Firearms: A characterization (1 Viewer)

[Goobieman]

This was written by Col. Jeff Cooper, a few years ago:

The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Agree? Why not?
Disagree? Why?

 

[Kandahar]

In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.

I am under the impression that Iraqis - both before the war and today - have a lot of firearms. Yet they were tyrannized by Saddam Hussein for decades, and are tyrannized by Shia death squads today.

I'm generally in favor of the right to bear arms (although it's not a hot-button issue for me), but the argument that they can be used to overthrow oppressive governments seems a bit silly in the age of tanks, nukes, and mustard gas.

 

[Goobieman]

I am under the impression that Iraqis - both before the war and today - have a lot of firearms. Yet they were tyrannized by Saddam Hussein for decades, and are tyrannized by Shia death squads today.

I do not believe this is true. Given that this would mean that the Iraqi people who were not of a mind to let the Iraqi government rape and torture their kids would have the means to resist the government doing so, I do not think firearm ownership was all that common before the war.

After the invasion, each household was allowed to have an AK47 for defensive purposes; I am under the impression that this was a significant change from the policy before the war.

I'm generally in favor of the right to bear arms (although it's not a hot-button issue for me), but the argument that they can be used to overthrow oppressive governments seems a bit silly in the age of tanks, nukes, and mustard gas.

Interesting that you mention this, just after you mention Iraq -- after all, isnt an insurgency, armed with light weapons, kicking our *** in Iraq?

 

[TurtleDude]

I am under the impression that Iraqis - both before the war and today - have a lot of firearms. Yet they were tyrannized by Saddam Hussein for decades, and are tyrannized by Shia death squads today.

I'm generally in favor of the right to bear arms (although it's not a hot-button issue for me), but the argument that they can be used to overthrow oppressive governments seems a bit silly in the age of tanks, nukes, and mustard gas.

depends how you use them-its tough to shoot down a F-14 with a Garand rifle

Its easy to shoot a pilot when he is not in the plane and even easier to kill someone who gave that fighter pilot the order to bomb say Tempe Arizona

surgical use of a rifle to decapitate a dictatorship can be rather effective

 

[Kandahar]

Interesting that you mention this, just after you mention Iraq -- after all, isnt an insurgency, armed with light weapons, kicking our *** in Iraq?

The United States is not a tyranny though. If we wanted to, we could squash the insurgency like bugs and flatten the entire nation. A tyrant would have no qualms about doing this.

So while firearms may be sufficient to overthrow your democratic "oppressors", they would probably not be sufficient to get rid of a tyranny.

I can't think of a single modern example of an armed citizenry overthrowing a tyranny. The closest thing I can think of would be some African countries, where two heavily-armed factions (both tyrannical) plunged the country into a bloody civil war. But I don't think liberal democrats have ever overthrown a tyranny with firearms...at least not in the last 50 years.

 

[TurtleDude]

The United States is not a tyranny though. If we wanted to, we could squash the insurgency like bugs and flatten the entire nation. A tyrant would have no qualms about doing this.

So while firearms may be sufficient to overthrow your democratic "oppressors", they would probably not be sufficient to get rid of a tyranny.

depends if the tyranny could survive the death of the tyrant and his inner circle. Any FBI or Secret Service Agent can tell you its almost impossible to stop a well trained person who cares not if they live or die from getting through the circle-especially with a 300 Winchester Mag with a 24 power Scope

 

[Goobieman]

The United States is not a tyranny though.

We both know of quite a few people that would disagree :2razz:

If we wanted to, we could squash the insurgency like bugs and flatten the entire nation. A tyrant would have no qualms about doing this.

Those same people would argue that this will only create more insurgents. :2razz:

So while firearms may be sufficient to overthrow your democratic "oppressors", they would probably not be sufficient to get rid of a tyranny.

I think "tyranny" in this context is a bit more inclusive than just the Saddam Insanes of the world -- it included King George III and the like.

 

[Goobieman]

depends if the tyranny could survive the death of the tyrant and his inner circle. Any FBI or Secret Service Agent can tell you its almost impossible to stop a well trained person who cares not if they live or die from getting through the circle-especially with a 300 Winchester Mag with a 24 power Scope

THAT is true. Any such rifle, with only a few tweaks, in the hands of a competent shooter could easily take someone down from several (600-700-800) hundred yards.

 

[Morrow]

I agree that a weapon, an object, cannot be inherently evil.

The rifle is not the only means to defeat tyranny. The Indians felt themselves the victims of tyranny and did not use the rifle to fight.

Kandahar is correct, the Iraqi citizenry was heavily armed before the invasion.

Tyranny is much in the eye of beholder, the Iraqis obviously didn’t think it was worth it to fight Saddam. Either because they were afraid to die (maybe because not enough wanted to fight), or their conditions were good enough that they had more to lose by fighting than by just dealing with Saddam’s crazy ****.

You can live under a tyranny, armed, and not fight it. You can also fight and defeat it without weapons.

 

[Goobieman]

The rifle is not the only means to defeat tyranny. The Indians felt themselves the victims of tyranny and did not use the rifle to fight.

As Kandahar pointed out -- the British weren't tyrants. India was onnly able to win its freedom thru passive resistance because the Brits weren't willing to slaughter them.

Kandahar is correct, the Iraqi citizenry was heavily armed before the invasion.

Got anything to support his?
Because if you're right, this means that the Iraqi people had the means to protect themselves from Saddam and chose not to.

Tyranny is much in the eye of beholder, the Iraqis obviously didn’t think it was worth it to fight Saddam.

This is less ovbious than you think.

 

[Kandahar]

I think "tyranny" in this context is a bit more inclusive than just the Saddam Insanes of the world -- it included King George III and the like.

Yes but King George III never had tanks or WMDs. He just had soldiers with guns to fight against rebels with guns.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I voted "disagree." I would have gone for the "guns suck" option, but I don't think gun owners are compensating.

The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.

I disagree first that a gun is a tool of power. I don't believe guns have very much power at all, except for the power we grant them. A person who is determined to kill me with a gun will be able to kill me without a gun; a group of people determined to kill me will do so even if I have a gun and they do not. The ability to kill is power; guns do not grant the ability to kill. They make it easier, but the big step is not killing from a distance; it is being willing to kill.

I disagree, therefore, that guns are the only means of resisting tyranny. Passive resistance is resistance. Sabotage and guerrilla warfare, even performed without guns, is resistance. Diplomacy and intrigue are means of resistance. The question is, which of these are effective means of resistance, and that can't be answered in generic terms; too much depends on the tyrant, the military, government, and infrastructure, the dedication of the resistors, and the attitudes of other countries around the world, among probably a thousand other factors.

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

I do also disagree with this, although only on a personal level. A firearm is made for only one purpose, and it is a purpose I think is evil; therefore the firearms can be called evil as well as anything else can. I don't believe that will is necessary for something to be evil, since my definition of "evil" would be something along the lines of "Causing harm without a positive end in mind, and without the consent of the harmed," so things like hurricanes and earthquakes can be evil, too. Just like guns.
I also disagree that there are more good men than evil.
I also disagree that evil men cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness with propaganda, and I disagree that evil men can be "corrected" by good men with rifles.

Basically, everything Col. Cooper said is wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

I voted "disagree." I would have gone for the "guns suck" option, but I don't think gun owners are compensating.



I disagree first that a gun is a tool of power. I don't believe guns have very much power at all, except for the power we grant them. A person who is determined to kill me with a gun will be able to kill me without a gun; a group of people determined to kill me will do so even if I have a gun and they do not. The ability to kill is power; guns do not grant the ability to kill. They make it easier, but the big step is not killing from a distance; it is being willing to kill.

I disagree, therefore, that guns are the only means of resisting tyranny. Passive resistance is resistance. Sabotage and guerrilla warfare, even performed without guns, is resistance. Diplomacy and intrigue are means of resistance. The question is, which of these are effective means of resistance, and that can't be answered in generic terms; too much depends on the tyrant, the military, government, and infrastructure, the dedication of the resistors, and the attitudes of other countries around the world, among probably a thousand other factors.



I do also disagree with this, although only on a personal level. A firearm is made for only one purpose, and it is a purpose I think is evil; therefore the firearms can be called evil as well as anything else can. I don't believe that will is necessary for something to be evil, since my definition of "evil" would be something along the lines of "Causing harm without a positive end in mind, and without the consent of the harmed," so things like hurricanes and earthquakes can be evil, too. Just like guns.
I also disagree that there are more good men than evil.
I also disagree that evil men cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness with propaganda, and I disagree that evil men can be "corrected" by good men with rifles.

Basically, everything Col. Cooper said is wrong.

actually I believe Cooper was correct and would you tell me the one purpose

say my Perazzi Mirage (MX-8)Skeet gun was made for?

http://www.perazzi.com/std/coord.asp?cdSrv=catalogo_prod&cdLng=en&idCategoria=49&

I bought it to make the 80 Olympic team. I didn't-did the gun fail its purpose:mrgreen:

How about my target free rifle?
http://www.champchoice.com/detail.php?item=35040

how about the Winchester 458 my father carried in Kenya?

many army rifles are now target rifles.

only someone not trained or learned in firearms would even imply that killing is the only purpose of a firearm and in the first two weapons I mentioned, one is designed purely for skeet-the other is essentially worthless for any kind of killing though in a pinch you could do it with that

 

[Goobieman]

Yes but King George III never had tanks or WMDs. He just had soldiers with guns to fight against rebels with guns.

My comment spoke to the nature of the tyranny, not the nature of the weapons involved.

 

[Goobieman]

I voted "disagree." I would have gone for the "guns suck" option, but I don't think gun owners are compensating.

I see. You just don't like guns.
aps might argue that you're hoplophobic :2razz:

I disagree first that a gun is a tool of power.
I don't believe guns have very much power at all,

Cooper didnt say guns had power, he said they were a tool of power.
As you state, the real power is the willingness to kill; a gun is a tool that facilitates the application of that power. In that, they are very effective.

A person who is determined to kill me with a gun will be able to kill me without a gun; a group of people determined to kill me will do so even if I have a gun and they do not.

Can you kill without a gun? Can you defend yourself withoug a gun? Can you be killed if you have a gun? Yes. That doesnt change the fact that the gun is an effective tool to facilitate the application of the will to kill.

The ability to kill is power; guns do not grant the ability to kill. They make it easier, but the big step is not killing from a distance; it is being willing to kill.

This doesnt negate anything that Cooper said.

I do also disagree with this, although only on a personal level. A firearm is made for only one purpose, and it is a purpose I think is evil;

There's the fatal flaw in your argument.
Guns are made to kill people because it is sometimes necessary that people be killed. Killing people is not necessarily an evil act.

Disagree?

If someone is raping/trying to kill your daughter, and you kill that person to protect your daughter, have you committed an evil act? Nope.
Thus, killing is not necesarily an evil act; by extension, guns, made for killing, are not necessarily evil.

Never mind that for all objects, the morality is in their use, not their being, as inanimite objects cannot use themselves.

Basically, everything Col. Cooper said is wrong.

Only because of your misinterpretation and flawed reasoning.
Glad I could fix that for you. :lol:

 

[CoffeeSaint]

actually I believe Cooper was correct and would you tell me the one purpose

say my Perazzi Mirage (MX-8)Skeet gun was made for?

http://www.perazzi.com/std/coord.asp?cdSrv=catalogo_prod&cdLng=en&idCategoria=49&

I bought it to make the 80 Olympic team. I didn't-did the gun fail its purpose:mrgreen:

How about my target free rifle?
http://www.champchoice.com/detail.php?item=35040

how about the Winchester 458 my father carried in Kenya?

many army rifles are now target rifles.

only someone not trained or learned in firearms would even imply that killing is the only purpose of a firearm and in the first two weapons I mentioned, one is designed purely for skeet-the other is essentially worthless for any kind of killing though in a pinch you could do it with that

I stand corrected. Guns have two purposes: killing, and sport. But the use of guns for sport presumably came from the use of guns for killing; wouldn't people have tried to hit targets in order that they may become better at hitting people? At any rate, you are entirely correct; target shooting is by no means evil, and a gun designed and used for that purpose is by no means evil, not even by my standards.

 

[TurtleDude]

I stand corrected. Guns have two purposes: killing, and sport. But the use of guns for sport presumably came from the use of guns for killing; wouldn't people have tried to hit targets in order that they may become better at hitting people? At any rate, you are entirely correct; target shooting is by no means evil, and a gun designed and used for that purpose is by no means evil, not even by my standards.

just as archery, discus, javelin throwing, fencing, the hammer throw were all military skills at one time but have gone to the point that no one practices javelin or fencing for military reasons that I know of. However A gun carried by a police officer is hardly evil nor is the one that half of america buys for self defense.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I see. You just don't like guns.
aps might argue that you're hoplophobic :2razz:

And she'd be wrong; I don't fear guns. But you're right, I don't like them.

Cooper didnt say guns had power, he said they were a tool of power.
As you state, the real power is the willingness to kill; a gun is a tool that facilitates the application of that power. In that, they are very effective.

You are correct. But a gun is an unnecessary tool, which reduces its effectiveness, in my opinion. I think it is very easy to kill another person without a gun -- say, with a Molotov cocktail.

\
There's the fatal flaw in your argument.
Guns are made to kill people because it is sometimes necessary that people be killed. Killing people is not necessarily an evil act.

Disagree?

If someone is raping/trying to kill your daughter, and you kill that person to protect your daughter, have you committed an evil act? Nope.
Thus, killing is not necesarily an evil act; by extension, guns, made for killing, are not necessarily evil.

No, that is an evil act. Killing is always an evil act. IT is an act I would be willing to perform in the situation you describe,. but that doesn't make it any less evil -- it just makes me more so. Thus guns, made for killing, are by extension evil -- which was my point.

Never mind that for all objects, the morality is in their use, not their being, as inanimite objects cannot use themselves.

As I said, I do not have the same definition of evil you seem to: I do not believe that evil comes from the will to do evil. Events can be evil without intentions, if they do harm without a good purpose in mind -- and by definition, an event such as an earthquake cannot have a good purpose in mind, thus it is evil, to me. But if you want to argue according to intentions, if a gun is made solely with the intent to kill, wouldn't that make the gun evil as the result of an evil intent, and the tool by which that evil intent would be realized?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

just as archery, discus, javelin throwing, fencing, the hammer throw were all military skills at one time but have gone to the point that no one practices javelin or fencing for military reasons that I know of. However A gun carried by a police officer is hardly evil nor is the one that half of america buys for self defense.

Sure they are, if they are used to kill. Killing is evil, even when a cop does it, and even when it is done in self-defense. It may be a necessary evil, but it's still evil -- and we're discussing the morality of firearms, not the necessity of them.

 

[TurtleDude]

Killing always an evil act? Depends how you define it as objective or subjective. Is it evil for a hawk to kill a mouse in my lawn? How about a butcher a cow? a potential rape victim a rapist? or is that a case where its the lesser of two evils? How about Kevorkian? I watched my dad die of cancer and parasitic infections that came from his hospitalizations. The second to last time he could communicate with me, he asked me to shoot him or give him my weapon. I obviously couldnt do that. what if I had? It would have been illegal clearly. Immoral perhaps. WOuld it have been "evil"? Many would say no. Many believe it would have been the merciful thing to do. It happens all the time-maybe not with a gun but with morphine etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sure they are, if they are used to kill. Killing is evil, even when a cop does it, and even when it is done in self-defense. It may be a necessary evil, but it's still evil -- and we're discussing the morality of firearms, not the necessity of them.

tools have no morality. Only those who use them. Morality is a term that is inapplicable to inantimate objects or those entities with no "souls". Its not immoral for a mantis to eat her mate. It makes sense-she gets nourishment before she lays her egg case and her mate (and she) die soon after anyway due to the approach of winter. trying to imply morality to objects is specious

why do you dislike guns? Is it a dislike for the culture or politics of those who advocate their common possession? Do guns symbolize something you are uncomfortable with? Jeffrey Snyder's hugely influential A NATION OF COWARDS published in "THE PUBLIC INTEREST" about a decade ago -and his follow up articles in "The American Handgunner" noted that many who hate guns see guns as a symbol of a mindset that a gunowner has made his own safety a personal priority. Snyder argues that this accentuates feelings of inadequacy in cowards and they hate guns because that object reminds them of their own failings. In some cases I agree with this but I don't know to whom it applies on this board

 

[Goobieman]

You are correct. But a gun is an unnecessary tool, which reduces its effectiveness, in my opinion. I think it is very easy to kill another person without a gun -- say, with a Molotov cocktail.

This doesnt make any sense?
Because you -can- kill someone with a molotov cocktail, a gun is less effective at killing people? What if those people you;re trying to/need to kill are 50yds away?
Maybe you can explain this better.

No, that is an evil act. Killing is always an evil act.

And as I said, this is the flaw in your argument.
Killing isn't always an evil act.
If it were, then killing would always be wrong.
If killing were always wrong, then you;d have no right to kill; that you do have a right to kill indicates that killing is not always wrong.

How does killing in self-defense fall under the definition of "evil"?

 

[Goobieman]

tools have no morality. Only those who use them. Morality is a term that is inapplicable to inantimate objects or those entities with no "souls".

This is absolutely correct.
To assign morality to an inanimite object is to assign it a will of its own, apart from that of its user. The propensity to do this is a common manifestation of hoplophobia.

 

[The Mark]

In my opinion, Goobieman and TurtleDude are correct.

So far, the only known entities that can be evil are humans.

No exceptions.

Guns, tanks, nukes, bio-weapons, chemical weapons, bombs, etc.......all of these are not evil.

The people who control them can be.

But are not necessarily so.

 

[TurtleDude]

“Here’s my credo. There are no good guns, there are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people.” —Charlton Heston