Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Firearms 2

Click title for Firearms part 1. By the way, there are some other links in titles in this blog but I'm not sure where.

Earlier today I was told that what I need to understand about the gun control debate comes from understanding the effects of deaths by gun misuse on children. I was told that I need to investigate such tragedies. The implication being, that if I understood on that level, I would be an advocate for stricter gun control. Such a presumption is wrong. I submit that my own presumption of myself is as valid as those which anyone else make of me.

My view on guns comes from a belief in the right of self defense against intended harm and the capacity of guns vs. all other lesser tools/weapons to meet the needs of that right.

While it is terrible that many die because of gun use, it does not supersede a right of self defense, the necessity of which is situational and can therefor not be disproven. Nor can the effectiveness of guns in the practice of self defense be disproven. In both cases, there is a human element to consider.

Gun ownership should have some restrictions. But what kind is another debate.

It was also suggested that homes with children should not have guns in them, but that is unfair. In the first place, because it would take a round about way to attempting automatic mass gun banishment, and in the second place, because, instead of restrictions based on personal competence, or proof of a lack of it, it is a restriction that presupposes incompetence. Again, we return to the human element. In order to accept the application of a statistic on the dangers of gun ownership in homes with children, it must first be accepted that those human elements which largely contribute to disrespecting those dangers are inherent and unavoidable. I do not accept those as universal constants.


On the nature of evidence.

This is nothing too indepth. It is merely inspired by a minor debate I had with two people over President Bush and his family's two dogs. It seems they, or one of them, would not come to him when called. I have not seen the video where this happens. The contention of the two people is that it is evidence that Bush abuses the dogs and, or, they fear him because he is evil, more or less. Obviously, I disagreed. I doubt the strength of such supposed evidence.

Perhaps Bush is evil, but he may be good, I cannot be certain of either, at least not without more consideration.

I shall ask no one to agree with me on the quality of that evidence, but I do wonder something about the use of weak evidence.

Wether they are used in the legal courts or those of public opinion, how ethically acceptable is it to use ambiguous and, or, weak evidence, even in conjunction with other, perhaps in some cases stronger or strong in their own right evidence?

Perhaps subjective interpretation is the final judge on this matter.



Since this has been repeated so much, I shall state here out of a feeling of necessity that any act intended to be beneficial to one's country can be called patriotic, and that an act which might do more harm and be of less benefit to a person's country than what occurs under present policy may be called unpatriotic; whichever it is, it is a subjective term, thus the notion that dissent is automatically patriotic is illogical nonsense. Dissent is as good as its intent and as it compares to the level of evil of the status quo it stands in opposition to. Dissent is not inherently patriotic. And, to be frank, I do not much care if you are patriotic.


On the subject of enlightenment

I am sure this shall bother many people, but I do not believe in it. Enlightenment has become synonymous with some ideologies. No longer is it merely the advancement of understanding, presuming it ever was defined that way, but the acceptance of some philosophies of a pacifistic, tolerant and accepting nature. But for me to believe that is what in part defines an enlightened culture, I would first have to reject any argument for the necessities of force for the purpose of preservation of societies and their interests. And I have long rejected pacifism as the only approach to resolution.

Any given use of force might be deplorable by itself, but there exists negative and positive hypothosizing of the consequences of force and dimplomacy. This should not be taken as favoring force, but that the idealism of diplomacy has contingencies that may not serve the desires and interest of a given people, and who is right to preach acceptance of loss to said people?

It is said that enlightened people talk, that is only partially true. Enlightened people talk, understand and react as their circumstances allow; enlightened understanding might not translate into reactions at the same level. That it is possible for any culture to concede to many things, as might be necessary in any negotiation, is quite impressive. But the difficulty of concession on the grandest scale, and faith in the absence of force, is incredibly high.

Many believe in preserving something, something which they believe has a right to exist in their possession or that of certain others'. Whether they are fools or not, improperly prioritizing, they can only be persuaded once they become accepting of new priorities and confident in other methods for the attainment and protection of those new interests.

The idealism of the results of rejection of force and the supposedly selfish interests, is beyond my acceptance. I cannot automatically believe in the greatness of such a society, and I cannot wholly abandon my selfishness; not nearly enough to move all of us into the realm of enlightenment.

Enlightment should not be defined by any tenet beyond understanding. To call some behavior evil or good is fine, but to call it unenlightened or enlightened is not.

I am not a barbarian, and I doubt, I hope you will forgive me for this, that you are enlightened. I am most surely neither, though some might tag me as being the former.


Influential Blogs

This is a small blog. I do not intend for it to be of any great value to anyone but myself and a few friends who I hope find something I have to say interesting or at least temporarily amusing. While the recognition of some of the larger blogs would be nice to have, were anyone of note to find this blog worthy of it, I do not think I would enjoy it for long. Eventually, the pressure to perform would overwhelm me. It would, indeed, come all too early if I had such popularity. Still, I wonder where all the words I put here will go. Suppose I never delete this blog and barely keep it afloat, will any part of it ever be used by a class on internet culture in some school? Will I have professors laughing at me or intrigued by me? Should hobby blogs such as mine ever really be considered as an alternative source of information? I can't compare to most bloggers, and that's a good thing in the end. I prefer to keep some anonymity. I like being vague; speaking generally.

For those of us whom spout on things we know little about, I hope our influence is nill.


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click