires a belief that people are inherently bad, that they cannot be trusted with guns.

So which is it? The only way I can reconcile this is that the answer is, neither. Instead it must be a simple, more sinister desire for control of the people.

No the answer is BOTH
but your conclusion is spot on.

[SoberClurichaun]

This is a great quote if that is truly you who made it. I like it. It could go in a 2A shirt honestly.

[BumBum]

This is a great quote if that is truly you who made it. I like it. It could go in a 2A shirt honestly.

To my knowledge, I don't know anyone else that said it. I was a political science major, philosophy minor. My brain constantly is turning its wheels on these sorts of things.

[omgwtfbbq]

I've thought about the exact same thing many times. The conclusion I've come to is that those who believe gun control to be an effective option for lowering instances of crime believe people are both inherently good and bad.

However, I don't mean that these individuals believe people in general land somewhere in the middle, which would be reasonable to assume. What I mean, is the belief in gun control is based on a contradictory philosphy and is therefore invalid.

All other issues aside, as a pragmatist, I believe that people are neither inherently good or evil, but rather people are shaped by a variety of factors including genetics and socialization. All people are capable of acts of kindness and acts of evil. However, simply because we are capable doesn't not mean we should give in to those who would assume the worst of our nature (for lack of a better term).

My personal belief is that this goes back to the fact most of the opposition to 2A frame their ideals around emotional responses to a given stimulus. They see a violent or "evil" act with a firearm and have an emotive reaction to it and run with it. reasonable people, by the very definition of reason, have the same emotive initial reaction, but do not let it override their rational faculties.

[BumBum]

I've thought about the exact same thing many times. The conclusion I've come to is that those who believe gun control to be an effective option for lowering instances of crime believe people are both inherently good and bad.

However, I don't mean that these individuals believe people in general land somewhere in the middle, which would be reasonable to assume. What I mean, is the belief in gun control is based on a contradictory philosphy and is therefore invalid.

All other issues aside, as a pragmatist, I believe that people are neither inherently good or evil, but rather people are shaped by a variety of factors including genetics and socialization. All people are capable of acts of kindness and acts of evil. However, simply because we are capable doesn't not mean we should give in to those who would assume the worst of our nature (for lack of a better term).

My personal belief is that this goes back to the fact most of the opposition to 2A frame their ideals around emotional responses to a given stimulus. They see a violent or "evil" act with a firearm and have an emotive reaction to it and run with it. reasonable people, by the very definition of reason, have the same emotive initial reaction, but do not let it override their rational faculties.

Very well said. This probably sums up my beliefs better than I could have hoped to do!

[omgwtfbbq]

Very well said. This probably sums up my beliefs better than I could have hoped to do!

I too was a Political Science major, but I dropped the philosphy minor after I had a panic attack when I thought too deeply about the idea of skepicism and for a second thought I wasn't real.

[MotoriousRacing]

I think some (perhaps many) anti-gun politicians do not have agendas past pandering for the votes of their constituents. They think anti-gun laws will help them keep their jobs.

[Mitch]

I think some (perhaps many) anti-gun politicians do not have agendas past pandering for the votes of their constituents. They think anti-gun laws will help them keep their jobs.

Personally, I think that explains most gun control laws. Few of these people really care about guns. To the extent they do care, it's more about culture wars than public safety.

[Gem1950]

"So which is it? The only way I can reconcile this is that the answer is, neither. Instead it must be a simple, more sinister desire for control of the people."

^ ^ ^ Uh, this one. With a sprinkling of ignorance and apathy from the left and right (oh yes, there are gun control boobs on the right as well - usually the affluent).