Specter of Reason

In my last post on the topic , I presented a radical position on gun control: We should get rid of all the guns.  The term "gun" is broad enough to make my position open to absurd readings.  Staple guns, for example, should obviously not be outlawed.  But we should, on my view, at the very least, aim to remove all handguns and assault rifles from the world.  While that is the most justifiable long-term goal I can see, it is not a practical short-term goal.  I think it's therefore important to explain my views on some of the more justifiable uses of guns--guns of the self-defensive variety, of course. There's a good argument to be made for an armed forces.  Governments, by definition, have a monopoly on certain forms of violence.  I can see a lot of justification for keeping guns in the hands of the state, but not in the hands of private citizens.  Sure, this means the people will not have the firepower required to resist state tyranny, but handg...

One of Sam Harris' New Years' resolutions may have been to make a contribution to the debate over stricter gun laws.  That would explain his January 2nd blog entry, " The Riddle Of The Gun ," though its merits as a substantive contribution to the public discourse are questionable.  I will briefly address the lack of any such merits, but first I want to comment on some of the reactions to Harris. Though Harris' comments on gun control have provoked some debate in various quarters, the debate does not appear to have anything to do with any unique arguments or insights Harris has offered.  It has more to do with Sam Harris himself and, sometimes, how one should respond to his so-called "contributions."  Russell Blackford has been particularly keen on focusing on the latter point .  The last of those links takes you to Russell's most recent post, in which he criticizes Ian Murphy's rather harsh criticism of Harris, which Russell says is too ins...

A recent article in The New York Times by Professor Richard A. Friedman, M.D., entitled, " In Gun Debate, A Misguided Focus on Mental Illness ," is a bit of a hot item.  I want to agree with Friedman.  I support the fight for gun control.  (If the Second Ammendment really means that all citizens have the right to privately own guns--and I don't think it does--then I think the Second Ammendment needs to be ammended.)  But Friedman's piece is a terribly flawed, confused and misleading piece of work.  Just from the point of view of argumentative integrity, it's bad. Part of the problem is that I can't even be sure about Friedman's point of view.  I want to be charitable, and suppose that his main point is something like this:  Americans shouldn't let the discourse on mental illness distract us from the need for stricter gun control laws.  If that is his main point, then I completely agree.  Amen and all that. I'll assume that was his m...

I caught Skyfall last weekend and posted this mini-review on my Facebook wall: In some ways, it's excellent. Javier Bardem is unsurprisingly phenomenal. The music is very good, sometimes excellent. In other ways, it's predictably silly (the dialogue and action sequences are often well-crafted, but sometimes ridiculous). The plot is very sophisticated and convincing, and it works as an exploration of Bond himself, even though there are some pretty big holes. Nothing devastating, though. What bothers me, surprisingly, is Bond's relationship with women. Bond has always been promiscuous, but in this one he seems capable of very sincere and passionate intimacy, but without any emotional attachment at all. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I was seriously offended by the way the film depicted his relationship with women. Again, I know he's always slept around, but was it always this bad? (Maybe you need to see the film to answer that question.) Anyway, that point aside, ...