Who should own the means of violence?

[Synobun]

If that shooter entered your aisle, you'd be taking a very long linoleum nap.

 

[Berzerker]

That would be true 'if' no one on my aisle was armed and I wasn't near the other end

Well, I suppose I could start chucking cans at him (hopefully I'm not in the potato chip section ) but I wouldn't like my chances if that was my only defense

In my scenario the shooter was already killing people before nearing me, so someone else on my aisle with a gun wouldn't get caught unawares. They'd already have their gun out ready to blast away at the shooter and I'd already have cans ready to throw. The shooter would have at least two targets firing at him.

edit: my mistake - 'fish in a barrel' wouldn't accurately describe my scenario unless the shooter got the drop on everyone in my aisle, including armed customers. Even then he'd have to shoot the people with guns first or they'd have a couple seconds to respond.

 

[Synobun]

You need to work on your fantasy game, dawg.

 

[Berzerker]

you're countering my 'fantasy' with your own... in my scenario a shooter enters a store killing people alerting everyone with a gun to their presence and you've got the shooter getting the drop on armed customers - now thats the fantasy

these mass shooters are typically stopped by people with guns who know the shooters are active

shooting fish in a barrel becomes less safe for the shooter when a fish is shooting back

 

[Broken_Erika]

Unless the shooter and mr.vigilante start spraying bullets in each others general directions and take out like 30 bystanders in addition to the others that the shooter shot....
and you end up with something along these lines(starts about 2:40, tried to find just the firefight but every attempt at finding it just resulted in 5 trillion cat videos, thanks google...)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's literally the position taken by every single movement that has sought to change or reform the law, ever. I mean, in an important sense it is also the position of all civilized societies since Late Antiquity, the end of the Axial Age, when law came to be understood to reflect ethical aspiration, rather than the despotism of a monarch or ritual submission to the gods.

Right, but that's why empirical evidence and outcome measures are crucial to setting policy. These things give good reasons to prefer some policy over arbitrarily chosen policy.

That's... a really, really terrible response to moral > legal

He brought up the Nazis and then asserted moral > legal. It's not wrong to point out the Nazis themselves obviously asserted moral > legal. There isn't an absolute morality, so when we argue moral > legal we need a reason to prefer some moral frameworks to other moral frameworks. Not killing tons of people en masse' is pretty soundly supported by evidence. Killing lots of people is bad for their utility functions, and for those of most sane people alive.

However other "morality" still needs to be held to the standards, not just obviously terrible morality.​

 

[Synobun]

you're countering my 'fantasy' with your own... in my scenario a shooter enters a store killing people alerting everyone with a gun to their presence and you've got the shooter getting the drop on armed customers - now thats the fantasy

these mass shooters are typically stopped by people with guns who know the shooters are active

shooting fish in a barrel becomes less safe for the shooter when a fish is shooting back

Also becomes less safe for everyone else. See Erika's response. You seem to be still operating under the assumption that if someone fires 5 rounds, all 5 rounds will find their intended target.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Or even better, multiple citizens with guns hear the shooter and end up start shooting at eachother while the shooter continues gunning down patrons, turning the situation from a mass shooting into something resembling a Quake 3 Free for all deathmatch.

 

[Berzerker]

He brought up the Nazis and then asserted moral > legal.

I brought up the Nazis and their victims within the context of legal vs moral legitimacy - the Nazis had the legal 'legitimacy' to slaughter people and their victims had the moral legitimacy to resist the Nazis. I responded to this:

"For the pedantic: "they can't legitimately use it without state approval"."

with this:

"Depends on how you define legitimate. Was it legitimate for Nazis to kill Germans en masse? Or was it legitimate for their victims to resist the slaughter? I'd go with the latter... Moral legitimacy > legal legitimacy."

The state can claim legal legitimacy but moral legitimacy requires a justification that "its legal for the state to kill people" doesn't provide.

It's not wrong to point out the Nazis themselves obviously asserted moral > legal. There isn't an absolute morality, so when we argue moral > legal we need a reason to prefer some moral frameworks to other moral frameworks. Not killing tons of people en masse' is pretty soundly supported by evidence. Killing lots of people is bad for their utility functions, and for those of most sane people alive. However other "morality" still needs to be held to the standards, not just obviously terrible morality.

​

So the Nazis had 'obviously terrible morality'... Does that mean their victims moral legitimacy to resist was superior to the Nazis moral legitimacy to slaughter them? What does that leave the Nazis? Legal legitimacy. Hence the moral legitimacy of their victims > the Nazis legal legitimacy.

Unless the shooter and mr.vigilante start spraying bullets in each others general directions and take out like 30 bystanders in addition to the others that the shooter shot....and you end up with something along these lines

Why no video of armed resistance to a store or school shooter killing a bunch of bystanders? Your movie clip said 12 people were injured and some or most (or all?) of them were the soldiers shooting each other. Collateral damage happens in war zones. How many people get killed by mass shooters? How many people get killed by armed resistors to the mass shooters?

Or even better, multiple citizens with guns hear the shooter and end up start shooting at eachother while the shooter continues gunning down patrons, turning the situation from a mass shooting into something resembling a Quake 3 Free for all deathmatch.

And this actually happens in real life? It can happen, but does it? When school security stops a shooter, how many people get saved as opposed to people mistakenly killed by security?

Also becomes less safe for everyone else. See Erika's response. You seem to be still operating under the assumption that if someone fires 5 rounds, all 5 rounds will find their intended target.

I'm operating under the assumption I'll be safer near an armed customer if a shooter enters the store and starts killing people. I'd be safer getting the hell out of there, but in my scenario I dont have that luxury.

 

[Arwon]

Or even better, multiple citizens with guns hear the shooter and end up start shooting at eachother while the shooter continues gunning down patrons, turning the situation from a mass shooting into something resembling a Quake 3 Free for all deathmatch.

And then what happens when paranoid trigger happy US cops show up and find multiple shooters

 

[Berzerker]

they tell them to drop their guns...the one who doesn't is probably the criminal

 

[TheMeInTeam]

moral legitimacy requires a justification that "its legal for the state to kill people" doesn't provide.

People as a whole don't want governments to kill people en masse', but that's grounds for legally banning it. From where are you gathering this moral source of justification? Before and after the Nazis, their behavior was morally reprehensible...yet they considered themselves morally sound. There must be basis for rejecting some "moral legitimacy" and not others. Or more usefully, there must be (and is) coherent reasoning to prefer legal legitimacy that dictates that it is illegal for a state to perform such acts as the Nazis, and quite a few lesser evils.

However, this is not reasonably derived from an arbitrary set of moral principles. Morals themselves need a source of legitimacy, not the other way around.

Does that mean their victims moral legitimacy to resist was superior to the Nazis moral legitimacy to slaughter them?

The whole point is that both sides can claim moral legitimacy, so saying "moral legitimacy > legal legitimacy" has no more meaning than claiming "moral legitimacy > moral legitimacy" or "legal legitimacy > legal legitimacy". All this accomplishes is to duck having to provide the basis for asserting legitimacy.

I suspect in a structured debate the Nazis would have a much harder time showing how their policy was beneficial.

I'm operating under the assumption I'll be safer near an armed customer if a shooter enters the store and starts killing people. I'd be safer getting the hell out of there, but in my scenario I dont have that luxury.

It depends whether the shooter knows that customer is armed. It's a relatively obvious move to shoot the people who might shoot back first, though I don't know how many people engaging in mass shootings have their wits about them sufficiently to pick this way.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Meanwhile.....
Man With 20 Rifles Can’t Remember If His Goal To Start Or Stop Violent Overthrow Of Government

 

[Broken_Erika]

And another school shooting. This time, the School Resource Officer did his job and the only person shot was the shooter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44146816

 

[Lexicus]

And another school shooting. This time, the School Resource Officer did his job and the only person shot was the shooter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44146816

The System Works

 

[Broken_Erika]

The System Works

Provided that the Resource Officer isn't a lazy and/or cowardly.
And from the sounds of it, the shooter only received minor to moderate injuries...
I'm guessing he was shot in the arm or leg.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

they tell them to drop their guns...the one who doesn't is probably the criminal

LOL...the one who doesn't drop their gun is the one who wasn't caught in the blizzard of lead they unleashed at the same time one of them might have muttered something, maybe. If they come in, they are coming in hot. However, it is far more likely they just set up out front and yelled "throw out your guns and come out with your hands up." Who you figuring is gonna follow that instruction?

BTW, if a shooter came in the front of the store and started shooting people standing around fondling cans is a pretty stupid response. Probably about the same as standing around fondling the steel security blanket that the gun nut brought with them. Shooter comes in the front, stay low and go out the back, you have no obligation to defend a grocery store. Oh, and establish some distance from the gun nut from your aisle who should be doing the same thing just in case the cops are out there, because they're very likely to shoot him when he comes out and only slightly likely to shoot you.

 

[Berzerker]

People as a whole don't want governments to kill people en masse', but that's grounds for legally banning it. From where are you gathering this moral source of justification?

The same place - people... But not just the murderers, the victims too, and everyone else. If the only people who want the government to commit mass murder are the murderers, then they may have the 'legal legitimacy' but not the moral legitimacy. Basically no one wants to be murdered, that universality creates a moral source of justification. Now of course we can think of situations where someone wants to die, but caveats dont negate the principle.

Before and after the Nazis, their behavior was morally reprehensible...yet they considered themselves morally sound. There must be basis for rejecting some "moral legitimacy" and not others. Or more usefully, there must be (and is) coherent reasoning to prefer legal legitimacy that dictates that it is illegal for a state to perform such acts as the Nazis, and quite a few lesser evils.

Did the Nazis want to be murdered? No, so they'd have to violate the golden rule to murder others. Their hypocrisy is the basis for rejecting their 'moral legitimacy'. Thats why not even a majority of opinion can define morality. If the majority is doing to others what it doesn't want done to them, they've lost the moral high ground to their victims.

The whole point is that both sides can claim moral legitimacy, so saying "moral legitimacy > legal legitimacy" has no more meaning than claiming "moral legitimacy > moral legitimacy" or "legal legitimacy > legal legitimacy". All this accomplishes is to duck having to provide the basis for asserting legitimacy.

But only one side can be right. If both sides dont want to be murdered, then the side committing the murders loses the moral legitimacy argument.

It depends whether the shooter knows that customer is armed. It's a relatively obvious move to shoot the people who might shoot back first, though I don't know how many people engaging in mass shootings have their wits about them sufficiently to pick this way.

Takes time to survey the crowd, but if people are carrying he cant get more than one or two before everyone else is alerted.

LOL...the one who doesn't drop their gun is the one who wasn't caught in the blizzard of lead they unleashed at the same time one of them might have muttered something, maybe. If they come in, they are coming in hot. However, it is far more likely they just set up out front and yelled "throw out your guns and come out with your hands up." Who you figuring is gonna follow that instruction?

The innocent ones... I'm not aware of cops shooting innocent people at mass shootings in large enough numbers to warrant your concern. And I doubt cops are trained to stand around outside while a shootout is ongoing inside. I think they do try to enter the store cautiously to identify possible targets. Sure its possible they'll shoot an innocent person, but they understand that and proceed with caution.

When cops go in hot they want the element of surprise, rushing into an ongoing gun battle seems dangerous.I have heard of undercover or off duty cops being shot in such situations but they're rare and certainly a price to be paid compared to the loss of life during these mass shootings.

BTW, if a shooter came in the front of the store and started shooting people standing around fondling cans is a pretty stupid response. Probably about the same as standing around fondling the steel security blanket that the gun nut brought with them. Shooter comes in the front, stay low and go out the back, you have no obligation to defend a grocery store. Oh, and establish some distance from the gun nut from your aisle who should be doing the same thing just in case the cops are out there, because they're very likely to shoot him when he comes out and only slightly likely to shoot you.

I already said getting out is the best course of action in #89:

I'm operating under the assumption I'll be safer near an armed customer if a shooter enters the store and starts killing people. I'd be safer getting the hell out of there, but in my scenario I dont have that luxury.

And yes, if I heard shots I'd grab some baseball sized cans and start heading the other way looking for an entrance. Or maybe...just maybe, I'd feel compelled by the screams to head for the shooter and try to nail him with a fastball. I cant say how I'd react, I'd like to think I'd try to stop the killing. If I had a piece on my hip, I'd feel much more confidant of my chances. If the guy near me had the gun, I might grab some cans and follow him into the fray.

If armed people in the crowd at that Las Vegas concert were shooting back at the guy in the hotel, they may not have hit him because of distance and difficulty of the shot, but once he realized he was being fired on he might have become distracted allowing more people to take cover.

 

[Lexicus]

Right, but that's why empirical evidence and outcome measures are crucial to setting policy. These things give good reasons to prefer some policy over arbitrarily chosen policy.

Outcomes are inevitably evaluated through a moral framework.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The innocent ones... I'm not aware of cops shooting innocent people at mass shootings in large enough numbers to warrant your concern. And I doubt cops are trained to stand around outside while a shootout is ongoing inside. I think they do try to enter the store cautiously to identify possible targets. Sure its possible they'll shoot an innocent person, but they understand that and proceed with caution.

You kinda missed my point. Let's try again. There's a shooter at the front of the store. You're hunkered down behind the meat counter, maybe along with your new friend and his steel security blanket. The cops out front are yelling "come out with your hands up." You gonna raise your hands and head for the front door? Do you think your new compadre is gonna drop his security blanket and do that?

If armed people in the crowd at that Las Vegas concert were shooting back at the guy in the hotel, they may not have hit him because of distance and difficulty of the shot, but once he realized he was being fired on he might have become distracted allowing more people to take cover.

The shooting had stopped long before much of anyone figured out where it was coming from, so if they had had guns and an intense desire to "do something heroic" there's really no telling where they'd have been pointing them. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that the guy several stories up and across the street firing down into a crowd was counting on "there's no such thing as a miss, if I'm off target I hit someone else anyway." These heroes you wish had been there, IF they figured out where the shooter was, would have just broken a bunch of hotel windows...hopefully. I guess capping off a few innocent customers on the hotel side might have 'evened the score' a bit though, so perhaps there's some merit here?