GEE, IF YOU’RE GOING TO COMMIT MURDER, PLEASE USE A GUN!

This from the NY Times: “The parents of the first three victims of Elliot O. Rodger’s murderous rampage [re: the Santa Barbara killings on May 23, 2014] said they were frustrated by the authorities handling of the case. . . . It was not clear how the slight Mr. Rodger, 22, was able to over-power the three, who were stabbed to death [all young men, not women]. In a joint interview, the parents told The Washington Post that they had visited the crime scene and had seen no blood on the walls or ceiling. The police had removed a 6-by-5 foot piece of carpeting in one bedroom, and a swath of vinyl flooring around the toilet had been cut out. They said the limited amount of material removed from the apartment suggested the killings had been confined to a small space. They criticized the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s department for not telling them how it believed the killings had been carried out, and said they were angered by public health and legal systems that they said valued the rights of the mentally ill, including Mr. Rodger, over those who may become their victims.” New York Times, “Inquiry Vexes Parents of 3 Slain in Spree.”The Article appeared on page 15 of the Sunday, June 22, 2014 edition of the N.Y. Times. What’s immediately evident, given a description of the knifing attack that killed three men, is that a knife is as useful a killing implement as a gun in the hands of a person who’s set on doing violence to another – in this case, to three others, all other men. That point, although evident to any sensible person, isn’t evident to the N.Y. Times. The paper demonstrates incredulity that “the slight Mr. Rodger, 22, was able to over-power the three, who were stabbed to death.” So, we are to assume the New York Times would not have any reason to doubt Mr. Rodger’s ability to snuff the life out of the three young men had he done the proper thing and used a gun on them as he had on the young women whom next he killed. That would have made good copy for the paper and would certainly be consistent with the fanciful world the paper has created for its readers: (1) guns alone are the main vehicle of and hallmark of violence in America; (2) it is easy to kill with a gun, but not so easy to kill with any other object; (3) if a person is going on a killing rampage, it is best that he do so using a gun, for otherwise, how can the public be duped into going along with a complete gun ban if any other object can be utilized to kill another just as easily; and (4) killers have a decided preference for guns. Unfortunately, for the NY Times and the antigun zealots, Elliot Rodger didn’t go along with the game plan. Apparently, he wasn’t aware of the four axioms of antigun logic. Perhaps Rodger didn’t want to show he was prejudiced in his choice of killing implements. Be that as it may, the three young men Rodger killed with a knife, in lieu of a gun, are just as dead. No doubt the New York Times would’ve loved to interview both Rodger and his male victims to get a handle on just how the slight Elliot O. Rodger was able to kill three men in close quarters, with but a knife.The last sentence of the N.Y. Times Article makes an important point although you might miss it at first glance: “Sheriff Bill Brown [of the Santa Barbara County sheriff’s department] has said the three men were stabbed repeatedly with sharp objects and [he] called the crime scene ‘pretty horrific.’”  Did you catch it? Probably not; and that’s understandable – because what you missed wasn’t there to be found. It was a point that the New York Times never fails to make when reporting on horrific gun violence. But, nonetheless, the newspaper did fail to make the point here. For, curiously absent from that last sentence of the NY Times Article and – indeed – what is curiously and notably absent from the entirety of that June 22^nd New York Times news article, is any remonstration against the horrors of knives and the need to get knives out of the hands of civilians. Obviously, the New York Times didn’t choose to dwell on the lethality of knives. The New York Times didn’t, in fact, choose to make anything of it. The New York Times wished decidedly and decisively, to avoid any discussion about it. The New York Times isn't interested in curbing ownership and possession of knives. The New York Times is interested in curbing ownership and possession of guns.The N.Y. Times, like any other mainstream newspaper, often distorts facts when writing about horrendous events – namely and particularly, when writing about horrific events involving the misuse of firearms. But, this June 22^nd Times article also shows that a mainstream newspaper can, when it so chooses, refrain from distorting facts. You can see, from a perusal of the June 22^nd article, that the newspaper happened not to interject opinions – if indeed the newspaper had any – about knives and the use of knives to commit violent acts, apart from the Times singularly odd statement pertaining to its incredulity about a slight man killing three other men with a knife. Mainstream newspapers and their outlets – as a rule, though – aren’t interested in stating facts and permitting the public to draw its own conclusions from unbiased, unfiltered reporting of the facts. These newspapers all too often feel a need to shape public opinion and to direct it or redirect it to a desired end – at odds with the public’s own best interests. So, what are we getting at here? Just this:The New York Times, like other mainstream newspapers has an agenda. And, that agenda isn't one focused on knives and the misuse of knives -- at least at this point in time. It's an agenda that's focused squarely on guns and their use and misuse -- indeed, on the mere fact of the gun's existence. So, when a horrific act occurs through misuse of an implement other than the misuse of a gun, the horrific act of violence only serves to deflect criticism away from the single-minded pursuit of the antigun crowd and of its allies in the U.S. Congress and in the State Legislatures and in the mainstream media who wish first and foremost to ban guns -- all guns -- from the hands of the civilian citizenry. Moreover, when a horrific act occurs through use of an implement other than a gun, the public becomes aware that the entire issue of violence in society isn't, rationally, one that is properly centered around guns -- which are but inanimate objects devoid of sentience -- but, rather, the issue of violence in society is one  that, rationally and properly, is centered on the perpetrators of the violence, namely, the individuals who perpetrate the violence:  criminal psychopaths and psychotics. Thus, the answer to violence in society must perforce begin and end by dealing with the root cause of that violence, namely, the individual perpetrator of it, and not with the object or objects the perpetrator happens to use to effectuate that violence, be that object a gun, knife, club or any other object.  So, suppose Elliot O. Rodger hadn’t used a knife in any of the attacks. Imagine if you will that Elliot O. Rodger had killed all his victims with a gun. Do you honestly think the N.Y. Times Article would have plainly and succinctly set forth the anguish of the parents of the three men Elliot Rodger had murdered, without also addressing the matter of the implement used in the horrific attack and the need to regulate the ownership and possession of that destructive implement by civilians? Do you honestly think the N.Y. Times would so easily dismiss the use of a gun by Rodger – that the paper would be content merely to set forth the fact of the murders, perhaps referring to use of a gun in the murders and leave the matter at that, without drawing upon antigun sentiment and interjecting comments about the evils of guns? Of course not. The N.Y. Times would talk about the evils of guns in order to foment public outrage toward guns, rather than toward the perpetrator of the violent act or acts, as if to suggest that the existence of evil were a property of the object -- the gun -- rather than of the individual who committed the horrific act.  And, that's absolutely absurd. But, the N.Y Times is less interested on focusing attention on the individual who commits the horrific act and more interested on focusing attention on the object the perpetrator uses to commit the horrific act when the object is a gun. At that point the newspaper at once digresses from reporting the facts pertaining to the horrific act, and propagandizes about the supposed evils attendant to guns. And that misuse of reporting bespeaks an agenda and a wish that, if a horrific act occurs, it's best the object utilized be a gun, rather than any other object. For then the horrific act becomes a useful statistic -- one that might be used by antigun groups to support a call for a ban on gun ownership and possession. If, however, an object other than a gun -- such as a knife -- is used by a perpetrator of a horrific act, the use of such a non-gun object to commit a horrific act only dilutes the argument against guns as sources of evil. For such act of violence tends to divert one's attention away from guns. And, in fact, such act of violence tends to divert one's attention away from any implement used in the commission of a violent act -- whether the object is a gun, knife, club or any other inanimate object and compels -- truly forces -- one to look deep and hard at the individual perpetrator of violence -- at the perpetrator's incongruous rationalizations for committing a horrific act of violence, which is where one's attention ought to be focused and should have been focused all along. That focus should not be directed on the implement of violence. For to place such focus and emphasis on an implement -- such as a gun -- rather than on the individual serves to minimize, to diminish, the individual's personal and sole responsibility and accountability for his actions. The individual who commits the horrific act with a gun becomes, then, not the central participant, but, rather, the abettor of the criminal act. And the object used to commit the crime -- the object used to perpetrate the horrific act -- the gun -- becomes, itself, the salient and principal participant in the criminal act. It is as if the N.Y. Times and other similar mainstream newspapers wish, then, "to jail" the miscreant gun, arguing that we, the American public, should agree to do just that and that we, the American public, may be able to do just that -- through the device of a total ban on civilian ownership and possession of guns. Such, of course, is not an action the N.Y. Times and other similar mainstream newspapers would wish to see realized -- at least at this moment in time -- for knives.So it is that, in the June 22nd N.Y. Times article, we see that the focus of the article was not on the evil of knives, as objects used in the commission of violent acts. The focus was on the perpetrator of the horrific act, Elliot O. Rodger. And the focus was on the Santa Barbara County sheriff's department that had the responsibility to investigate the triple murder of the three young men. And the focus was on the parents of the three young men who Rodger murdered. And the focus of the N.Y. Times article was on the parents' legitimate concern over the thoroughness of the investigation and on the failure of the legal and mental health systems that had failed to properly deal with an obviously very ill individual, Elliot O. Rodger. What the focus of the N.Y. Times article was not on were knives; nor should the focus of the N.Y. Times article have been on knives -- inanimate, non-sentient objects. The June 22nd article simply stuck to the facts. And, that’s all the N.Y. Times did in the June 22^nd article – simply report the use of a knife by Rodger, to murder three men and to assert the anguish of the families who lost their loved ones. The N.Y. Times did not go into a tirade over the evil of knives. The N.Y. Times did not use the incident to call for regulations on knife possession and ownership. But, if Rodger had killed the young men with a gun, as he had the young women, then, most certainly, the N.Y. Times would’ve written a polemic on the evil of guns and would’ve argued long and hard, in that article, how those young men would most certainly not have died but for the presence of guns in American society. And, while such polemic might be posited in the op-ed section of the newspaper, the N.Y. Times would, invariably, place its opinions in the news section of the paper, wrongly suggesting to its readership that its views about guns aren't mere opinions at all -- but are hard, cold facts. We know the N.Y. Times myriad opinions about guns are invariably wrong. But, to proclaim opinions -- false beliefs -- to be hard, cold facts is ethically wrong and duplicitous -- deceptive in the extreme.The New York Times, as with all mainstream newspapers, no longer leaves opinions to the op-ed section of their respective papers, but constantly interjects opinions in the news sections of the papers. So, gun related murders require some discussion of the need to regulate guns. Gun related murders require some discussion of the so-called “gun lobby” and of gun manufacturers and of the need for so-called “common-sense gun laws.” But, you’d have to search long and hard – and it’s unlikely you’d meet with success – to find mainstream news media stories calling for “common-sense knife laws” or “knife laws we can live with” or the need to curb the “knife lobby” or the need to place restraints on knife manufacturers, whenever a lunatic or psychopathic gang member or your “run of the mill” homicidal killer murders an innocent person with a knife. Clearly, mainstream newspapers like the N.Y. Times aren't interested in curbing knife ownership and possession. Those newspapers are interested in curbing gun ownership and possession. And, by expressing their personal wishes as to what ought to be done about gun ownership and possession in the news sections of their respective papers, they wrongly associate personal beliefs and wishes with facts. That journalistic practice must end!Mainstream news organizations demonstrate callousness – or – perhaps it’s more appropriate to say, schizophrenia – when it comes to reporting stories involving violence. If the violent act involves anything other than the use of guns, the news story is confined to a discussion of the perpetrator and his victims and the events surrounding the violent act.  However, if the violent act involves the use of a firearm, then, a distinct matter – one altogether unrelated to the people involved and time, place and circumstances of the crime – is added to the mix.  It is one that invokes morality, philosophy, psychology and the politics of gun ownership and possession. The newspaper’s purpose and focus changes: from one limited to reporting the news to one attempting to make news – by shaping public opinion and driving public action. And, there is a phrase used to describe such newspapers that aim to provoke the public. It’s called “yellow journalism.”Yellow journalism was much in vogue in the 19^th Century. A relic of time, it has been used in the 20^th Century, and it has become a veritable art form in the 21^st. And it is indeed used with masterful success by mainstream newspapers, including the N.Y. Times. In stooping to politicking and provocation the newspaper discredits itself and discredits, as well, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For, the paper misuses the very power the Founders gave to it – that is to say – the very power the Founders gave to the Press: the unfettered, fundamental right to inform the Public.The founders perceived the Press as critical to the wellbeing of our Republic. The Press wasn’t to be relegated to the status of tool of those with a secret agenda – one embracing the very destruction of that Republic. But, to function as a tool of others who have a secret agenda, the N.Y. Times appears, most unfortunately, to be perfectly content.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUNS, KNIVES, AND OCCAM’S DANGEROUS RAZOR

SCENARIO:  Two American citizens are standing in line, one morning, waiting to purchase a cup of coffee at their local coffee shop. One American is a life member of the NRA and believes strongly in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights: all ten of them. He knows that the Bill of Rights underscores the entire Constitution and that, if any one of the ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights falls, they all fall of their own accord. The other American is a member of and fervent supporter of the “Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence.” He, too, at the moment defends the Bill of Rights except for the Second Amendment. For him the Second Amendment is antiquated as is the Third Amendment, but, where the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment had meaning and purpose at the inception of the Republic, that meaning and purpose has all but faded with the passage of time. Indeed, he might accept the proposition that, for the Second Amendment, in particular, the need for the salient assertion –  that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed – may have had, at one time, in our Nation’s past, some efficacy, as threats posed from outside of the new Nation remained. But, if the Second Amendment once had importance and, indeed, if it once had even been critical to establishing our young Nation, that need long since passed once the Nation gained an equal footing among other dominant Nations and once the Nation became, militarily, the strongest Nation in the World. Thus, for this antigun zealot, and others like him, the Second Amendment – together with the seemingly archaic Third Amendment – has long since lost whatever significance and utility it might have had. For this antigun zealot both Amendments are relics of an earlier time. But, where for him the Third Amendment has no impact on society, good or bad, apparently, this supporter of the “The Brady Campaign” sees the Second Amendment as a clear liability and danger to the social fabric of society and to the offices of Government. This antigun proponent and antigun zealot  would most assuredly like to see the Second Amendment repealed outright. But, he and his cohorts know that won’t happen – not in the present political climate. So, he and those like him are willing to bide their time. He as with like-minded fellows accept that Congress and the States won’t repeal the Second Amendment outright. So, he and they are willing to work toward defeating what they see as the troubling problem posed by the Second Amendment, incrementally. Thus, for this antigun proponent and antigun zealot and his cohorts the Second Amendment may, they believe, be reduced to a nullity through successive legal action and effective political pressure at both the Federal and State levels. That’s what they want. That’s what they work and strive for. That’s what they hope and pray for. That’s their endgame. And they will lie, cheat, steal – and play games – to accomplish that end. For the NRA member, though, the Second Amendment is not only useful to the well-being of the Nation it is essential to the continued existence of the Nation as a democratic Republic. Contrary to the views held by antigun groups such as the Brady Campaign, this NRA supporter believes that the import and purport of all ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights are as critical today as they were at the inception of the Republic. For him, the Nation cannot exist as a Democratic Republic but for the Bill of Rights. And, the linchpin of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. The NRA supporter knows the Second Amendment must be honored in fact, not merely in name if it is to have any meaning and efficacy, if it is to survive. This means that the U.S. Congress and the States should work together, indeed, must work together to make sure that all Federal and State Legislation conforms to the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if it is to survive intact in the 21st Century. In fact, the U.S. Congress and the States must always work toward strengthening the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment – as with the other nine Amendments – must never be weakened, or ignored, let alone repealed, lest the Nation, as a Sovereign Nation and  as a unique Democratic Republic among Democratic Republics topples into ruin, as surely as did the once great and mighty Roman Empire.The NRA member buys his coffee and looks for a table.  Only one is available.  He quickly walks over to it, sits down, takes a sip of coffee and opens the Sunday edition of the NY Times newspaper. On the front page of the paper he reads of another shooting incident. He sighs. He finds it most curious that the mainstream news media will report every misuse of a gun and every violent, criminal act committed with a gun, and will do so with disturbing regularity, and with detail, often giving such incidents front page coverage and, yet, will ever fail to mention -- will consistently fail to mention or otherwise simply and perfunctorily gloss over the fact -- that a law-abiding American citizen and gun owner had successfully protected himself or other innocent parties with a gun. He wonders that a newspaper should find a shooting by a lunatic or gang member to be anything more than the occasional tabloid fodder, but that a law-abiding American citizen's singular, courageous act of self-defense would warrant nary a footnote on page 10 or 12 of the newspaper, if that, were that person defending his or her life with a firearm.This NRA member muses over the mainstream news media's seemingly endless fixation on misuse of firearms by psychopathic criminals or lunatics but never on use of a firearm by the average law-abiding American citizen who had preserved an innocent life with it. This NRA member recognizes that the mainstream news media is not content to simply report news involving firearms, but, rather, invariably insinuates itself into the news report, constantly, insidiously sermonizing about the purported "evils" attendant to guns -- rendering judgment on that which it reports, not content to leave opinions to the op-ed section of the newspaper. He understands full well that the mainstream news media is clearly not impartial when reporting news about gun violence and uses every opportunity to sensationalize stories involving how a lunatic or psychopathic killer took a life with a gun, and, yet, will refrain from even mentioning how a law-abiding American citizen had, with gun drawn, preserved a life, or otherwise do so only to interject that the particular citizen should not have had a firearm on his or her person in the first place. He sees the most recent incident as consistent with that trend. And he is mildly amused at The New York Times’ editor’s insistence – as apparent through the very title of the news story – that the reader should be drawn to it – sensationalizing the news account with great fanfare and flourish: "Deadly Rampage in College Town After Video Rant." The NY Times, appearing less like a respectable news source, at this point, and  more like a cash register tabloid, uses the incident as "click bait," to exploit suffering, to moralize on the evil of guns -- blowing the incident up, out of all proportion to reality. He sighs, knowing that the antigun crowd will have a field day with this one. Meanwhile, our Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence fellow has just received his coffee and, he, too, is looking for a free table. He asks a few patrons if he can join them at their table and is politely refused. He then walks over to the table of our NRA member and asks if he might join him. The NRA member graciously accedes to the request and beckons the Brady Campaign fellow to sit down. A couple of awkward minutes pass. The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence supporter (hereinafter “BCE”) sees the Second Amendment supporter (hereinafter “SAS”) reading about the Santa Barbara incident. They strike up a conversation over their coffee. Neither one, of course, is, at the moment, aware of the other’s position on the Second Amendment or of the other’s position on the import of the Bill of Rights, generally.  But that is about to change as they begin to engage each other in a lively back and forth conversation and debate about guns, about gun ownership, and about the ethical position upon which the moral foundation of each of their respective positions rests.BCE: ‘I see you’re reading about the Santa Barbara shooting. It’s a real shame that something like this has happened and it’s even more a shame that tragedies like this will likely continue to happen. You know, don’t you, that it is the Republicans in Congress, and the gun manufacturers, and the NRA that are to blame for all of this?’SAS: ‘Actually, the New York Times Article says that a very lonely, mentally unbalanced young man is responsible for this incident. I haven’t read anything in the Times piece suggesting that a gun manufacturer, or a member of Congress or the NRA was responsible for the killings.’BCE: ‘You know what I mean. If that disturbed young man didn't have access to guns, then he wouldn’t have killed all those young people. So, it’s the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby and unfeeling members of Congress, that are really responsible for all those deaths and that’s what I mean when I say that it isn’t so much the disturbed young man who is responsible for those gun deaths; it is the guns, and those who "love" guns, and it is the politicians in Congress and the cowboys who support the Second Amendment, and it is the pro-gun individuals and businesses and organizations who really bear responsibility for those gun deaths. The problem of guns is the result of all those agents who refuse to get rid of guns in this Country, once and for all.SAS: ‘Well, actually, the very first paragraph of the New York Times piece says that some of the victims were stabbed to death. So, I suppose you’re saying that, if all guns and knives were banned, then this incident wouldn’t have happened.’BCE: ‘I’m not suggesting knives be banned, you know. After all, knives serve a useful purpose. Guns don’t serve any useful purpose except to soldiers in times of war or to the police whose job it is to maintain law and order in society.’SAS: ‘You mean knives aren't useful for killing, unlike guns.’BCE: ‘You’re trying to be funny. You know full well what I mean. Anyone who cooks, or eats a steak needs a knife. Knives serve a useful purpose. But, guns serve no useful purpose, except to the military and to the police.’SAS: ‘Well, we can get back to the issue whether or not guns serve a useful purpose or purposes other than to the military and to the police, and whether guns should be readily accessible to law-abiding American citizens, beyond those who serve in the military or who serve in various police agencies. However, while we’re on the subject of knives, I think that you and I can agree, at the moment at least, that, consistent with your premise about guns, we can say the same thing about knives. In other words, we can say, with equal plausibility, that some knives do in fact serve a useful purpose, and some knives do not.’BCE: ‘That’s true. Chef knives and camping knives are useful. But other knives, such as machetes, switchblade knives, and Bowie knives aren’t useful at all. So, who needs them?’SAS: ‘Well, machetes are certainly useful to a person who happens to be hiking in the Amazonian Jungle or on Safari in Africa. Switchblades and butterfly knives get bad press because criminal gang members use them and seem to have a preference for them. And a Bowie knife is a fine camping implement. And, as you would, certainly acknowledge, I think, there are knives that have military applications: namely, combat knives and bayonets. Those are definitely designed for killing. But, certainly any knife may serve a useful purpose for a given task. And a knife’s functional design will best reflect and accommodate the task the manufacturer created for it. Yet that said, virtually any knife, you would agree, can certainly be used  to kill a person. And, we know from the Times news account that the killer did use a knife on some of his victims. But, honestly, we don’t know what kind of knife was used in the Santa Barbara killings. I’ve read the news Article in the paper. The Times doesn’t say. Do you think, perhaps, that the New York Times deliberately failed to mention the kind of knife or knives the killer used on his victims precisely because the killer happened to use a nice, respectable tableware knife, or a kitchen knife or knives -- perhaps a paring knife, serrated utility knife, carving knife and/or boning knife, and refrained from using one of the disreputable knives, such as a machete, or switchblade knife, or butterfly knife, or bowie knife or combat knife? My guess is the newspaper didn’t want the reading public to think that the killer used a socially acceptable knife rather than an evil knife. Or, perhaps, the Times didn’t want to explore knifings at all because it wished to keep the reader’s attention focused on another form of killing tool. But, for all that, I think you and I can agree that the particular knife or knives that the killer used was certainly good enough for the purpose at hand, namely killing others, whatever kind of knife that particular knife happened to be.’ That’s what the killer wanted to do and that’s what he did in fact accomplish.’BCE: ‘Look, now. Knives aren’t the issue here. We both know that the weapon of choice for killers is a gun, not a knife.’ So, it stands to reason that The New York Times wouldn’t wish to, or, for that matter, need to place emphasis on the killer’s use of a knife for some of his killing.’ SAS: ‘Actually, I think a killer’s weapon of choice is anything that killer happens to have on hand: bats, balls, knives, slingshots, a hammer and chisel, an ice pick, rope, cellophane wrap, a billy club, or simply hands and feet for that matter, as well as guns. In the Santa Barbara case, the killer accomplished his purpose quite well enough using both a knife and a gun.’ And, let’s not forget, the killer was quite successful in mangling a bicyclist with his BMW too.’ So, it would appear that the killer was willing and able to use whatever implement happened to be at hand. In this case, he happened to have on hand a knife or knives, a gun, and an automobile. There is no hint in the New York Times that the killer showed any particular preference for one kind or another of implement when he went about his killing spree.BCE: ‘Still, you would agree, wouldn’t you, that a gun is the most efficient and effective means to kill a person?’SAS: ‘Well no. In this case, the knife was just as efficient and effective as a gun.’ And, automobiles barreling down a street are known to be a very effective means to kill or seriously injure another human being.'BCE: ‘I mean that, if you want to kill a lot of people at once, a gun is better than a knife, and an assault weapon is the best gun of all to use if the killer wants to go about killing a lot of people at once. So, an assault weapon is the weapon of choice for any killer if he had a choice of implements at his disposal.’SAS: ‘You seem to be hung up on this idea of weapon of choice. Anyway, I don’t recall that the Santa Barbara killer used a so-called "assault weapon." But, be that as it may, I have to ask you what an assault weapon is because, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you believe an assault weapon is the weapon of choice of killers, I have to ask you: what is an 'assault weapon?’BCE: ‘Come on now; you’re being deliberately cagy. You and I both know perfectly well – as does everyone else – what an assault weapon is.’SAS: ‘Please indulge me.’BCE: ‘All right, then. An assault weapon is a weapon something like a military weapon. In other words, an assault weapon, as everyone knows, is a military styled weapon.’SAS: ‘Well if you’re assuming that an assault weapon is like a military weapon, ergo, a military styled weapon, I still don’t have a clue what you’re talking about because many kinds of military weapons exist.  Now, setting aside such weapons as anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and guided missiles, to name a few, and looking at personnel weapons, there are still many kinds to consider. And, I don't suppose you are suggesting that assault weapons -- whatever they are -- are anything like anti-tank weapons, or anti-aircraft weapons, or recoilless rifles. And, if we are referring specifically to personnel weapons, there are several categories of those. Categories of military personnel weapons include: light machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles and a variety of pistols. And military personnel weapons also include sniper rifles and shotguns, too, and, let’s not forget flame throwers. So, if, by assault weapon, you mean a machine gun, or submachine gun, or assault rifle, or sniper rifle or pistol or shotgun or flame thrower, I point out to you that an assault weapon can't be like any one of those weapons because none of those weapons are of the sort that are readily available or accessible to civilians, although it is not unheard of that well-financed criminal cartels can and do often obtain many of those weapons. What I mean to say is, if a law-abiding American citizen who is a civilian wishes to possess a true military weapon, the BATF must approve the sale of that weapon to the civilian and such a weapon is not easy to come by – that is to say – such a weapon isn’t easy to acquire through lawful channels and I emphasize the word phrase, 'lawful channels,' here. To begin with, true military weapons – and I am here talking about military weapons qua military weapons, not some ludicrous, ersatz idea of a pseudo military gun that antigun zealots, such as yourself, and allied politicians and the mainstream news media concoct – are prohibitively expensive for most Americans. Moreover,  an American citizen, who is a potential buyer of a military weapon must undergo an extraordinarily detailed, rigorous, comprehensive federal background check, and he must wait a solid year before taking possession of such a weapon – that is to say – before taking possession of a true military weapon.  Now, of course a solitary criminal gang member or well-financed criminal syndicate or cartel would almost certainly have little difficulty in obtaining a true military weapon. And that person or criminal syndicate or cartel would do so on the black market, but obviously criminals won’t be able to do so nor would they likely try to obtain such weapons through lawful channels as that would entail, once again, a very rigorous and complete and stringent and comprehensive BATF examination process and procedure, which we both know criminals couldn’t possibly pass. They would therefore obtain their weapons -- would have to obtain such weapons if they wished them -- on the black market. And, neither a State nor the Federal Government regulates that, albeit some Federal agencies within the massive federal bureaucracy may be more or less aware of those black markets -- probably more aware of them than less so, which may say something about those agencies, and our Government, and the ease to which criminal enterprises, in particular, obtain such weapons.BCE:  ‘Look, I am only referring to common weapons that the average person can now obtain through a gun dealer. And I am talking about common weapons that the average person should not be able to buy; and I am talking about weapons that no rational, sane person would ever want or really need. I’m talking about weapons that, first of all, look like military weapons.’SAS: ‘So, you’re saying that, if a weapon happens to look like a weapon the military might use, that’s what you mean by an 'assault weapon?' You’re talking about appearance alone, then?’BCE: ‘Well, yes and no.’SAS: ‘Would you care to elaborate?’BCE: ‘Sure. An assault weapon is generally black. It often has a long projection underneath the body of the gun.’SAS: ‘Do you mean the ammunition magazine?’BCE: ‘Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. And, it might have a cone on the end of the barrel.’SAS: ‘Are you referring to a flash suppressor?’BCE: ‘Yes, I guess that’s what that thingamajig is: the flash suppressor.’ And an assault weapon is a kind of weapon that often has an angry, hateful cover over the front end.’BCE:  ‘I take it you’re referring to the barrel shroud.’SAS: ‘That’s exactly what I mean. You know, the weapon just looks evil and, I daresay, acts evil.’SAS:  ‘Well, I’m not sure what you mean by a weapon acting evil. People may act evil. But, inanimate objects, lacking will and intention, cannot, realistically, act at all. But, as to your idea of an assault weapon appearance, I understand what you’re getting at. Still, apart from this apparent evil look of firearms that you call assault weapons, you’ve said nothing about the weapon’s mode of operation.’ BCE:  ‘I was getting to that. An assault weapon sprays a lot of bullets at one time.’ So, it’s not just the appearance I’m talking about, as I have indicated to you before. It’s the manner of operation.’SAS: ‘How many bullets is a lot, if I may ask?’BCE:  ‘You know, more than a little; probably more than 10.’SAS: So, let me get this straight.  An assault weapon is a gun that is black, has a flash suppressor, an extended magazine, and a barrel shroud. In a few words, an assault weapon is a weapon that just looks evil. And, oh yes. It’s a weapon that happens to shoot more than 10 rounds.’BCE: ‘Well, that’s the general idea.’ It’s like a machine gun.SAS: ‘Do you understand how a machine gun operates?’BCE: ‘Not really. But, I have a general idea. It’s a gun that can spray a lot of bullets all at once and really fast.’SAS: ‘Well, machine guns are weapons that fire rounds with a single pull of a trigger. Machine guns are not readily lawfully available to anyone on the civilian market.  Once again, a person has to go through a very rigorous background check handled by the BATF before the BATF will permit an individual to purchase a machine gun.  And machine guns are not like military styled weapons.  They are in fact military weapons. So, when you’re talking about a firearm’s operation you must be referring to another manner of operation. Are you perhaps referring to semiautomatic operation?’BCE:  ‘Yes. I think I’m referring to semiautomatic operation. What’s semiautomatic operation?’ And, in what way does that differ from what I presume is automatic operation of a military weapon?’SAS: '‘Semiautomatic operation,' in simplest terms, means that, for each successive pull of the trigger, a round is fired from the weapon. Now, that can easily refer to the operation of a wide range of weapons. But the expression semiautomatic is also limited to a certain kind of firearm. The term is used in reference to firearms that utilize the energy of the cartridge itself to load a second round in the chamber. That isn’t the case with revolver handguns, which may be double action or single action but which do not use the force of the cartridge to load another round in the firing chamber. Rather, as the term, 'revolver' suggests, another round is chambered via a revolving cylinder, either through a trigger pull, as in the case of double action (DA) revolvers, or by manually drawing back the gun’s hammer – that is to say, cocking the hammer – for single action (SA) revolvers. But, I assume, by use of the expression, assault weapon, you aren’t referring to a revolver handgun at all.’BCE: ‘Yes, that’s true. The expression 'assault weapon,' as understood by antigun proponents – and I am proud to say that I count myself as one such – refer to evil looking weapons that, as you’ve explained, are semiautomatic weapons. But, then, are you saying the term 'semiautomatic' doesn’t apply to military weapons at all?’SAS: ‘No. I’m not saying that. The military does in fact use many kinds of semiautomatic weapons. And many of those weapons are in fact handguns. But many weapons, assault rifles, for example – and please don’t confuse assault rifles with assault weapons – the latter of which are merely a fiction created by politicians, antigun groups, and the like and are talked about in your typical mainstream news sources, while the former are true military weapons – are full automatic or selective fire weapons. What I mean by 'selective fire' is that the operator of the weapon is able to change the mode of operation of the weapon from automatic to semiautomatic fire through a selector switch.''Now handguns are used by the military as well as by the police and by civilians. The military handgun is semiautomatic in operation as are those sold in the civilian market. The military does not typically use handguns in offensive roles; they are essentially defensive arms. On the other hand, police forces often do use handguns both in an offensive capacity and in a defensive capacity. But police operations are usually, if not invariably, distinct from military type operations, although this, unfortunately, appears to be evolving or, perhaps, I should say devolving as police departments are quietly, systematically, inexorably undergoing changes, becoming para-military forces. So, the landscape of the Nation is changing, as we see American Governments, at all levels, beginning to view the American populace -- average Americans -- with more suspicion, and less respect and, so. And this is becoming unmistakably and disturbingly clear, as we see the First, Second and Fourth Amendments of our sacred Bill of Rights, in particular, eroding.’BCE: ‘Well, I’m not sure I agree with your assessment there if you’re suggesting that the changes you’re seeing are necessarily a bad thing. After all, the world is a more dangerous place now and, as our political leaders have said, the entire world – including the geographical land mass of the United States -- is one large war zone or, potentially, at least, a war zone’ -- a war zone, then, without borders.SAS: ‘Well, now you are simply echoing the usual sound bites you hear in the news. You are internalizing propaganda, which is precisely what the transnationalists who truly govern this Country and the Western World want you to think.’BCE: ‘Oh come on! Who’s catastrophizing now – me or you? That’s simply conspiracy theory.’SAS: ‘. . . And the words, 'conspiracy theory,' too, that you recite, are wholly made up. When the Government wishes to avoid a debate, it is quick to charge the dissenter with the appellation conspiracy theorist. But, we are getting off topic. We were talking about this thing that the media and antigun types, such as yourself, call an 'assault weapon.’BCE: ‘Yes; and an assault weapon is a military styled weapon both in appearance and function.’SAS: ‘Well, once again, if you wish to argue aesthetics, there isn’t much to say.  But, you realize, of course, that I can take any weapon you happen to give me and make it look like a military weapon. Making cosmetic changes to a given weapon doesn’t change the nature of the weapon, though, as the nature of a weapon is more a function of the weapon’s operation and less so of its looks.’BCE:  '{Getting frustrated and falling back on his first remarks} Look, when I call a weapon an 'assault weapon,' I’m talking about a weapon that shoots a lot of bullets, really fast.’SAS:  ‘In that case, virtually any weapon is an assault weapon as the vast majority of weapons – regardless of their looks and regardless of their function – can shoot a lot of rounds very fast. You might as well say any firearm is an assault weapon or is potentially an 'assault weapon.'  And, in fact, that is what you and others who believe as you do really want the public to think.  That is your endgame. Place more and more weapons under the nomenclature of 'assault weapon' and then ban them all. That is what you really want. You wish to place a ban on all weapons. And you aim to do so by including more and more of them under the label 'assault weapon.' So, since all firearms are essentially, ultimately, and irrevocably, in your mind, assault weapons, all firearms will be, or ought to be, banned. And, that, eventually, is what you want to see.’BCE: ‘Well, that’s certainly true. I’m not going to deny that. Personally, I think we would all be better off if all guns were banned.’ Only special groups of civilians  should have access to them.SAS: The so-called "elites?" ‘But, getting back to the Santa Barbara incident, you’re telling me that guns are to blame for that? And, did the shooter have a firearm that you refer to as assault weapon?’BCE: ‘You have the newspaper. What does it say?’SAS: ‘Well, I have seen no reference to an assault weapon. So, I guess the killer didn’t use an assault weapon. The Times Article says merely that the police recovered a semiautomatic handgun from the deceased killer’s car. And the Times left the matter at that. But, a semiautomatic handgun isn’t an assault weapon. Or, perhaps, you are saying it is. Because, once again, I have to say, I really don't have any idea what you mean by the use of those words. They are bandied about so often and subject to so many differing definitions and interpretations and circumlocutions -- most all of which emanate from politicians and media who have very little if any concrete knowledge of firearms -- that it is impossible to understand what firearms fall under or are meant to fall under the appellation, 'assault weapon,' at any one moment of time or at any particular place in time.'BCE: ‘You seem to know quite a bit about guns, but you don’t really understand much about assault weapons do you? The meaning of the expression is very clear even if, granted, I, myself, don't know much about guns and, quite frankly, I don't want to know anything about them, other than that they shouldn't be around. Now, I have heard of the term, 'semiautomatic.' And, some semiautomatic handguns are assault weapons and some aren’t. Let me tell you, the people who wrote the NY Safe Act, for example, are experts on assault weapons! Granted, you may know more about military weapons, but the people who wrote the NY Safe Act know more about the kinds of guns that lunatics and criminals use and the kind of which many otherwise law-abiding Americans, unfortunately, really want, but certainly don't need. The favorite weapon of lunatics and criminals and "gun nuts" -- the weapon of choice -- is, far and away, the assault weapon. The Legislators who drafted the SAFE Act explained clearly which semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns are assault weapons, and which aren’t. If the Santa Barbara shooter’s semiautomatic handgun was an assault weapon the Times reporter would’ve told us so. That’s an important fact, don’t you think?’SAS: ‘If you say so. Still, for all that, I believe you’re putting too much emphasis on the gun and not enough on the person responsible for the mayhem.  Look, the reporter for the Times wrote considerably about the killer’s delusion. And, the killer certainly wasn’t selective about the items he used when he went on his rampage. The Killer used a gun, yes. So, his gun of choice obviously wasn't an assault weapon. But he also killed several people with a knife, and he ran two people over with his car. So his weapons of choice weren't limited to firearms either. So, you can certainly see that virtually anything can be used as a weapon. And, if the semiautomatic weapon that the shooter used wasn’t an assault weapon, it still was an effective weapon, and I grant you that. But, then, as you must agree, so was the knife and the automobile he used to kill or maim others. And, yes, I understand, as you say, that knives have utility. And, I know you’d agree that automobiles do too. But, contrary to what you’ve said to me earlier, I would argue that guns have utility too. They are used in hunting and for target shooting. And, I would also point out that guns are the most effective self-defense option for many law-abiding American citizens who happen to be just average folk, like you and me, not police officers, or federal agents, or secret service agents. And, perhaps, most importantly, firearms are the best expression of an American citizen’s personal autonomy – a point rarely, if ever, made! So, let me make it here.'BCE: ‘Perhaps. But, many people who keep guns at home end up killing themselves, either accidentally or purposefully. Or, a child gets a hold of the gun and a horrible accident occurs. So, even if a gun has proved effective in saving a life once in a while, more tragic deaths of innocents have occurred because of guns than have been saved by them.'SAS: 'Are you so sure about that?' I would beg to differ with you on that.BCE: Well, that's beside the point I wish to make anyway. Certainly, you can’t discount the anguish caused by guns. Here, let me see that newspaper. {SAS gives the newspaper to BCE}. If you are willing to listen, I want to read something to you that I caught on the radio this morning. And, if you already read about this -- if it is in the New York Times newspaper, then let me read this to you again. This is very, very important. And, Yes, the New York Times does mention it – the father whose son was killed by the shooter. The newspaper makes very clear that the reason his son was killed was because of guns and because of gun manufacturers and because of an irresponsible Congress and because of the NRA: ‘The father of Christopher Martinez, one of the men killed in the shootings, emerged to offer a brief and emotionally wrenching denunciation of gun advocates and policies that he said lead to the death of his child. ‘This death has left our family lost and broken. . . . Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven irresponsible politicians and the N.R.A. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’s right to live. When will this insanity stop?’ There. What can be more poignant than the grief a father feels for a child who died and who did not need to die and who wouldn’t have died but for guns?’ There's no better argument against gun possession and gun ownership than that! I defy you to deny that!SAS: ‘Hold on a moment. I understand well enough that you are against civilian possession of and ownership of guns. I certainly get that. But you’re now telling me that the best argument against guns you can muster simply boils down to the words of a man who’s in extremity, having just lost a son needlessly? You would agree, would you not, that this man might just as readily have lost his son to a knife, as others in this incident had lost their lives. The man was grief stricken not over guns, but over the loss of his son. Let’s not lose sight of that fact. The man lashed out. If his son had died by knife, wouldn’t the man have argued for a ban on knives? And, if not, then why not? Would the man simply have kept his mouth shut? Would the man be less upset were his son to have been killed by the killer’s knife or if his son had died having been run over by the killer’s automobile? The man’s son wouldn’t be any less dead if he were killed by knife or if he were run over by an automobile! Let’s be clear about this. The man wasn’t talking rationally. The man was upset because he lost his son. The implement utilized is unimportant. If the man felt his son wouldn’t have died but for the gun, the man might well have been sorely mistaken. And keep this in mind: no one has suggested – certainly The New York Times hasn’t suggested – that the Santa Barbara killer showed a marked preference for one implement over another as he went on his killing rampage. So, let me reiterate that point. Clearly, the Times newspaper found it useful to take a stab at the NRA and at Congress and at America's gun manufacturers, and used the artifice of one man's grief over the death of his son to editorialize its own position about gun ownership and possession in a news story when such editorializing belongs solely in the op-ed section of a newspaper. It is in the op-ed section of a newspaper that opinions are supposed to be expressed -- not in a news report. So, if you want to argue ethics and morality, let’s have at it, because, as I see it, the real issue here isn’t really about guns at all, or about knives, or about automobiles. It’s about ethics and morality, isn’t it? The issue of guns is really a makeweight to support a philosophical position on the manner in which a society should be ordered. So, if its ethics and morality you want to talk about, I am perfectly happy to talk about ethics and morality with you.’ BCE: ‘By all means.’ Look. I'm not an idiot. Of course, a killer could use many different items to kill. And, I'm sure Mr. Martinez wouldn't be any less upset if the killer had murdered his son with a knife or if the killer had deliberately run his son over with the killer's automobile and had killed the man's son that way. But, if guns were unavailable, that would be one less item that a killer might draw upon to kill. The way I see it, gun possession and gun ownership is just plain wrong -- morally wrong. The average law-abiding American citizen who is a civilian doesn't really need a gun today and, therefore, shouldn't have access to one. The only Americans who needs guns are police officers and soldiers. And soldiers don't need guns unless they are overseas fighting. Soldiers, too, don't need guns when they're on a military base at home or on a military base overseas. We know many of them have emotional problems or are likely to develop a mental illness, so it's the better practice that they don't have access to guns either once they come back to the United States.SAS: So,  America's soldiers shouldn't have access to firearms either except when its convenient for the Federal Government to send them overseas and they happen to find themselves in a free fire zone? No emotional problems overseas, just potential problems at home, then, right?' But, we can talk about this Country's obscene disservice to its own servicemen and women another day. ‘Okay, then. If I can, let’s clarify the moral issues and assumptions here from the standpoint of guns and gun ownership and possession since that's what you're so sensitive about. I know that you aren’t interested in hearing about the right of an American citizen, as an individual, to keep and bear arms as set forth clearly and succinctly in the Second Amendment to our Constitution and as made abundantly clear by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller case and the 2010 McDonald case. So, I won't lay out the myriad legal arguments in support of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country.  You've heard many of those arguments many times before anyway, I'm sure, and, as you and your friends and allies in the antigun movement both inside this Country and outside it aren't swayed by those legal arguments in support of gun ownership and possession in the United States, regardless of the merits of those arguments, there's certainly no point in my rehashing those arguments to you now. So let’s talk, then, about gun ownership and possession from the standpoint of ethics and morality alone. Your argument against gun ownership and possession – from the standpoint of pure ethics – boils down, I believe, to this: (1) Innocent people and not so innocent people die from gun violence; (2) Even though some innocent people, who wish to possess guns, have saved themselves or their loved ones with their guns, still, more people, innocent and not so innocent, have died through gun violence than have been saved by and through guns; (3) now, if it is true that more lives, innocent and not so innocent, have been lost through misuse of guns than innocent lives have been saved because of guns, society is better served if law-abiding citizens are denied access to guns even if some innocent lives are lost in the process, having been denied access to guns. Is that a fair assessment of your position in support of a gun ban – a total or general ban on gun possession and ownership by law-abiding civilian American citizens?’BCE:  ‘I suppose so.’SAS: ‘That’s a thesis for utilitarianism and, more generally, it is a thesis of consequentialism of which utilitarianism is a component part. For the utilitarian consequentialist, the nature of the good is a function not of an agent’s intentions or motives but only of the consequences of an agent's actions upon others and, more precisely, of consequences to society at large. So, what operates to benefit the maximum number of people is deemed to be a morally good consequence. Antigun proponents, such as yourself, look only to consequences of actions, and give no thought to the agent’s intention or reason for doing a particular act. Indeed, antigun proponents do not consider whether the agent’s intention for acting is moral or not or whether an agent’s act serves to benefit the agent or not. They do not look at or try to assess an agent's motivations for acting at all. Antigun proponents look solely to the outcome or outcomes of the agent's action in respect to the larger polity or to society as a whole in the determination of the moral worth of a particular action by an agent. BCE: 'And, I must assume you do not hold to utilitarianism. And, you are essentially correct. Where gun violence is concerned, I would argue that any talk of good or bad motive is irrelevant to morality. Motives and intentions are internal to the agent. They are superfluous to any discussion of morality here. Ultimately, it is the outcome of an agent's action that is really important. For, it is the physical outcome of an action that can be assessed and measured. One's inner motivations and intentions cannot be seen. It is the effects -- the actualization of an agent's motivations and intentions that, alone, are important. For, it is in the effects that motivations and intentions have their dire impact. So, while it may be of academic interest to discuss whether one’s intention is good or bad – that is to say good or evil – and while it may be of academic interest to discuss whether one’s action serves to benefit the agent himself, what is really of importance here -- what is really important to society -- is whether the agent's action serves to benefit society as a whole or not. So, then, a morally good action or outcome is one that benefits society; and a morally bad action or outcome is one that does not benefit society and the morally best action or outcome is one that maximizes the benefits to society. Only consequences of actions to society, then, matter. One’s motive in doing x is irrelevant.  And, benefit to one’s self is irrelevant. So, I do agree with your assessment of the ethical theory I hold to. As I look only to consequences of actions, I am a consequentialist, and, as I believe that the best action, the most moral action, is the one that maximizes the benefit to society at large – that is to say – that serves to maximize utility. So, yes, I am a utilitarian or, to be more accurate, a utilitarian consequentialist.  As you know, I am strongly opposed to gun ownership and gun possession except by select groups. And many people both inside this Country and outside it, would agree with me. And, we antigun proponents are well aware that millions of guns are present in this Country and that millions of law-abiding American citizens own guns and, too, that most law-abiding American citizens are responsible gun owners, although, for the life of me, I don’t know why anyone would want a gun. It’s quite unlikely, to my mind, that a person would need a gun for protection. That’s why communities have police departments. After all, I think you would agree that a tragic accident would be more likely to happen because of a gun’s presence in a household than from its absence due to an outsider breaking into a house and attacking the home’s residents.’SAS: 'Well, the police have no duty to guarantee the safety of any individual. The role of the police – at least the traditional role of the police – is to provide for the common welfare of a community, and that does not extend to securing the life and safety of each individual member of the community. The public isn’t generally aware of that fact, and apparently you aren't aware of that fact either. Yet, be that as it may, we aren’t concerned here with what the police can or can’t do or what a police department ought or ought not to do on behalf of a given community or on behalf of a person within a given community. We are talking now about the import of particular ethical theories and the manner of their application. So, we begin this discussion on the implication of your assumption that more good individuals as well as bad have been harmed by guns than have benefitted from them. For, I take it, that it is on the truth of that assertion that you, and those who seek to ban guns, ground your moral argument for gun bans. And that goal, banning guns, to lessen the harm caused by guns for the maximum number of people, the innocent as well as the bad, namely, the not so innocent, conforms to your utilitarian precepts. Now, while I, myself, have no sympathy for "the bad" among us who have come to harm whether by means of a firearm or no, you, apparently draw no such distinction between the innocent among us and those who are morally reprehensible who have come to harm by means of a firearm. You look only at the lives that have been lost to firearms, not the nature of those lives, and, so, you lump the innocent lives that have been lost to firearms' violence with the bad among us who have lost their lives to firearms' violence. I would argue that more innocent American citizens have been saved through access to firearms than would be otherwise true if such individuals did not have access to firearms and it is the innocent lives that alone, it seems to me that ought to be considered the relevant factor from the perspective of utilitarian consequentialism. And further to that point, I would like to drill down to the salient issues here. For the critical note of contention between us, in terms of competing ethical theories, rests on the import of raw numbers, because, for you, it is raw numbers that are important and, indeed, critical, to any discussion of morality and any discussion of the merits of this or that ethical theory. For me, on the other hand, much more is at stake when discussing morality generally and, further, in considering the merits of a particular ethical theory, as you shall see. Shall I continue?'BCE: 'By all means, continue.'SAS: 'People such as yourself who look to what they believe serves to bring about the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people in society – the total well-being of society – fail to consider the importance of the individual. For, what benefits the individual may not – granted – maximize utility, but a moral theory that fails to account for the actions of the agent and fails, as well, to account for what serves or does not serve to benefit the agent’s own best interests is, to my mind, a vacuous theory and, in fact, trivializes what it means to be a human being and, particularly, trivializes what it means to be an American citizen, living in a democratic Republic. For, under the doctrine of ethical utilitarian consequentialism, one person’s happiness must be sacrificed for the benefit of others. That means that justice, fairness, the sanctity of the individual – all go out the door. They must all be sacrificed at the altar of utility. Thus, you and other ethical utilitarian theorists are indifferent to – indeed, must be indifferent to – how the good is distributed in society since you look only to what benefits society -- what best serves the greater hive – what best serves society as a whole. This idea comports with and percolates throughout ethical utilitarian consequentialism and it is the only thing that utilitarian consequentialism considers as it accounts for fundamental fairness and decency and seeming concern for one's fellows. However, I would say that utilitarianism, far from professing a concern for humanity, and, less so, professing concern for what best serves American citizens, has nothing to say about and therefore cares little about notions of fundamental fairness, decency and concern for people. You proponents of gun bans are actually cold and calculating and in fact ruthless. For, to care first and foremost about maximizing utility for society as a whole, and, indeed, really caring only about maximizing utility for society as a whole, you must care less about the needs of the individual -- of maximizing utility of and for the individual, which is not the purport of utility maximization anyway. In fact, maximizing utility means maximizing benefits to and for the greatest number of individuals, collectively. So, utility maximization has nothing to do with individual American citizens as individuals. What ethical utilitarian consequentialism is about is maximization of utility for the masses -- maximizing benefits for the masses. and, the benefit to the individual reduced to a nullity. Indeed, maximization of utility for the masses entails minimization of utility for the individual. For the ethical utilitarian consequentialist, such as yourself, numbers alone are what is important -- maximizing benefits for an undefined and altogether amorphous mass. Where is the compassion and concern for a person in all of that?  Moreover, if the well-being of the individual ceases to have any real importance to you, why profess concern for faceless numbers, anyway? There is something peculiar, even altogether bizarre, in holding to the sanctity of humanity in terms of raw numbers because you then lose sight of and you cease to focus on what is really essential, and that is the sanctity of the individual. For, happiness or suffering is what the individual feels. A nameless, faceless, indistinguishable blob going under the general appellation, humanity, does not feel pleasure or pain. Only a person, the individual, feels pleasure or pain.’ Utilitarian consequentialists altogether lose sight of the importance of the individual in running their cold calculations of utility maximization. Individuals become processed, diced, chopped up and compressed into a raw number  that serves as a surrogate for the individual. And that surrogate is the collective -- the hive.BCE: ‘Now see here! I take exception to your categorization of me and others like me as uncaring of individuals, much less that you see us as ruthless. When we seek to ban guns, this is clearly for the benefit of society as a whole. And I and my fellow supporters of gun bans care very strongly for the well-being of individuals too. All lives are precious to us. I am only saying that, if a life is to be lost to gun violence, it is better two lives be spared and one lost than one life is spared due to an act of gun violence and two lost. What I am saying  is that, from a utilitarian perspective, two innocent lives have more utility than one. You, however, clearly place greater emphasis and importance on one innocent life over the lives of the many. Where is the logic in that? Furthermore, –’SAS:  ‘Let me cut you off there. You misunderstand what I’m saying. And that misunderstanding causes you to oversimplify another's ethical viewpoint. And that misunderstanding binds you to one narrow ethical viewpoint. And that misunderstanding blinds you to the possibility of ever attempting to understand another’s ethical viewpoint. And that viewpoint cuts across your entire perceptual apparatus. You and other antigun proponents and fanatics -- and I do not believe I am engaging in hyperbole by using the word 'fanatic' here -- inevitably and invariably look at ethical conduct solely from the standpoint of consequences, and you refrain from giving moral credence to anything other than the consequences of an act. For you to even consider looking at the constituent parts of a moral act in any other way is superfluous to and even repugnant to your sensibilities. You take as axiomatic – that is to say – inherently true without the need for proof –  that the lives of two individuals, are more worthy than the life of one individual. And that ends the matter. Do you realize that by holding to such a narrow ethical framework, your assumptions entail an absurd conclusion? In fact, for you to hold that the lives of two individuals are worth more than one – that two lives have more utility than one, without looking at -- taking a serious look at the nature of those lives – you must also hold  -- as this follows from the premises of your ethical philosophy -- that the lives of two bad individuals are more worthy than the life of one good individual -- simply because, for you two lives are worthier than one life. Two bad lives are worthier than one innocent life because your utility maximization principle only factors in raw numbers. Qualitative differences among people are irrelevant to you. But, if you were to agree with me that the life of an innocent individual -- the life of one innocent individual -- is worth more than any number of lives of reprehensible individuals -- that the life of one innocent individual counts for more, much more than do the lives of hundreds, even thousands of reprehensible individuals -- that the life of one innocent individual is in fact infinitely more valuable than the lives of any number of terrible, evil, reprehensible individuals, then you have to concede my point, which is that numbers in themselves are less important than the kind of individual life we are talking about. But, if you maintain your point, that it is numbers, after all, that are most important to you, which is what the utilitarian consequentialist looks at when computing utility maximization, then I  can see -- indeed anyone can see, and with crystal clarity -- what is really behind the push for a universal gun ban in this Country -- a gun ban which will obviously impact the majority of American citizens -- the majority of whom are law-abiding American citizens. What those who adhere to utilitarian consequentialism, such as yourself, truly seek, is control over the masses, grounded on the idea that the American citizenry is simply an incorrigible mass of random bits of energy. By removing from that mass the means to defend itself from harm, you also remove any possibility -- however remote -- that the mass can inflict harm to itself or to others. Maximization of utility is not a matter, then, of reducing gun violence in this Country; nor for that matter is it a matter really of reducing violence by any other means. It is really a matter of population control exerted by a select few against the perceived random impulses of the many. That any one individual suffers under the weight of utility maximization is, then, utterly beside the point. And, so we are at an impasse.' 'You and your antigun cohorts are so bound to the plausibility and inviolability and reasonableness of utilitarian consequentialism, you may actually believe -- indeed, may actually see no problem in believing -- that the lives of two bad individuals are, ipso facto, more worthy than the life of one good individual by the simple virtue of numbers and for the presumed need to exert control over everyone in order to maximally benefit the collective hive. And, if that is in fact the case for you -- if in fact you fail to realize the absurdity of the implication of your ethical position -- then our discussion is at an end. But, I wish for us to be clear about this, so that, as between us, there is no mistake -- no error -- in what I have posited here -- in my understanding of the utilitarian position of antigun politicians, antigun media pundits, and of other antigun proponents, such as you. So, as I see it,  for you and those like you, what it is that constitutes a morally good act is simply one that increases the total number of lives saved rather than lost, regardless of circumstances and regardless of the individual person's nature, and you do this by exerting control over the masses by means of taking the means of personal control from them. This is why antigun proponents such as you express less concern over the evil associated with the wrongful taking of a life by a criminal or lunatic, and why it is that you choose to emphasize the mechanism of harm – the consequences of the harm – i.e., the gun, the inanimate object. And this is why you minimize, deemphasize, reduce to a nullity, the inviolability of the individual. I, on the other hand, believe that a proper ethical theory must take into account (1) both the intention of the agent and the consequences of the act to the agent's self and (2), the consequences of the agent's act to others, if we are to properly assess the merits of a given action, that is to say, if we are to assess whether a given act is good or bad. But you – you avoid looking at the intentions of the actor at all, and emphasize the consequences of a given act on the multitude, instead, in order to ascertain the merits – good or bad – of a given act. And, the way to maximize benefit to the collective -- to society as a whole -- is to exert maximum control over it. The individual counts for naught. And, so, you and others like you – proponents of antigun bans and of various other antigun measures – give no thought to the intentions of the agent; nor do you give thought to the effect of an act on the agent himself; nor, for that matter, do you truly give real thought to the impact of the agent’s act on another person. Rather, you – and your antigun proponent kin – look only to the consequences of the agent’s act in relation to a nebulous larger group – the hive – on a multitude, on the amorphous collective – on society as a whole. And through the perceived consequences of the act alone on the hive – on the multitude – on society as a whole – do you and others like you ascertain whether the act is considered morally good or bad.’ This goal requires implementation of maximum control over the individual -- maximum compliance -- in order to maintain State security. And, one critical step toward that goal is implementation of a total, universal gun ban to the extent that such a goal is possible.BCE: ‘I don’t disagree with your analysis of my ethical theory. But, apart from postulating a few considerations for another ethical theory, you still haven’t actually clearly proposed one to counter that of utilitarian consequentialism. So if you have one in mind, I challenge you to propound it and we shall see if your ethical theory is in fact superior to that of utilitarian consequentialism that I and other antigun activists and proponents adhere to.’SAS:  ‘I will be happy to oblige you. And, to do so, let me use an example.’BCE:  ‘By all means, proceed.’SAS: ‘So let’s say you and your antigun friends in Congress win. You get what you want. A total gun ban is in effect in the United States. Now, you realize, of course, this doesn’t mean a psychopathic or sociopathic gang member, or lunatic, or other criminal deviant, can’t or won’t be able to acquire a gun. What it does mean is that millions of law-abiding citizens won’t be able to lawfully acquire guns or continue to keep the guns they had previously lawfully acquired, so that all guns lawfully acquired prior to the gun ban, must be turned over to the police. And, for you, for the time being that is enough as the Security States slowly exerts ever more control over the citizenry. Now, let us say the law-abiding American citizen – being a law-abiding citizen – will only attempt to obtain a gun through lawful channels. So, if those channels are foreclosed, he or she will be denied access to a gun. However, for the psychopathic, sociopathic deviants, and psychotics that won’t present a major problem. That certainly won't present an insurmountable hurdle. For, if such an individual wants a gun, that person will gain possession of a gun by whatever means are available to him. I think we can both agree that criminals of all stripes won’t be burdened -- certainly won't be overly burdened -- unlike the average law-abiding citizen. So, if a psychopathic gang member wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, as he always has, as he always will, so long as he is able to operate fairly freely, and he will do so with or without a total gun ban in effect. Do you agree and are you with me so far?’BCE: ‘Yes.’ Please continue.SAS: ‘Now, then. I’m your average law-abiding American citizen. And, let’s say I have, through time, gained proficiency in the use of a gun for self-defense and I safeguard the storage of it. But, I can’t keep it anymore. As I have said, the antigun proponents have won out and a Federal law is in effect, banning gun possession. The police know I have a gun. Why? Simple. Because the NSA knows everything about everyone and notifies the Department of Homeland Security that, in turn, notifies other Federal, State and local police throughout the Country as to whom has a gun or guns, what kind, and how many. And, as I am not immune from such oversight, I am paid a visit by Federal police or State police or by local police. I obligingly turn the gun over to the police along with all my ammunition. Now, let’s say that one week later there is a rash of break-ins of homes across the Country. And I unfortunately am caught up in that. A gang of toughs comes into my house. I had a gun to defend myself and my family, but no longer. The gang proceeds to rape my wife and daughter and kills all of us. Is society better off? Let’s say government statisticians and criminologists compile the data and run the numbers. They determine that, although law-abiding citizens, including many past law-abiding gun owners, have been killed in record numbers in their own homes -- and that the number of innocent American lives lost to  gun violence has increased over the number of innocent American lives that have been lost prior to implementation of the total gun ban -- still gun-related deaths overall -- when one tabulates the number of violent criminals whose lives have been lost since the total gun ban went into effect -- have dropped, perhaps significantly, perhaps not. The criminologists and government statisticians conclude, then, that, on balance, with a total gun ban in effect, more lives, innocent and not so innocent, have been spared gun violence than have been lost to gun violence, although, regrettably, unhappily, many innocent lives have been lost that otherwise would have been saved, due to the inability of millions of previous law-abiding gun owners to exercise their prerogative of self-defense with a gun. Now, a utilitarian consequentialist would say the act of banning guns is morally right because fewer gun related deaths result overall, notwithstanding that many law-abiding citizens – previous gun owners – have lost their lives because of the gun ban -- that is to say -- many previous gun owners have lost their lives after the gun ban went into effect, when otherwise they would not have lost their lives, precisely because they didn't have access to their guns. Your position – the position of the utilitarian consequentialist – is that some innocent lives lost – although regrettable – is acceptable, not morally objectionable.  To use the language of utilitarian consequentialism, the consequence of a total gun ban has maximum utility because, in terms of pure numbers, more lives are saved than lost through the gun ban, notwithstanding and irrespective of the fact that more innocent lives are lost because those individuals did not have a gun to defend themselves. Utilitarian consequentialism simply has nothing to say, or is otherwise neutral, on that little matter: American citizens have in fact lost their lives simply because they were denied the right -- to exercise their prerogative as American citizens -- to protect their own lives with a gun. To the proponent of gun bans – the utilitarian consequentialist – the loss of some lives suffices – serves, through their sacrifice, the greater good as more lives are saved than lost through a total gun ban. And that is good enough. Maximum utility accrues. The benefit to society with a total gun ban in place outweighs the cost -- loss of innocent life. You would agree with the truth of that conclusion and the morality of the outcome?’BCE: ‘Yes; of course. You, however, obviously do not. But, I’m still waiting for you to articulate your own ethical theory. So, if you have an alternative and a superior alternative ethical theory to  utilitarian consequentialism and if you’re ready, I’d like to hear it now. Do you subscribe to a modification of the utilitarian theory? If so, I don’t know of any.’SAS:  ‘No. I subscribe to a completely different kind of ethical theory. It’s one clearly superior to consequentialism,  generally, and to utilitarian consequentialism, in particular, for it looks to the behavior of the agent and to the distribution of well-being to self as well as to others, not merely to the notion of maximizing utility for the collective, for society, for the hive, that is to say, maximizing the benefit to the collective, to the hive, to society as a whole. There are, to be sure, several versions of it but they all fall under the rubric, deontological ethics. So, a morally good action is a function of the intentions, effects, and distribution of well-being to individuals qua individuals. And, here we are talking about the distribution of well-being to a human being qua an average law-abiding American citizen, in determining the moral worth of an action. In part, I believe it is important to consider the morality of an agent’s actions in terms of his own self-interest and if the act does, in fact, serve his self-interest, and, at one and the same time, I determine that the agent's action does not have deleterious consequences for others. If both conditions are met, the agent’s action can then be said to be morally good.’ BCE: ‘But –’SAS: ‘Now, I think I know what you’re going to say. So, hear me out. If you caught the last clause of my assertion, then you know I’m not at all suggesting a person might do an altogether reprehensible act and that I’m bound to hold that the act is, in the last analysis, a morally good act if the actor believes such act to be in the agent's personal best interest even if it harms another. For a person can hold a false belief. A murderer’s action is never meritorious even for himself because the murderer ought, readily and rightfully, to expect to receive a decidedly undesirable accounting for his action if caught. Such accounting – as, for example, suffering the death penalty – would hardly be in the murderer’s own self-interest. Hence, the murderer’s act is not morally good under a deontological ethical theory, as, for example, under ethical egoism. Let’s use the Santa Barbara incident as an example. Under the theory of ethical egoism, the killer’s actions are not morally good. Odds are that the killer didn’t even consider the ethical merits of his action. He only knew that he hurt inside and he intended to make others hurt, as he did. Several women had, apparently, rebuffed his advances. The killer wrongly concluded that, because some women were uninterested in him, all women would be uninterested in him. He also wrongly inferred, as a result of his delusion, that everyone was happy except for him. He wrongly inferred that it was the natural state for everyone to be happy but for him. In his delusional state he felt that he should make others suffer because he suffered. If the killer had thought at all about the consequences of his actions, he would have realized that his murderous actions would end very badly for him. He may, in fact, have realized this. Indeed, he may have welcomed a bad outcome; anticipated it. And, of course, he was either killed by the police or took his own life. The Times news Article is unclear on that point. In any event, under ethical egoism, as under any deontological ethical approach, murder is always immoral. And, you will note I did not appeal to a normative theological argument here although, personally, I believe that morality – what constitutes a good or evil act – emanates from a supreme being. And the appeal to a supreme being as the source of morality is an independent argument against the doing of an evil act. But, it is enough, right now as you can see, that my ethical stance, as propounded, is at odds with yours and I don't have to appeal to a higher power as the source of and for moral conduct. That said, it is nonetheless true that a deontological ethical approach to an assessment of the moral worth of one’s actions is certainly consistent with theological considerations although such theological considerations are antithetical to consequentialism for the simple reason that no appeal to intention under consequentialism is made. For, under the ethical utilitarian consequentialism that you espouse, the ethical merits of the Santa Barbara killer’s actions are not to be and cannot properly be ascribed to the killer at all. Such a consideration is simply and irrefutably irrelevant to utilitarian consequentialism. Rather, under utilitarian consequentialism the gun -- the inanimate object -- alone is critical to an assessment of all ethical considerations, not the intentions of, motives behind, or the actions of a sentient agent. The utilitarian consequentialist looks only to the consequences of the act, namely the fact that a life was unlawfully taken and that the life was taken violently. And, for all that, the antigun proponent, activist, fanatic -- as utilitarian consequentialist -- looks to one particular inanimate object, the gun, in assessing the moral consequences of the act. This is why I pointed out to you earlier that you and others who support your cause – proponents of gun bans and other antigun measures -- are, in fact, cold, calculating, even ruthless, notwithstanding that you and others, who share your beliefs concerning guns, outwardly express concern for the victims of gun violence. That concern is feigned. That expressed concern -- public recitations, histrionics and media theatrics -- for the victims of gun violence isn't really a concern for individual victims at all. That concern is, ostensibly, for a warped sense of the well-being of society as a whole. And that concern for the well-being of society as a whole -- a nebulous concept at best -- has really nothing to do with the well-being of the individual -- indeed, that concern for the well-being of society is clearly and demonstrably contrary to the well-being of the individual. You antigun zealots, proponents, activists, fanatics simply seek to maximize utility for society – for the collective – for the hive and you seek to do that through control of the individual. Gun violence, for you and for others like you who profess to support gun bans, is particularly messy -- not so much for the loss of innocent lives but, rather, because it disturbs societal order. So you and others like you – antigun proponents, activists, fanatics, zealots – argue for the elimination of the gun and not for the elimination of the actor – the psychopathic, sociopathic killer or lunatic -- who is responsible for the violence -- who alone is responsible for the violence. So, for you, the inanimate object is the real immoral actor, rather than the sentient person -- a very strange notion. For you, the ethical consequences of a given act are construed only from an odd consideration of the mere fact of killing -- altogether removed from any consideration of intentions and motives, and removed, too, from any consideration of the agent’s actions on other individuals, and irrespective of the distribution of well-being among individuals. The point I am getting at here is not to denigrate consequences of actions, per se, but, rather, to place the notion of consequences in the context of the actor and in the context of those whom the consequences of an act actually and immediately affect. In other words, my moral scheme emphasizes acts and the motives of individuals and emphasizes the impact of acts on individuals as individuals, not as members of an amorphous hive or collective.  My ethical theory does not, contrary to the utilitarian model, stand aloof from a consideration of motives, intentions and acts by and against individuals. The utilitarian model, on the other hand, merely considers ethical conduct as a function of maximizing utility for some nebulous broad-based societal construct. Under your theory, utilitarian consequentialism, predicated merely and, indeed, solely, on the notion of maximizing utility for society – you seek  to make the point that, if killers don’t have guns, fewer people will die – at least through the mechanism of guns and that's that. But, as people don’t live in bubbles, and, as substantial numbers of evil people walk about in society, it is reasonable to assume that violent homicidal acts will continue to occur whether guns are available to killers or not. So, if guns aren’t readily available, killers will simply kill through such other means as made available to them -- a point made poignantly clear in the Santa Barbara incident. And, as the law-abiding citizen has no access to a firearm, that citizen's life becomes that much more vulnerable because the best means to secure that citizen's life, safety  and well-being is no longer available to the citizen. And, that is the real point  a reader should take from the Time's news story -- not the rage of a parent who lost a child needlessly and who, frustrated, lashed out incoherently at gun manufacturers, at supporters of the Second Amendment, and at the NRA.''As the majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens, and as few gun deaths arise from the acts of law-abiding citizens, gun deaths will continue unabated, even under the weight of a total gun ban which you antigun zealots  envision for this Country. Violent acts against innocent individuals, whether through use of firearms or through other means, by deviants, including gang members, homicidal maniacs and other criminal and delusional  sorts and will probably rise, as innocent individuals will no longer have the best means available to them to prevent violence against them. But then, you antigun proponents, activists, fanatics and zealots aren’t concerned about any of that because for you -- adherents of utilitarian consequentialism – morality is neither a function of the killer’s motivations for killing nor of the impact of the killing on the killer or on others. Rather what is moral or not for you is predicated solely on the consequences of killing and, for all that, through the particular tools or mechanisms or implements used. Antigun proponents thus ascribe morality to implements of violence, particularly the gun. So, from your ethical frame of reference, if the gun didn’t exist, it is reasoned, fewer deaths, overall, will occur, even if violent deaths to one segment of the population -- those accruing to innocent American citizens -- actually increases; control over the masses will be improved; and utility for society will be maximized. And that’s what matters to you. And that's all there is to it. But, that view of morality as held by you antigun proponents and zealots is singularly bizarre because notions of right and wrong are properly ascribed to actors not to objects. By removing the moral act from the actor and thrusting it onto the object, one loses perspective. Through it all, one emphasizes objects to the exclusion of actors. So, when all is said and done, whose ethical theory is really superior here?’BCE: ‘Are you done?’SAS: ‘Not quite. Let’s now consider how we might apply the deontological approach to another case. So, consider an act of self-defense. A criminal breaks into a house one evening. He lunges at the homeowner with an axe. The homeowner has a gun and shoots the criminal, killing him. The homeowner’s act is considered morally good under a deontological theory, such as ethical egoism. His intention, protecting his life, certainly serves his self-interest, regardless of the means by which he did it. He certainly doesn’t have to suffer retribution from society for having the wherewithal to protect his own life -- or certainly shouldn't have to. And his well-being is maximized because the consequences of his act, killing a would-be killer to save his own life, does in fact serve his own best interests. Still, antigun proponents might take the homeowner to task just the same, raising absurd questions such as: Did the homeowner really have to kill the criminal? If so, did he have to do so using a gun? Couldn’t the homeowner have retreated safely to another room in the house? Couldn’t the homeowner have tried reasoning with the criminal? Didn’t the homeowner have a duty to try to deal rationally with the criminal? In fact under utilitarian consequentialism, we may reach the clearly absurd result that the consequence of the act, the killing of a house breaker who sought to harm an innocent person, was a decidedly immoral act insofar as, or, indeed, precisely because the utilitarian consequentialist perceives the homeowner’s use of a gun to protect his life as having a deleterious ethical consequence – harming the well-being of society as a whole, because harming another with a gun, regardless of the reason and motivation and distribution of well-being to  one's self undermines a benefit to society as a whole, undermines societal utility, undermines the ability of society to exert control over the individual. The presence of guns in society, for the antigun proponent, harms society, so the action of protecting one’s life with a gun, when weighed against costs and benefits to society, comes up short.''So, while utilitarian consequentialism doesn’t view a person’s conduct, as morally good or bad, it does look to the moral merit of using a gun at all. Since the consequences of using a gun to harm another – regardless of the reason for using the gun – is what’s important to the antigun proponent and activist and zealot who holds to the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism and, as society is harmed on balance through use of a gun to harm another at all, then, regardless of the reason for such use, the mere use of a gun, even for the rational purpose of self-defense, is considered a morally bad act -- a morally bad consequence for society as a whole. The antigun folk might argue that the criminal’s life also has worth and may even be worthier than the homeowner who kills him, albeit the homeowner acted rationally in self-defense. The antigun proponent looks to the costs of gun use in society, as a whole, and to the numbers of people – both good and bad – who are killed by guns and to society's  ability to control -- to restrain -- or to be unable to control and restrain the individual conduct. The intentions of the individual are zeroed out of the equation and that means the sanctity and inviolability and the singular importance of the individual as an individual is as well zeroed out of the equation.' 'Occam’s razor cuts through this hogwash. Utilitarianism raises issues that need not be raised and should not be raised in the context of ethical considerations. And, for all the considerations the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism raises and for all that utilitarian consequentialism concerns itself with, the most important ethical concern – certainly the most important consideration under an ethical deontological approach, namely, the well-being of an innocent individual – is left on the sidelines, to mourn for itself in solitude. This, to me, is the fundamental concern I have with the antigun proponent’s ethical theory -- utilitarian consequentialism -- and the fundamental flaw I see with that ethical theory; and this is the salient concern I have with antigun proponents. On the surface it would appear that you and those like you profess a concern for human life.  But, that really isn’t the case at all. You and other antigun proponents posit the consequence of gun use – even in one’s own self-defense – as morally reprehensible or, at least, morally dubious. However, if loss of life – especially loss of innocent life – were your real concern, then you would be or should be equally concerned about anything that a killer may happen to use to take a human life with. But, as with the Santa Barbara incident, little is said about violence with knife or automobile, even though some people were killed by a knife and a second was mangled by the killer’s BMW automobile. So, something else is at work here. And, it may even be that antigun proponents are dupes. You believe the salient problem is guns. But, there’s something going on below the surface. And, what is going on – what is really going on below the surface – is an attempt to control individuals. If a person – even a law-abiding person – has a gun, he or she is potentially difficult for a government to control. A person who has access to a knife, on the other hand, is a little easier for a government to control. Thus we see at the moment, at least, for people, such as you, a call for bans on guns and not, at the moment, a call for bans on knives. I find it curious and strange that utilitarian consequentialism simply shrugs off any concern for personal autonomy. Utilitarian theorists look only to the well-being of the collective – consider only what may or may not be in the best interest of or seeming best interest of the collective -- of society -- of the hive. To my mind such view is antithetical to and, in fact, repugnant to the principles reflected in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. We sacrifice those principles at our peril.’BCE: ‘Well, I’ve heard you out and I disagree with you on a number of points. But, I do not wish further to contend with you. However, I do have to ask you something. I'm curious. Suppose, I and my antigun colleagues do win and we are able to pass legislation at the Federal Level that operates as a total gun ban as applied to the average, law-abiding civilian American citizen. Would you and others like you – strong supporters of the Second Amendment – acquiesce to a total gun ban? I wonder because, given your ethical predilections, I really don't know what to think about that.SAS: ‘Well, let me respond forthrightly to your question and in the context of deontological ethics and more specifically from the standpoint of ethical egoism and, too, from the standpoint of the Bill of Rights and Natural law.  I believe that a morally good act is one that serves one’s self-interest without harming the interest of others. Guns are the best means available by which and through which a person may best protect himself and preserve his self-autonomy. If it were to come to pass that Federal Statutory law imposed a total gun ban on the civilian citizenry of this Country, I believe that an American citizen would have both the obligation, consistent with his rights under both the Second Amendment and Natural law and in the context of a moral imperative to do what is necessary to maximize that person's personal life, health, safety, and well-being, to retain a firearm. I understand that this would conflict with Federal Statute – although one might well argue that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution trumps Federal Statute and that, if such a total gun ban is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, then such statute amounts to an illegal law, if enacted, and may properly, be lawfully ignored. Secondly, a morally right act under ethical egoism or, more generally, under broader deontological ethical theory, is one that serves the citizen's best interests without harming others. Since keeping a gun for self-defense and, as well, to enhance one's personal autonomy, satisfies the moral imperative, it follows that retaining a firearm is morally right. Such act maximizes one's personal well-being. So I do not see any legal barrier or moral prohibition to an American citizen acting contrary to such federal gun ban and such act would be consistent with any  deontological ethical  theory. Yes, I understand that such action could result in legal sanctions if the Government should become aware of a citizen’s flaunting of federal law. But, if millions of individuals were to do what was necessary to acquire or keep their firearms, the Government would face insurrection on a massive scale if it sought to take action against those millions of Americans. Would the Government try to clamp down on the population? Perhaps. If so, Americans would realize without doubt that their Country is no longer a free, Democratic Republic but, in fact, a Totalitarian State. Civil War would likely break out. The public would realize that its leaders have no claim to legitimacy and they would be overthrown. A new Government would be created – one respecting the Bill of Rights, as the Founders of our Republic intended.’BCE: ‘So, we are indeed at an impasse. While the U.S. Constitution is important, I, for my part, am quite ready to give up many of the stated principles of the Constitution if it serves to bring our Nation into a new Age, consistent with the 21^st Century and consistent with the aims of the European community. You are aware and can appreciate, I think, that the world is a global community now, governed by economics encapsulated under the principles of neoliberalism. Guns have no place in the new world order. The United States may also have to give up some of its sovereignty for the benefit of the whole -- of the greater international society and that will undoubtedly require a substantial modification of the United States Constitution and, particularly, modification of a critical part of it, the Bill of Rights. You do understand this is for the best, don’t you?’ The very concept of a Nation State is rather old. It is well that we do away with it. We are already moving toward a North American Union,  predicated on neo-Socialist principles, similar to the EU.’ SAS: ‘Well, the truth comes out of an antigun proponent. I do, in fact, understand you. And, I understand what is taking place in the world, in the Northern Hemisphere, and in our Country in particular. But, you, I’m afraid, don’t really understand me. There is a battle underway for the hearts and minds of Americans. You have bought into the propaganda that floods the airwaves and is omnipresent in the mainstream news media. We shall see how this plays out. By the way, you may keep the newspaper. I’ve done with The New York Times!’ {With that the two men get up from the table, shake hands amicably and go their very separate ways}.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and All Rights Reserved.