{AynRandinIndia:362} Re: With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Poonam Kapoor Vasudeva
unread,
Jan 18, 2013, 8:49:40 AM1/18/13
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Ayn Rand In India
I hope this gets to the main page.
Thanks Aditya for mentioning that you agree with me.
I don't know where my last message is. Anyhow - the danger as I said of intellectualising such a serious grim situation on the ground cannot be repeated enough.
If once it has been proved time and again that unobstructed access
to guns and assault weapons - I've seen the pictures showing those ugly
assault weapons - if once and many many times it has been proved
against every shred and sinew doubt that the gun culture prevalent in
USA is lethal and life threatening of not one but entire groups of
innocent people - then why should anyone argue in favour of private
ownership of guns ? Why does this at all come under the purview of
Individual Freedoms - Rights of Man - Ayn Rand - ARI - and highly
educated men like Binswanger writing tomes of strangely enunciated logic
and reason to support his point of view beneath the lofty umbrella of
ARI???
If Ayn Rand did support this so called freedom to own a gun - even
the atom bomb - at any time in her life - well then - she would NOT
have after hearing of the heinous crime of 20 babies being killed by a
17 year old lunatic who had also butchered his mother and then also his
teachers - why would she have NOT declared this to be the ultimate evil
act by any individual on earth - why would she have NOT condemned it in
the face of such a river of blood and where the parents of those babies
were not shown the bodies of those babies so horrific was the sight -
why would she NOT have allowed her own Voice of Reason to tell her to
support a gun control legislation - and freedom and rights of man and
other such be damned?
She would have.
Above all - above all considerations of
this intellectual thought and that intellectual thought - she was a
woman who deeply understood the value of human life and glorified the
value of human life - and if that human life is in danger then she would
not advocate to support any law that puts that life in danger of
unexpected sudden death at the hands of an insane gun toting individual
and therefore individual rights be damned in the face of such a danger
of such a magnitude.
I have read all her fiction and non-fiction books too many times -
I have not read her journals - not as yet - and I am absolutely
certain of what I say.