Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Wry Catcher, Jan 20, 2013.
Are they a dichotomy?
Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed? Would you feel more or less secure?
I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets. LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door. As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.
What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?
So, this is not a philosophical question about freedom and security, but (again) about firearms?
Well, OK, here goes an attempt at both at the same time:
That freedom has to be protected is already arguable. Liberty, the right to movement and speech, can be constrained by others. If one is truly free, however, no other can take that away. For free means freedom from the constraints of error, falseness, an entrapped mind. Obviously, firearms are unneeded to protect such a state.
By contrast, the 'freedom' to carry firearms can easily lead to insecurity for the one carrying as well as those in the area. Having a firearm does not assure being the one to use it. And at precisely what point and in what kind of confrontation would one produce the arm? How does one decide? There are very few incidents when issues are so clear that a firearm would settle matters. Then, what happens when others also have weapons and, upon seeing a person pull out a lethal device, react in their perceived self defense?
That kind of freedom and security do not necessarily go together.
Unarmed people are neither free nor secure
I don't think that's feasible.
From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?
LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.
And that's only part of it.
Separate names with a comma.