Do you think people should be afforded the liberty to specifically carry whichever kind of ammunition they choose sys? If so, do you think people should be afforded the liberty to carry any kind of weapon, including bombs? I hope you don't think I'm trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to see where the limits to your advocacy for personal liberty stops.
hey dlew. i'm afraid i haven't really followed your rubber bullet posts, so forgive me if i'm jumping in on ground already covered. i don't really think rubber bullets are going to make an appreciable difference in rates of gun violence or in lethality of gun violence. but i've never really thought about it.
i do think that people should be allowed to own metal ammunition. and bombs. using either to harm other people should be illegal. philosophically, i am generally against outlawing things that are not in and of themselves harmful, but merely may facilitate an action that is harmful (e.g. guns/homicide). the same would apply to metal ammunition and to bombs.
Regarding your first point, rubber bullets may not curb anything. Admittedly, I know little about guns.
It seems to me though, that the issue is that people want to be able to defend themselves with guns and use guns for other sport related pastimes. But those opposed to guns aren't really opposed to either of those ends because, without more, those ends are absolutely without wrong. Instead, those "against guns," are really just interested in curbing the danger of guns, which in its own right, is also a blameless pursuit. If pressed, I imagine most gun owners aren't consciously advocating that guns maintain their instantaneously lethal nature, but rather only that their guns' maintain whatever utility (self-defense, sport) they have for them. Is strictly "instantaneously lethal" a benefit gun owners would fight to protect? I don't think so, but I suppose that could be up for discussion. This is, of course, based on the assumption that "self-defense" is not necessarily strictly equal to "instantaneous death."
So if there was some way to manipulate guns in such a way to make them unable to instantaneously kill humans, but still make them adequate for morally permissible self-defense and sport related purposes, we could keep all sides relatively happy. I don't know whether or not rubber bullets would meet this end, but it's almost 2013 and we have robots on Mars. I imagine we could concoct some form of ammunition that could work.
Also, I don't know how this would fit with hunting.
Regarding your second point, I respect your philosophy and the consistency with which you apply it, but I fundamentally disagree with it. I'd love to ask you about your application of it to some hypothetical situations, but that's another thread for another day.
