Zero, here is the pdf:http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/Objectivis...

you can search better from here, to rule it out at least

Please show me how are those people more stupid than the US federal government.

Could be, KH, I'll have to look for it when I get home.

yes, agreed. fiefdoms
my thugs are stronger than yours, therefore I am in the right

But isn't this always the excuse for taking away freedom? and why does the govt get a pass? I am thinking of the recent toxic spill (actually 2) in Colorado? The evidence , in my opinion, does not support these pre-emptive uses of force (i.e. regs) make us safer. Where ever people have been freer, natural rights protected, but nothing else, the people live longer, are wealthier and have happier lives. Even well-meaning regs always slow inventions. Inventions make this happen, not preventative measures

Ok, OK, I used poor wording. LOL. In more than one place. I guess I was lazy when I typed it out. Unfortunately, it happens.

I disagree with your question, K;;; "be allowed to" should not
be there. . it's impossible to reverse history, anyway, to
prevent people from getting things which are dangerous.
there are those who know chemistry, physics, biology, etc.
where weapons-related science is located. . and if I could
power my house with a little nuke, and I could afford it,
I would do so. . but it could be turned into a weapon,
so the society disallows it ... almost no matter how many
bucks I have.

I suppose that you wanted to talk about whether the society
should be "allowed to evaluate people" regarding weapon
purchase and ownership. . the fact is that it's going to do so,
and it will prevent ownership to the extent possible. -- j

p.s. this question just begs for a "control" comment. . social
control of individuals generally sucks. . conformity begets
sterility and decay. . creativity thrives on the lack of control.
so, whatever control a society exerts on itself speaks directly
to its health ... thus we have health versus health, a tightrope.
cultural thriving versus self-destruction. . we will debate this
forever.
.

I agree that our rights come from self ownership

Are you speaking of TVOS Ch 14 on government? If not, I'm not sure which essay.

"I would argue that if my neighbor also were inclined to talk about how proud he would be if his children were to sacrifice themselves in jihad.."

this would not be clear and present danger. Outrageous statements in themselves do not justify your proposed response. I did not remove a point from your comment. I enjoy the debate :)

Virtually anything handy can be used as a weapon, if the need should arise. Actually, human extremities have been considered weapons for as long as there have been humans.
Your question is moot as we're all naturally "armed" from the day we're born.
Hope that helps.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that if we tried a social system with unlimited weapons ownership and found we couldn't develop free institutions to ensure that generally weapons wouldn't be used for mass-murder, then we would have to adjust our concept of the how rights principles apply and what the just society would consist of.

But since the evidence is that when a population is well-armed, educated, and free, there tends to be little successful abuse, I'm not going to go there yet.

Currently, we live largely disarmed throughout the developed world, and we panic over terror attacks that affect a very small percentage of our population. Many Americans felt less safe in 2002 than they had in 1992, but violent crime had been falling and continued to fall, so that, despite the terror attacks, Americans had become safer.

I repeat whenever I can that we can't fully predict the institutions of a modern free society, because it's just very hard to predict circumstances one doesn't live in. Think of the technology predictions or cultural predictions from circa 1980: our current circumstances, from internet to smart phones to global jihad, are very different from what any of us imagined then.

Allow me to suggest that the question should be re-phrased. A weapon is a tool, nothing more. It is not a concept, idea or philosophy. From a philosophical point of view, restricting an individual to own a tool is ridiculous. We should be talking about the uses and the applications of the tool. In this case, a weapon tool has mainly these uses: self defense, attack, hunting, sport and historical/collector value. In the context of current issues, I don't think that there is much argument against possessing these tools for the purpose of enjoying hunting, sport or collecting. The real issues are defense and attack. So, the question should have been phrased "should individuals be allowed to attack others and to defend themselves?" I think that all are in agreement that neither the society nor individuals give anyone a right to attack others (without just cause). Certainly Objectivists are very clear on that. So, the remaining issue is self-defense. This, I believe, is not just an issue of an Objectivist viewpoint - any sane person must recognize and acknowledge the right to self-defense. No living being on Earth, including plants, could survive without employing self-defense. I would argue that for any human to actively deny anyone else the ability to defend themselves is an act of aggression designed to enslave the subject. But, one would ask, what about the same tool being used for attacking, which we all condone? The simple truth of the matter is that legal prohibitions of a certain behavior, by definition, stop only those people that follow the law. Thus, telling a killer not to kill is not very effective. The law can punish the killer after the fact, but his victim, enslaved and disarmed by the State, has no recourse. Wait, one would say, the State will protect. The facts, or course, do not support this. If the State was in fact capable of protecting its citizens, there would have been no murders, robberies, rapes, burglaries or any other violent crimes. But no matter how hard and earnestly the State may try to protect a citizen from another citizen, it cannot, by definition, protect the citizens from the State itself. To anyone that questions the potential criminality of any State, one only needs a short glance at human history, including current affairs, to see this (those that are willing to see, of course). Arguments that those criminal acts are "impossible" in America are laughable; the Jews in Germany said the same thing in the '30's. The next logical question would be what kind of weapons are good to have? I would say that the tool needs to be appropriate for the intended purpose and, at this point, I think that logical people will agree that the purpose of self-defense is an inherent right of all. If the potential attacker is an individual criminal, a rifle, shotgun or a handgun will probably be sufficient. If one wants to protect himself from a gang of criminals, an automatic weapon will be more appropriate. If we the citizens have to protect ourselves from a criminal State, heavier weapons will be required, although the cost becomes prohibitive and what one cannot do individually, a mass of armed people will still act as a reasonable deterrent to those individuals who wish to use the power of the State for criminal purposes.

Which fact? Privately owned cannons and ammo, ships, or the weapons to be faced today?

I think you're on some shaky Objectivist ground in your approach to weapon and dangerous material availability and liability for manufacture or sale of such items. I think you're dangerously close to Pragmaticism and/or Relativism. A gun, for example, is a fancy paper weight until it is picked up by it's owner and operated. Is that result traceable to the item or the person that made it or sold it, or to the person deciding to pick it up and operate it? Poison's are manufactured and sold on a regular basis in our society, but we place the liabilities on the actor that directly or surreptitiously administer to an other purposely or accidentally.

I also see a similar problem with your restraint of an 'aggressive' individual. The owner certainly has a full right to deny service to anyone he chooses and his decisions will affect his business, either positively or negatively. But for another patron(s) to restrain based on a suspicion (fear) or just not liking aggressive people is not justified under Objective individual rights.

And to the thought that, 'when people have freedom, they also have responsibility', do they? And if they do, who says so? I would take the position that there is a set of morals that derive from the metaphysics and epistemology of Objectivism that places one in the position, in society dependent on interactions with others, that in order to defend one's individual rights, one can only do so morally if he also respects other's individual rights. I would argue that is not 'responsibility', it's self-interest.

I think that sometimes, many in the Objectivist camps focus on the non-initiation of force, rather than the reasons or causes of non-initiations of force.

Not at all, I mean any society, by definition an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another. Societies all have some level of organization and some level of freedom. Organization and freedom exist on a continuum. They are not mutually exclusive. It was my error in redundancy to write "organized society". The USA stands out as having a high degree of personal freedom, but we are not alone, and maybe not the freest of all nations? If you believe we are totally free try to buy an "assault rifle" in NJ, or stop paying your taxes..

In general, response to crimes beyond the heat of the moment should fall under the management of the police and the law. Searches would require warrants, for instance, and people need to know that that the investigator or searcher is operating in accordance with the (rights-respecting) law, which is what a police uniform or ID is supposed to indicate.

Again, exactly how such a system should work is a matter to settle when our laws are in that context.

I would think that there might not as sharp a distinction as we now make between professional police, private investigators, and deputized citizens.

If we had a system where everyone was acting as a vigilante all the time, responding as they saw fit to what they saw as rights violations (this is what many anarchists advocate), the result would be warfare, since people often misjudge the justice of a case when they act off-the-cuff.

Jan's right, we did do this with the king cobra. The problem is that tort rights only allow you to attempt to get compensation, they do not keep the thing you fear from happening.

If I screw up with my nuke and blow it up, your ability to sue the radioactive crater avails you little. Of course it would have to be someone who could sue on your behalf because you'd be part of the crater.

Good point. Using the word "allowed" is a habit of usage, Got to stop using it in that context.

It is not necessary to ask "Should private citizens be ALLOWED"... anything. Put this way implies some authority can/should decide such things which is simply no so. It is up to each individual to make his own moral choices, and abide the consequences of those choices.

"C" really would. He'd be terribly sorry afterward too.

So, Jan's right, it's not just the evil factor but the "oops" factor you have to take into account.

And the correct principle should be that any initiation of force should be under oversight. Any self defense force should be supported, and should face no more after-action adjudication than that of government (official) use of force.

I know a lot of people here read the same books I did - this doesn't ring a bell to anyone?

"organized society" as you use it means "not-free society"

A lot to think about here.

"Don't be a dick" rules. In the medieval martial sport that I participate in, we have such a rule ("Combatants shall behave in a knightly and chivalrous manner..."). In any instance when there has been misbehavior on the field of combat, this rule is brought up...and virtually never enforced. It does not provide a hard standard by which one can say, "You did wrong!" So while I like the idea of a 'dont be a dick' rule, my experience with a self-selecting set of people is that this type of rule does not work.

I agree that Evil people will do evil things, even if all they have is a set of toenail clippers. But when I think of protecting myself against Y. pestis, I don't think of Evil. I think of one of my ex-employee's, "C". "C" is a very intelligent young man and he is entirely good- hearted. He also has the organization of a colony of sea sponges and the attention span of a squirrel. He would be exactly the type of person who would be willing to risk himself experimenting with Plague bacteria to try to discover a better vaccine...and who would then leave the window open. "C" is good, not evil. He also would be a danger to me. Since he is intelligent, if he had a Level 4 facility, he would have a set of SOP's he had to go through (and there would be no windows) and I would be safer...and we might get that vaccine.

Jan