Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 466121 times)

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #550 on: March 18, 2016, 08:00:29 PM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

My wife's mother is a former police officer in a major city. There were at least 2 occasions when she was off-duty with her kids in the car and, without going into specifics, her showing her pistol to someone caused them to stop what they were doing and walk away in a hurry.

I don't want to think about what might have happened had she been unarmed.

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less! 

See, the thing about that statistic is that it's not random chance like the lottery. You can choose to lock your firearm up away from children, you can choose not to kill your family, etc.

Also, yeah of course having a gun in the home increases the chances that someone will get shot. Having a car in the garage increases the chances that you'll get in a car accident. Having a 6 ft. rope increases the odds you'll hang yourself.
Yes and most think they are among the "good" group.  Like if you ask people if they are a good, middle or poor most say they are a good driver. 
My brother has guns and I think nothing of having my daughter at his house because he is a responsible gun owner.  My daughter can't get the guns, they are in a safe.  And even if she could, the bullets are in their own mini-safe.  Compare that to my ILs who think by putting their guns on the shelf in the closest, they are being responsible because he assumed the kids could not get it.  My daughter (and their son) could easily reach them.  I'm not trusting personal judgement, that is why I think we need safety courses, requirements on that safety etc.  People are stupid, we know this.  Why not account for it?

I think there is a law here (I will have to check) that states you must inform parents that you own firearms if the child will be in your home without them.  Something to that extent anyway, which seems reasonable to me.

Even if it isn't law, I make sure parents who leave their child in our care are aware we have firearms in the home.  When there are kids around, the handgun gets locked up and the rifles get put at the top of the closet (about 6'5" high, and these are toddlers).  All unloaded as well.  We don't watch very many kids so it's a rare instance but I realize guns are a delicate subject so I want to make sure parents are informed and at that point, they can decide if they trust me or not.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #551 on: March 18, 2016, 08:05:45 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

He said he thinks there would be riots but he wouldn't instigate them.  Still, he's a moron loudmouth so I'm not surprised he said it.  He could have easily said there would be protests but again, he's a moron.

Quote
The candidate selection process is a Republican thing, correct?

Democrats have a similar selection process.  Not sure if that's what you mean.

Quote
Do you think pro-Trump supporters will take their firearms and riot in the streets?
I hope they protest peacefully but there might be sporadic violence.  Anyone who takes their firearm to the streets should be shot.

Quote
I could see how angry Trump supporters might view this as an action of a tyrannical government.

That would be misplaced anger as it would be the GOP that's really screwing Trump.  They should view it as a major malfunction of the GOP and probably a fast pass for Hillary to POTUS.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #552 on: March 19, 2016, 07:52:41 AM »
Quote
No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing. 
yeah, the black bloc are definitely on the leftist side.   I was thinking more of the ranchers in Oregon last winter.   You're correct, that wasn't a riot, they just took over a government building, didn't they?

My impression is that there's a large swath of the population that's fed up with the American political class.    We have Clinton's apparent corruption.    Sanders social proposals which sound promising but appear fiscally in-feasible.   Republicans who seem more interested in banning abortion than improving the economy, especially for the folks who used to work in sectors of the economy that have been off-shored.    The general dysfunction you guys experienced between the Democratic president and the Republican congress and senate.   And so on.    BTW, I'm not trying to quote people verbatim, just to explain my impression.   

I was curious what the right would do if they don't have an acceptable candidate.   What do you mean by precision impeachment?    Can you do this to a party nominee?     I should probably move this to another thread...

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #553 on: March 19, 2016, 10:30:46 AM »
Quote
No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing. 


My impression is that there's a large swath of the population that's fed up with the American political class.    We have Clinton's apparent corruption.    Sanders social proposals which sound promising but appear fiscally in-feasible.   Republicans who seem more interested in banning abortion than improving the economy, especially for the folks who used to work in sectors of the economy that have been off-shored.    The general dysfunction you guys experienced between the Democratic president and the Republican congress and senate.   And so on.    BTW, I'm not trying to quote people verbatim, just to explain my impression.   

I was curious what the right would do if they don't have an acceptable candidate.   What do you mean by precision impeachment?    Can you do this to a party nominee?     I should probably move this to another thread...

The Republicans are known as 'The Stupid Party'. This election season proves it. Best chance they have ever had to win an election, and they can't come up with better than that lame lot? Of course, the Dems are 'The Evil Party', as perfectly exemplified by Hill. Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.

I agree with the post above, the Right in the US is basically non-violent, barely even a cohesive group. They do throw out the occasional loner nut-case, but not large mobs of them like the left does at the drop of a hat. Trump, however, is a populist, not a conservative. His crowds could run wild, if he were to lead them to it. I doubt any Republican could do that other than Trump.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #554 on: March 19, 2016, 02:23:22 PM »
Quote
No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing. 
yeah, the black bloc are definitely on the leftist side.   I was thinking more of the ranchers in Oregon last winter.   You're correct, that wasn't a riot, they just took over a government building, didn't they?

My impression is that there's a large swath of the population that's fed up with the American political class.    We have Clinton's apparent corruption.    Sanders social proposals which sound promising but appear fiscally in-feasible.   Republicans who seem more interested in banning abortion than improving the economy, especially for the folks who used to work in sectors of the economy that have been off-shored.    The general dysfunction you guys experienced between the Democratic president and the Republican congress and senate.   And so on.    BTW, I'm not trying to quote people verbatim, just to explain my impression.   

I think you have a very good impression of what has really been going on.  A lot of Bernie's support isn't because his supporters actually think his plans will actually work, but that he actually believes what he is saying.  He may be a crazy old man, but he is an honest one, and that has made all the difference.
Quote
I was curious what the right would do if they don't have an acceptable candidate.   What do you mean by precision impeachment?   


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #555 on: March 19, 2016, 02:25:27 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #556 on: March 19, 2016, 08:23:26 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #557 on: March 19, 2016, 09:03:33 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #558 on: March 19, 2016, 09:19:02 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.
On the 5001st attempt, maybe.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #559 on: March 20, 2016, 04:25:53 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #560 on: March 20, 2016, 04:46:02 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #561 on: March 20, 2016, 06:49:17 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

Not with my 500,000 in the basement, not to mention the landmines, flame throwers and tanks I have waiting. You just can't go overboard when it comes to protecting your castle.

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #562 on: March 20, 2016, 07:13:40 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

Not with my 500,000 in the basement, not to mention the landmines, flame throwers and tanks I have waiting. You just can't go overboard when it comes to protecting your castle.

That won't be able to stop my horde of zombie Bernie protesters.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #563 on: March 20, 2016, 07:32:55 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

Not with my 500,000 in the basement, not to mention the landmines, flame throwers and tanks I have waiting. You just can't go overboard when it comes to protecting your castle.

You know, that's exactly what I told my wife, when I had the moat dug.

powskier

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #564 on: March 30, 2016, 01:13:31 AM »
Quote from: spartana
[/quote
Yes we are generally being over cautious. It's not a problem here generally but for me, a woman hiking alone often, it gives me a greater sense of comfort even if probably never needed. I will add that there are some places like Alaska where most people DO carry loaded firearms (handguns or rifles) when out in the wilderness (it's legal to do that there unlike in many other states) because of bears but even there it isn't too much of a problem (I lived there for 4 years).
i have lived in Alaska for 22 years and travelled all over this state, It looks to me like maybe 30% of folks carry in the wilderness( excluding hunting). I only carry a rifle if I am hunting. I know 4 people who were mauled by bears and 3 of whom were armed at the time, and 1 person who was charged and killed a grizzly with 2 shots about 10 ft from her, she missed the first one. 3 of these were in wilderness areas and 2 not.  I know to different folks who averted stalking and charging behavior with bear spray. I have had well over 50 bear encounters included me surprising a black  bear and making the instinct to charge her....it worked. I have accidentley split up 1 cub and a grizz and was able to make the right moves to avert a bad situation. Staying calm is key. Bears do not want anything to do with people any more than we want to deal with them, except in really rare cases.

 I have also had 3 guns pulled on me in the wilderness because of paranoid idiots who are so focused on their gun they forget their environment and were "surprised to see me".

I do not have any problem with responsible gun owners and no matter how you slice it if you need the cops NOW, it is usually too late.
That said American gun values are currently dictated by a sales lobby and personally I would like to see a little more focus on the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. ( sorry for the can of worms, I probably won't reply :) )

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #565 on: March 30, 2016, 12:26:44 PM »

That said American gun values are currently dictated by a sales lobby and personally I would like to see a little more focus on the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. ( sorry for the can of worms, I probably won't reply :) )

Me too, but that phrase likely doesn't mean what you think it means.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #566 on: March 30, 2016, 07:56:40 PM »
As long as people have the choice, I think all will be well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #567 on: April 04, 2016, 08:17:09 AM »
Wow, where to start with this thread?

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Conveniently, the Founding Fathers of the United States recognized and acknowledged this. They had a first hand view of how difficult it could be to practice self determination when the government maintained a near-monopoly on firearms.

As a result, they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights. The existence of the 2A does not CREATE the right to keep and bear arms. That right is an inherent human right as outlined above. The 2A and the rest of the BOR was imperfectly written by imperfect people in an attempt to "enshrine" certain principles. However, I tend to agree with some of our Founders that simply writing the BOR was a dangerous and short-sighted move. Take for example the words of Hamilton in Federalist no. 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Yes, Hamilton and others argued AGAINST even having a BOR. The anti-BOR folks argued that no BOR is needed because the government has NO POWER to restrict the rights of the people, unless explicitly laid out in the Constitution. From elsewhere in Federalist no. 84:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

The people retain everything. So by writing the BOR and the 2A, Hamilton worried that they were creating a "colorable pretext" to restrict or deny the very rights the BOR was supposed to protect. However, the pro-BOR people were more numerous and won out in the end. They argued that future Americans would not be so stupid as to argue to take away their own rights, and the BOR provided protection that made it worth the risk.

However, the Gun Control Advocates in this thread and the world at large are proving Hamilton to be correct. You argue over the wording of the 2A. You argue over what "arms" entails and so on. You are in fact turning the BOR into a "colorable pretext" to RESTRICT the right to keep and bear arms. All the while pretending not to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right regardless of the existence of the Constitution, BOR, or opinion of the Supreme Court and so on.


On a more personal side, I see people in this thread that simply cannot see the need or reason to carry a gun. You see carrying a gun as something exceptional. "Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? What are you scared of? What do you think is going to happen? Why do you carry a gun to _____ place?" And then you never seem to be satisfied with the answer. The problem is that you see the gun as something exceptional.

When I wake up and get ready to leave the house, I put on underwear, pants, a shirt, a belt. I brush my teeth. I put on socks and shoes. I make sure I have my keys, wallet, and phone. I put on my holster, with a gun in it. I leave the house.

I do not agonize over or debate over or justify the "need" to wear my gun to a particular place or time any more than I do in regards to my shoes or belt. I simply do it. It effects nothing and no-one. When I get back home and settle in, the holster comes back off just like the shoes. So if someone asked me why I felt a need to wear a belt when I went to the library, I would not really know how to answer them. I would just think they were kind of weird and needed to mind their own bees wax. Same with the gun.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #568 on: April 04, 2016, 08:38:43 AM »

That said American gun values are currently dictated by a sales lobby and personally I would like to see a little more focus on the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. ( sorry for the can of worms, I probably won't reply :) )

Me too, but that phrase likely doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yes, that poster is misinterpreting the "well regulated" part.

Just like many of the Founders worried, people are using the wording of the 2A to push for restricting the very right it is supposed to protect. It is sad. The problem with America is that the people who founded it gave too much credit to future generations. They assumed that people 200+ years down the road would be at least as intelligent and concerned about liberty as they were. They didn't think to say in the Constitution "Congress shall not force people to purchase products and services (i.e. Health Insurance)" because they could not imagine people in the future would argue for such a thing without being laughed out of the room.

They left plenty of room for Government to grow and change as society and technology grew and changed. They did however fail to predict how ignorant, disingenuous, and apathetic towards liberty future Americans would become. It is really quite sad. The Constitution gave us the framework to build a society as close to perfect as humans could create. But most Americans today are too obtuse and/or concerned with twisting truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors to execute that form of government responsibly.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #569 on: April 04, 2016, 09:04:46 AM »
the Founders...did however fail to predict how ignorant, disingenuous, and apathetic towards liberty future Americans would become. It is really quite sad. The Constitution gave us the framework to build a society as close to perfect as humans could create. But most Americans today are too obtuse and/or concerned with twisting truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors to execute that form of government responsibly.

I know this statement was meant as a condemnation towards those Americans who actually dare to believe that the founders might be horrified at the present state of deadly gun proliferation in the United States, but it can be equally used to describe those Americans who are so obtuse that they can't step outside the door without strapping on a gun as a security blanket and twist the truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #570 on: April 04, 2016, 09:23:22 AM »
the Founders...did however fail to predict how ignorant, disingenuous, and apathetic towards liberty future Americans would become. It is really quite sad. The Constitution gave us the framework to build a society as close to perfect as humans could create. But most Americans today are too obtuse and/or concerned with twisting truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors to execute that form of government responsibly.

I know this statement was meant as a condemnation towards those Americans who actually dare to believe that the founders might be horrified at the present state of deadly gun proliferation in the United States, but it can be equally used to describe those Americans who are so obtuse that they can't step outside the door without strapping on a gun as a security blanket and twist the truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors.

First of all, there was more "gun proliferation" in their day than ours. Most families had at least one firearms in colonial America, especially in rural areas.

Second, even if we take your statement as fact. Our Founders were much more concerned with liberty than with security or safety. The tree of Liberty should be watered with the blood of Tyrants every Generation. Give me Liberty or give me Death. Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. On, and on, and on. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine, etc etc. I can quote these things to you all day long. The point is, they saw regular violence as an acceptable cost to pay for liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms is a corner stone to their idea of liberty. These were people who staged a violent rebellion over small taxes and restrictions that we would not bat an eye at. They murdered tax collectors (who were really just doing their job).  So you are extra wrong.

Third of all, me wearing a gun doesn't shove anything down your throat. The same way you choosing not to doesn't shove anything down mine. I respect your choice not to carry a gun. I would ask you to respect mine.

I really don't get it. I have the right to keep and bear arms. The law in my state correctly acknowledges that. This is as it should be. Lets say you live in my state. Lets also say you vote/donate/protest/whatever to change the law so that I would be punished for utilizing my right. You would be doing something wrong. It is wrong to try to criminalize the basic rights of your fellows. It would be the wrong thing to do.

Do you not see that? Trying to punish people for exercising their human rights is a bad thing. This is basic stuff.

If I were to come around and try to get a law passed that made it illegal to write bad things about gun owners on the internet, that would also be bad. I wouldn't do it because I am en ethical person and I respect the rights of others. Our Founders assumed all people in 2016 would be like this. They were wrong and you are living proof.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 09:26:43 AM by winkeyman »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #571 on: April 04, 2016, 09:31:50 AM »
First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #572 on: April 04, 2016, 09:53:52 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #573 on: April 04, 2016, 10:05:12 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #574 on: April 04, 2016, 10:22:02 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #575 on: April 04, 2016, 11:11:00 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #576 on: April 04, 2016, 11:57:58 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

GuitarStv:

I don't know that you are following me. I see that you are Canadian, so we might not be on exactly the same page. You say that "natural rights arguments don't hold up to scrutiny."

I was not advancing an argument for natural rights. The statements I made about the inherent human rights people have by nature of being people are not arguments. They are truisms. They simply are. How do we know this to be true? Well, technically we don't. However, the United States was founded upon the idea that these natural rights exist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-Declaration of Independence

So as you can see, I am not making an argument for natural rights. I don't need to. American government and society exist conditionally upon the existence of natural rights. If you dismiss natural rights, American society loses any legitimacy and these conversations are effectively meaningless.

And yes, you are setting up straw men. This thread and my comments have to do with keeping firearms in the home and carrying one for self defense. You are talking about nuclear weapons, embargos, land mines, ad absurdum.

Let's try this a different way.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I keep and a Glock 19 and bear it on a regular basis. It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so. Do you have some rational argument against these particular facts?

If you do not accept these basic things to be true, I have no interest in debating the innumerable complexities of the legal and ethical issues that may arise as a result of the Glock 19 I carry. I will reserve the time and effort those require for gun boards where people have a genuine interest in those conversations are don't try to use them to push a gun control agenda.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 12:00:21 PM by winkeyman »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #577 on: April 04, 2016, 12:13:08 PM »
My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

Wow... that's a whole field of strawmen...  Didn't know they grew that high 'round these parts. :D  I won't even bother knocking them down one at a time because they're not relevant to the discussion at all. North Korea having nukes is both a red herring and a straw man and a discussion in international politics; non of which are pertinent to the thread, at all. Raping babies (what kind of person even thinks of that?) is another off topic discussion - no one is arguing for that right.  Logical fallacies like these is why it's so hard to have a productive debate - people with an irrational fear of guns get so twisted around the small numbers and impossibly unlikely scenarios they disregard reason and statistics and everything else to get the scary guns away.

If one agrees that a person has a general right to defend themselves when attacked, as you implied by the 'drawing the line' obfuscation, then it would be illogical to deny that right for the most general circumstances. I.e., if a person has a general right to self-defense, it is irrational to deny that right in general (when out in public going about their normal business).

If you disagree, and believe that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from outside attacks, under any circumstances, then I could understand your aversion to average people having weapons of any sort. Again, no one is advocating for landmines or nuclear backpack weapons or mustard gas or helicopter gunships or flamethrowers or any of the strawmen you are setting up. If you wish for honest debate, then you need to distance yourself from hyperbole and outrage.  If you are actually concerned about gun violence or the average citizen of the USA being involved in it, even cursory research will tell you that it is a very low probability event (and dropping by the year) and that the cause of the few incidences that do occur is not the right of average citizens to carry weapons for personal protection, and therefore not an optimum use of effort.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 12:18:15 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #578 on: April 04, 2016, 12:20:35 PM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

GuitarStv:

I don't know that you are following me. I see that you are Canadian, so we might not be on exactly the same page. You say that "natural rights arguments don't hold up to scrutiny."

I was not advancing an argument for natural rights. The statements I made about the inherent human rights people have by nature of being people are not arguments. They are truisms. They simply are. How do we know this to be true? Well, technically we don't. However, the United States was founded upon the idea that these natural rights exist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-Declaration of Independence

So as you can see, I am not making an argument for natural rights. I don't need to. American government and society exist conditionally upon the existence of natural rights. If you dismiss natural rights, American society loses any legitimacy and these conversations are effectively meaningless.

And yes, you are setting up straw men. This thread and my comments have to do with keeping firearms in the home and carrying one for self defense. You are talking about nuclear weapons, embargos, land mines, ad absurdum.

Let's try this a different way.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I keep and a Glock 19 and bear it on a regular basis. It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so. Do you have some rational argument against these particular facts?

If you do not accept these basic things to be true, I have no interest in debating the innumerable complexities of the legal and ethical issues that may arise as a result of the Glock 19 I carry. I will reserve the time and effort those require for gun boards where people have a genuine interest in those conversations are don't try to use them to push a gun control agenda.


You advanced an argument based entirely on the acceptance of 'natural rights'.  I just pointed out that it's not reasonable to expect someone to accept that as an argument.  At it's heart, your reasoning is badly flawed.

 'Natural rights' are not a truism.  That's what I was demonstrating.  I even demonstrated specific cases where Americans voluntarily restrict their natural rights in order to reap the great benefits that come from being in a society (like agreeing to limits on certain weapons, agreeing to a police force to provide order, etc.).  Since natural rights are not a truism, and some weapons are already restricted in the US, the logical question to ask in this thread is 'Should gun rights be restricted?'.


Quote
I have the right to keep and bear arms.

Nope.

You have the right to keep and bear some types of handguns, shotguns, and rifles depending on the regulations of your state.  You don't have the right to nuclear arms, biological arms, hell . . . in some states you're not even allowed to carry a switchblade or bowie knife.

The right to bear arms is not universal.  It is heavily restricted.


Quote
It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so.

'Morally acceptable' is a debatable claim (and probably one of the fundamental issues being discussed in this thread).  You are half right though, it's currently legal to own (and I presume in the state you live) carry your handgun around.

That right is subject to future modification though.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #579 on: April 04, 2016, 12:22:51 PM »
My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

Wow... that's a whole field of strawmen...  Didn't know they grew that high 'round these parts. :D  I won't even bother knocking them down one at a time because they're not relevant to the discussion at all. North Korea having nukes is both a red herring and a straw man and a discussion in international politics; non of which are pertinent to the thread, at all. Raping babies (what kind of person even thinks of that?) is another off topic discussion - no one is arguing for that right.  Logical fallacies like these is why it's so hard to have a productive debate - people with an irrational fear of guns get so twisted around the small numbers and impossibly unlikely scenarios they disregard reason and statistics and everything else to get the scary guns away.

If one agrees that a person has a general right to defend themselves when attacked, as you implied by the 'drawing the line' obfuscation, then it would be illogical to deny that right for the most general circumstances. I.e., if a person has a general right to self-defense, it is irrational to deny that right in general (when out in public going about their normal business).

If you disagree, and believe that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from outside attacks, under any circumstances, then I could understand your aversion to average people having weapons of any sort. Again, no one is advocating for landmines or nuclear backpack weapons or mustard gas or helicopter gunships or flamethrowers or any of the strawmen you are setting up. If you wish for honest debate, then you need to distance yourself from hyperbole and outrage.  If you are actually concerned about gun violence or the average citizen of the USA being involved in it, even cursory research will tell you that it is a very low probability event (and dropping by the year) and that the cause of the few incidences that do occur is not the right of average citizens to carry weapons for personal protection.

I am on board with you here MetricMouse. However, when I pointed out that GuitarSTV was using a text book straw man, while quoting the definition of a straw man, GuitarSTV responded by saying "I am not using a straw man." And that was, apparently, the end of that. So I wouldn't expect too much here.

"I am not using a Straw Man! I am simply replacing your proposition with a different proposition that I made up and pointing out the problems with the proposition that I made up!"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #580 on: April 04, 2016, 12:38:59 PM »
My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

Wow... that's a whole field of strawmen...  Didn't know they grew that high 'round these parts. :D  I won't even bother knocking them down one at a time because they're not relevant to the discussion at all. North Korea having nukes is both a red herring and a straw man and a discussion in international politics; non of which are pertinent to the thread, at all. Raping babies (what kind of person even thinks of that?) is another off topic discussion - no one is arguing for that right.  Logical fallacies like these is why it's so hard to have a productive debate - people with an irrational fear of guns get so twisted around the small numbers and impossibly unlikely scenarios they disregard reason and statistics and everything else to get the scary guns away.

You seem to have misunderstood the topic of conversation.  I was rebutting the claim that 'natural rights' must be accepted as a truism.  I used extreme examples to show the silliness of this claim.  Certainly, winkeyman did not at any point indicate that he wanted North Korea to have nuclear weapons.  That's because he doesn't believe in the 'natural right' of North Koreans to be able to protect their country.  He doesn't believe in the 'natural right' of a home invader to defend himself from the rightful owner of the home.

I was hoping to demonstrate the silliness of the 'natural rights' argument by taking it to it's logical extreme.



If one agrees that a person has a general right to defend themselves when attacked, as you implied by the 'drawing the line' obfuscation, then it would be illogical to deny that right for the most general circumstances. I.e., if a person has a general right to self-defense, it is irrational to deny that right in general (when out in public going about their normal business).

All regulations and laws exist (or should exist) to provide for the greater common good.

While I (often) believe in the right to self defense, I also believe in use of reasonable force.  Opening fire in a crowded mall because someone snatched your purse for example, would not be acceptable.  It doesn't provide for the common good if several bystanders are shot and killed to save a purse.



If you disagree, and believe that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from outside attacks, under any circumstances, then I could understand your aversion to average people having weapons of any sort.

See, it's not a binary thing like you're trying to force the question into.  Generally, yeah you have the right to defend yourself.  But I've already pointed out multiple cases where this doesn't really hold.


Again, no one is advocating for landmines or nuclear backpack weapons or mustard gas or helicopter gunships or flamethrowers or any of the strawmen you are setting up.

I didn't claim that anyone was advocating for those things.



If you wish for honest debate, then you need to distance yourself from hyperbole and outrage.

I rebutted a claim made about 'natural rights'.  You seem to have interpreted that rebuttal as outrage.  Please rest assured that there was no outrage.  By taking the claim to logical extremes, it can be shown to be a fallacy.  That's what I did.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #581 on: April 04, 2016, 12:43:44 PM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

GuitarStv:

I don't know that you are following me. I see that you are Canadian, so we might not be on exactly the same page. You say that "natural rights arguments don't hold up to scrutiny."

I was not advancing an argument for natural rights. The statements I made about the inherent human rights people have by nature of being people are not arguments. They are truisms. They simply are. How do we know this to be true? Well, technically we don't. However, the United States was founded upon the idea that these natural rights exist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-Declaration of Independence

So as you can see, I am not making an argument for natural rights. I don't need to. American government and society exist conditionally upon the existence of natural rights. If you dismiss natural rights, American society loses any legitimacy and these conversations are effectively meaningless.

And yes, you are setting up straw men. This thread and my comments have to do with keeping firearms in the home and carrying one for self defense. You are talking about nuclear weapons, embargos, land mines, ad absurdum.

Let's try this a different way.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I keep and a Glock 19 and bear it on a regular basis. It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so. Do you have some rational argument against these particular facts?

If you do not accept these basic things to be true, I have no interest in debating the innumerable complexities of the legal and ethical issues that may arise as a result of the Glock 19 I carry. I will reserve the time and effort those require for gun boards where people have a genuine interest in those conversations are don't try to use them to push a gun control agenda.


You advanced an argument based entirely on the acceptance of 'natural rights'.  I just pointed out that it's not reasonable to expect someone to accept that as an argument.  At it's heart, your reasoning is badly flawed.

 'Natural rights' are not a truism.  That's what I was demonstrating.  I even demonstrated specific cases where Americans voluntarily restrict their natural rights in order to reap the great benefits that come from being in a society (like agreeing to limits on certain weapons, agreeing to a police force to provide order, etc.).  Since natural rights are not a truism, and some weapons are already restricted in the US, the logical question to ask in this thread is 'Should gun rights be restricted?'.


Quote
I have the right to keep and bear arms.

Nope.

You have the right to keep and bear some types of handguns, shotguns, and rifles depending on the regulations of your state.  You don't have the right to nuclear arms, biological arms, hell . . . in some states you're not even allowed to carry a switchblade or bowie knife.

The right to bear arms is not universal.  It is heavily restricted.


Quote
It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so.

'Morally acceptable' is a debatable claim (and probably one of the fundamental issues being discussed in this thread).  You are half right though, it's currently legal to own (and I presume in the state you live) carry your handgun around.

That right is subject to future modification though.

You say that I cannot just expect people to accept natural rights. Did you not read the whole part where I described why I can, indeed, expect people to accept natural rights? American society is predicated on "People are born with natural rights" being true. If it isn't, then we have no basis for a society. You are trying to have a conversation about how much something weighs while simultaneously calling into question the truth of gravity. It's absurd.

"That right is subject to future modification." No, it is not. Rights are not subject to modification, or they would not be rights.

And as long as all bets are off in regard to absurd use of comparisons and fallacies...

You have the right to practice whatever religion you want. Let's say you are a Mormon. So you have the right to be a Mormon. Now, your country passes a law saying that all Mormons need to report to the local Department of Motor vehicles and to be branded on the forehead with a 3x3 inch Canadian goose and submit to having their left thumbs amputated.

Using your own logic, there is nothing wrong with this as long as it was voted upon by the majority of non-Mormons in the country? Hell, you even still have the "right" to be a Mormon using your logic, it is just a "restricted" or "modified" one. Even better, any Mormon who did not submit to this new law would be in the wrong! Am I interpreting you correctly?

You see, without taking certain things for granted, society becomes absurd and useless.

Intelligent people form a government that functions something like this:

1. Create a basic framework for how government would work and leave the ongoing details to the democratic process.

2. Outline some lines in the sand that democracy cannot cross (we can call these Rights).

3. Carry on happily, hoping the democratic process does not cross any of the lines drawn.

4. If the democratic process gets to close to or crosses any of the lines, try to steer the democratic process back into safe territory.

5. If #4 doesn't work... well, that's why the right to keep and bear arms is so important!

A society structured any other way makes no sense. Why? Because without these things in place you either have an Autocracy of some sort or pure unbridled democracy. In either case, your life, liberty, and property are subject only to the kindness of those around you. And that is not how free people live. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #582 on: April 04, 2016, 12:47:17 PM »

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.


And I have already addressed this point on many occasions.  In short, there are many such instances, and the gun owner is expected to know when lethal force is reasonable or not.  But let us play your game again anyway...

Quote

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.


Already addressed.  An explosive device is a weapon that is indiscriminate, and the gun owner is responsible for the damage that he causes.  Therefore a landmine doesn't qualify as a personal arm by any stretch of the imagination, since it's impossible to  employ such a weapon with any degree of precision; which is a practical requirement with a firearm.

Quote

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.


See above.  This is Reductio ad Absurdum, since you are deliberately trying to reduce our argument of self-defense to the most absurd situation that you can think of, and not even for the first time.  It's offensive.

Quote

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).


Indeed it would.  And you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.  If you resist a lawful order, and point a gun at an officer who is exercising a warrant, he kills you in his own self-defense, not as a punishment for a crime that you have not been convicted of yet.

Quote
- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.


No, it's not reasonable to attack someone.  That assault & battery, at a minimum.  Also a crime.  This has no bearing on whether or not I can carry a firearm at my own will, since I'm not a criminal.

Strawman.

Quote


There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


This is a concern, but as you pointed out, it's highly situationally dependent.  How does that justify limiting my right to carry a firearm into a public place?  I didn't know I was going to be in that crowd when the bovine fecal matter made critical contact with the rotary cooling device.  As has also been pointed out to you on several occasions, every gun owner is personally liable for the results of every bullet that leaves his gun while it's in his own possession (and often when it leaves his gun when it's not in his possession, depending on the circumstances therein) and must make those assessments in the moment.  Again, this has no bearing upon my own right to carry a firearm into a public place; and the decision to use lethal force, whether in the presence of potential bystanders or not, is alone my legal responsibility to bear if I choose to fire at that moment.

Quote

Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

He was not arguing that there is no line.  He was arguing that you don't have the right to determine his line, and no one else does either.  In this regard, even the opinions of SCOTUS are strongly supported recommendations, which can change.  What he is talking about is eternal and unchanging, even if the 'line' is fuzzy and vague.  And it's rarely fuzzy in retrospect, that is what a jury is for. 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #583 on: April 04, 2016, 12:53:32 PM »
My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

Wow... that's a whole field of strawmen...  Didn't know they grew that high 'round these parts. :D  I won't even bother knocking them down one at a time because they're not relevant to the discussion at all. North Korea having nukes is both a red herring and a straw man and a discussion in international politics; non of which are pertinent to the thread, at all. Raping babies (what kind of person even thinks of that?) is another off topic discussion - no one is arguing for that right.  Logical fallacies like these is why it's so hard to have a productive debate - people with an irrational fear of guns get so twisted around the small numbers and impossibly unlikely scenarios they disregard reason and statistics and everything else to get the scary guns away.

You seem to have misunderstood the topic of conversation.  I was rebutting the claim that 'natural rights' must be accepted as a truism.  I used extreme examples to show the silliness of this claim.  Certainly, winkeyman did not at any point indicate that he wanted North Korea to have nuclear weapons.  That's because he doesn't believe in the 'natural right' of North Koreans to be able to protect their country.  He doesn't believe in the 'natural right' of a home invader to defend himself from the rightful owner of the home.

I was hoping to demonstrate the silliness of the 'natural rights' argument by taking it to it's logical extreme.



If one agrees that a person has a general right to defend themselves when attacked, as you implied by the 'drawing the line' obfuscation, then it would be illogical to deny that right for the most general circumstances. I.e., if a person has a general right to self-defense, it is irrational to deny that right in general (when out in public going about their normal business).

All regulations and laws exist (or should exist) to provide for the greater common good.

While I (often) believe in the right to self defense, I also believe in use of reasonable force.  Opening fire in a crowded mall because someone snatched your purse for example, would not be acceptable.  It doesn't provide for the common good if several bystanders are shot and killed to save a purse.



If you disagree, and believe that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from outside attacks, under any circumstances, then I could understand your aversion to average people having weapons of any sort.

See, it's not a binary thing like you're trying to force the question into.  Generally, yeah you have the right to defend yourself.  But I've already pointed out multiple cases where this doesn't really hold.


Again, no one is advocating for landmines or nuclear backpack weapons or mustard gas or helicopter gunships or flamethrowers or any of the strawmen you are setting up.

I didn't claim that anyone was advocating for those things.



If you wish for honest debate, then you need to distance yourself from hyperbole and outrage.

I rebutted a claim made about 'natural rights'.  You seem to have interpreted that rebuttal as outrage.  Please rest assured that there was no outrage.  By taking the claim to logical extremes, it can be shown to be a fallacy.  That's what I did.

You are really having trouble with this. I did not make a "claim." The United States (and to some extent Canada I assume) are predicated on the idea that natural rights exist. That is not a claim. That is a fact.

I am sorry, but debating with people like you can be very tiresome.

A: "The sky is blue."

B: "Ahh, but what is blue? And what is the sky? Blue is an arbitrary notion depending heavily on the experiences and first language of the individual. What some people call blue others would call cyan. Additionally, the sky itself is up for much debate. Does the 'sky' itself exist at all? It isn't a place nor a thing, and it is very hard to define. Since you cannot resolve these issues, your Sky is Blue argument falls on it's face. And just in case you have a rebuttal, remember! We can't be sure anything at all exists, so we don't know that anything really IS anything at all!"

A: "O...K..."

Seriously, if we can't take anything for granted, we can't ever discuss anything at all.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #584 on: April 04, 2016, 01:06:52 PM »
Maybe this will help display the absurdity of this "conversation."

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY right to own a firearm at all!

Is similar to:

A: I have the right to own property.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own SLAVES!?!?!
A: No...
Z Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY have the right to own property at all!

 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #585 on: April 04, 2016, 01:15:20 PM »
Quote from: winkeyman
First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor[sic], everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments).

This is demonstrably false.  Moonshadow can demonstrate:

Quote from: Moonshadow
you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.

You can easily lose your natural rights " to defend life, liberty, and property from attack" based on rules society decides.  (In the above example that Moonshadow gave, committing a crime negates your natural right.)  Therefore, natural rights do not trump what society determines is acceptable.


Quote from: Winkeyman
You are really having trouble with this. I did not make a "claim." The United States (and to some extent Canada I assume) are predicated on the idea that natural rights exist. That is not a claim. That is a fact.

As demonstrated above, natural rights exist only until society takes them away.  The existence of natural rights therefore does not therefore guarantee the legality of ownership of firearms.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #586 on: April 04, 2016, 01:18:41 PM »
Maybe this will help display the absurdity of this "conversation."

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY right to own a firearm at all!

Now this is a straw man argument.  The reason to bring other weapons into the conversation is that some weapons are controlled.  Firearms are weapons.

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree that limits on weapons are necessary!  We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited.

^ Is more what I've been saying.


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #587 on: April 04, 2016, 01:21:36 PM »
And you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

He was not arguing that there is no line.  He was arguing that you don't have the right to determine his line, and no one else does either.
[/quote]

Notice how you just earlier drew a line to determine the acceptability of defending yourself?  Obviously someone does get the right to determine the line.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #588 on: April 04, 2016, 01:25:55 PM »
Quote from: winkeyman
First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor[sic], everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments).

This is demonstrably false.  Moonshadow can demonstrate:

Quote from: Moonshadow
you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.

You can easily lose your natural rights " to defend life, liberty, and property from attack" based on rules society decides.  (In the above example that Moonshadow gave, committing a crime negates your natural right.)  Therefore, natural rights do not trump what society determines is acceptable.


Quote from: Winkeyman
You are really having trouble with this. I did not make a "claim." The United States (and to some extent Canada I assume) are predicated on the idea that natural rights exist. That is not a claim. That is a fact.

As demonstrated above, natural rights exist only until society takes them away.  The existence of natural rights therefore does not therefore guarantee the legality of ownership of firearms.

You are doing it again.

A: "People have the right to own firearms"
B: "So 3 year olds and convicted serial killers have the right to own guns?"
A "No"
B "Then you are wrong, people don't have the right to own firearms"

I didn't know I was writing a legal document, otherwise I would have been more careful with my language.

But yes, you are correct to an extent. I have the right to travel freely. But I don't have the right to travel freely in your house. I have the right to own a gun, but not to walk into a school and shoot people with it. I have the right to walk in a park, but not if I have a history of sexually assaulting children.

These things are obvious. I don't feel the need to clarify every statement I make as if I were speaking to an alien life form with no context with which to process my words. Maybe I should start?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #589 on: April 04, 2016, 01:32:09 PM »
It's important to be precise with language when discussing an issue as contentious as this one, where it's easy to have misunderstandings on either side.

The reason that I was harping on about your argument is that 'natural rights' are limited by society already.  They cannot be used as an argument for gun ownership, as society is allowed to (and often does) take them away.  'Natural rights' lose to what society decides every time.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #590 on: April 04, 2016, 01:36:09 PM »
Quote from: winkeyman
First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor[sic], everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments).

This is demonstrably false.  Moonshadow can demonstrate:

Quote from: Moonshadow
you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.

You can easily lose your natural rights " to defend life, liberty, and property from attack" based on rules society decides.  (In the above example that Moonshadow gave, committing a crime negates your natural right.)  Therefore, natural rights do not trump what society determines is acceptable.


Quote from: Winkeyman
You are really having trouble with this. I did not make a "claim." The United States (and to some extent Canada I assume) are predicated on the idea that natural rights exist. That is not a claim. That is a fact.

As demonstrated above, natural rights exist only until society takes them away.  The existence of natural rights therefore does not therefore guarantee the legality of ownership of firearms.

You are doing it again.

A: "People have the right to own firearms"
B: "So 3 year olds and convicted serial killers have the right to own guns?"
A "No"
B "Then you are wrong, people don't have the right to own firearms"

I didn't know I was writing a legal document, otherwise I would have been more careful with my language.

But yes, you are correct to an extent. I have the right to travel freely. But I don't have the right to travel freely in your house. I have the right to own a gun, but not to walk into a school and shoot people with it. I have the right to walk in a park, but not if I have a history of sexually assaulting children.

These things are obvious. I don't feel the need to clarify every statement I make as if I were speaking to an alien life form with no context with which to process my words. Maybe I should start?

Winkeyman, I think the point GuitarStv is making and that you seem to be missing is that your original comments seemed to imply that because something is a natural right, the exercise of that right is therefore unlimited. GuitarStv provided a number of examples where even you would agree there is a limit on what you call the natural right to self defense. Thus the real question is not whether or not a natural right exists, but what are reasonable limits of those rights. This is the point some of us disagree on and you simply pointing out that a natural right exists provides absolutely no justification for why your idea of reasonable limits is more reasonable than my idea of reasonable limits. Basically, when you or anyone resorts to the natural right argument, GuitarStv's response is 'so what'.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #591 on: April 04, 2016, 01:40:41 PM »
A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: Yes.

FTFY.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #592 on: April 04, 2016, 01:43:09 PM »
Maybe this will help display the absurdity of this "conversation."

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY right to own a firearm at all!

Now this is a straw man argument.  The reason to bring other weapons into the conversation is that some weapons are controlled.  Firearms are weapons.

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree that limits on weapons are necessary!  We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited.

^ Is more what I've been saying.

Yes, it is a straw man. No doubt about it. And it had the intended effect. It got you to state a position that actually makes some sense in the context of our society. Specifically the last statement of Z: "We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited."

Ok, lets do that. In the U.S. the first half or 3/4 of the 20th Century, the "line" so to speak was drawn in the wrong place. Many obviously incorrect laws existed that made it illegal for most people to practice their natural right to keep and bear arms. However, at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, we have made a lot of progress in fixing that.

-We got rid of the Assault Weapons Ban
-We liberalized concealed carry. Today, most Americans can obtain a concealed handgun license. Many don't even need a permit.
-We are expanding open carry. Many Americans can Open carry, and some don't need a permit.
-We are working on breaking down obviously wrong NFA restrictions.
-We are expanding the number of places carry is allowed.
-New guns are designed and marketed all the time and are purchased at record speeds.
-Many CHL holders don't need a background check when buying a gun.
-We passed a law preventing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
-We repealed many of the worst parts of the 1968 GCA
-We won some important court cases regarding the 2A
-We are fighting against the totally wrong "May issue" CHL license policies in some states and locales.

There are many more things I could mention. We have won a lot of battles, and we will win the battles we are currently fighting. Then, we will begin new battles to get rid of other obviously incorrect gun laws and policies and attitudes that still exist.

You might wonder why we are winning. It seems that the rest of the "civilized" world is going in the OTHER direction. The reason we are winning and will continue to win is because we are on the right side. I am correct about all the natural rights stuff. And everyone knows it. Even people who HATE guns and pretend ignorance know deep down that the United States us founded on the existence of natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. So the anti gun folks lack a legal or moral leg to stand on. That is why we have been able to knock over these laws one at a time and will continue to do so.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #593 on: April 04, 2016, 01:45:22 PM »
You seem to have misunderstood the topic of conversation.  I was rebutting the claim that 'natural rights' must be accepted as a truism.  I used extreme examples to show the silliness of this claim.  Certainly, winkeyman did not at any point indicate that he wanted North Korea to have nuclear weapons.  That's because he doesn't believe in the 'natural right' of North Koreans to be able to protect their country.  He doesn't believe in the 'natural right' of a home invader to defend himself from the rightful owner of the home.

I was hoping to demonstrate the silliness of the 'natural rights' argument by taking it to it's logical extreme.

But you aren't arguing the thing you that you say you are arguing. North Korea having a nuke is not for defense of the person. It's for defense of the country - a much different thing. And America is not invading them and arresting them for possessing a nuke. North Korea can make all the nukes it wants. It just won't be able to trade with other countries that don't want it to have nukes. The right of America to restrict its trade from NK is equal to NK's right to say "Screw you USA, we want a big bomb."  Which is exactly the right NK is exercising. Fantastic.

All regulations and laws exist (or should exist) to provide for the greater common good.
So obviously untrue that it could be its own thread of logical fallacies....

While I (often) believe in the right to self defense, I also believe in use of reasonable force.
  Excellent. Then you logically should have no problem with citizens possessing common weaponry to use to defend themselves. Wonderful. The laws of the United States would agree with you.

Opening fire in a crowded mall because someone snatched your purse for example, would not be acceptable.  It doesn't provide for the common good if several bystanders are shot and killed to save a purse.
  Excellent. The laws of the United States would agree with you. Thank goodness this is not a common occurrence or it may warrant discussion...


See, it's not a binary thing like you're trying to force the question into.  Generally, yeah you have the right to defend yourself.
Great. The vast majority of people would likely agree - this is probably why concealed carry is so popular, and so well respected in the United States. Of course that right is not unlimited; it is firmly limited, as is any other right, by the rights of others.  The greater good has nothing to do with this, and would indeed be a distraction from the issue.

If you wish for honest debate, then you need to distance yourself from hyperbole and outrage.

I rebutted a claim made about 'natural rights'.  You seem to have interpreted that rebuttal as outrage.  Please rest assured that there was no outrage.  By taking the claim to logical extremes, it can be shown to be a fallacy.  That's what I did.
[/quote] Not really. You set up straw men about trade embargos between the United States and North Korea, Murderers and people killing each other over purses and houses, and somehow tried to twist that into the story that people's right to defend themselves allowed them to rape babies and squat in temporarily vacated property... Not a very good argument for your point that rights have limits. (Which they do - the rights of other people.)
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #594 on: April 04, 2016, 01:48:26 PM »
Maybe this will help display the absurdity of this "conversation."

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY right to own a firearm at all!

Now this is a straw man argument.  The reason to bring other weapons into the conversation is that some weapons are controlled.  Firearms are weapons.

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree that limits on weapons are necessary!  We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited.

^ Is more what I've been saying.

Yes, it is a straw man. No doubt about it. And it had the intended effect. It got you to state a position that actually makes some sense in the context of our society. Specifically the last statement of Z: "We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited."

Ok, lets do that. In the U.S. the first half or 3/4 of the 20th Century, the "line" so to speak was drawn in the wrong place. Many obviously incorrect laws existed that made it illegal for most people to practice their natural right to keep and bear arms. However, at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, we have made a lot of progress in fixing that.

-We got rid of the Assault Weapons Ban
-We liberalized concealed carry. Today, most Americans can obtain a concealed handgun license. Many don't even need a permit.
-We are expanding open carry. Many Americans can Open carry, and some don't need a permit.
-We are working on breaking down obviously wrong NFA restrictions.
-We are expanding the number of places carry is allowed.
-New guns are designed and marketed all the time and are purchased at record speeds.
-Many CHL holders don't need a background check when buying a gun.
-We passed a law preventing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
-We repealed many of the worst parts of the 1968 GCA
-We won some important court cases regarding the 2A
-We are fighting against the totally wrong "May issue" CHL license policies in some states and locales.

There are many more things I could mention. We have won a lot of battles, and we will win the battles we are currently fighting. Then, we will begin new battles to get rid of other obviously incorrect gun laws and policies and attitudes that still exist.

You might wonder why we are winning. It seems that the rest of the "civilized" world is going in the OTHER direction. The reason we are winning and will continue to win is because we are on the right side. I am correct about all the natural rights stuff. And everyone knows it. Even people who HATE guns and pretend ignorance know deep down that the United States us founded on the existence of natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. So the anti gun folks lack a legal or moral leg to stand on. That is why we have been able to knock over these laws one at a time and will continue to do so.

Your entire justification seems to boil down to "It was wrong earlier in the 20th century but it is getting better now." That isn't much of a justification. For instance, why exactly do you believe that limiting ownership of assault rifles is an unreasonable limit? One might wonder why assault rifles are needed for self defense.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #595 on: April 04, 2016, 01:53:54 PM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #596 on: April 04, 2016, 01:57:02 PM »
Maybe this will help display the absurdity of this "conversation."

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY right to own a firearm at all!

Now this is a straw man argument.  The reason to bring other weapons into the conversation is that some weapons are controlled.  Firearms are weapons.

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree that limits on weapons are necessary!  We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited.

^ Is more what I've been saying.

Yes, it is a straw man. No doubt about it. And it had the intended effect. It got you to state a position that actually makes some sense in the context of our society. Specifically the last statement of Z: "We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited."

Ok, lets do that. In the U.S. the first half or 3/4 of the 20th Century, the "line" so to speak was drawn in the wrong place. Many obviously incorrect laws existed that made it illegal for most people to practice their natural right to keep and bear arms. However, at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, we have made a lot of progress in fixing that.

-We got rid of the Assault Weapons Ban
-We liberalized concealed carry. Today, most Americans can obtain a concealed handgun license. Many don't even need a permit.
-We are expanding open carry. Many Americans can Open carry, and some don't need a permit.
-We are working on breaking down obviously wrong NFA restrictions.
-We are expanding the number of places carry is allowed.
-New guns are designed and marketed all the time and are purchased at record speeds.
-Many CHL holders don't need a background check when buying a gun.
-We passed a law preventing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
-We repealed many of the worst parts of the 1968 GCA
-We won some important court cases regarding the 2A
-We are fighting against the totally wrong "May issue" CHL license policies in some states and locales.

There are many more things I could mention. We have won a lot of battles, and we will win the battles we are currently fighting. Then, we will begin new battles to get rid of other obviously incorrect gun laws and policies and attitudes that still exist.

You might wonder why we are winning. It seems that the rest of the "civilized" world is going in the OTHER direction. The reason we are winning and will continue to win is because we are on the right side. I am correct about all the natural rights stuff. And everyone knows it. Even people who HATE guns and pretend ignorance know deep down that the United States us founded on the existence of natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. So the anti gun folks lack a legal or moral leg to stand on. That is why we have been able to knock over these laws one at a time and will continue to do so.

Your entire justification seems to boil down to "It was wrong earlier in the 20th century but it is getting better now." That isn't much of a justification. For instance, why exactly do you believe that limiting ownership of assault rifles is an unreasonable limit? One might wonder why assault rifles are needed for self defense.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't need to justify anything. I have the right to own so-called "assault weapons." If you can demonstrate the overwhelming need to ban "assault weapons", I might at least consider entertaining the idea that such a policy might make some sense. The people with the rights don't need to justify their rights, the people who want to RESTRICT rights need to demonstrate why it is so critical that a right needs to be restricted.  Feel free to do so.

So why, in your mind, is it so important to ban "assault weapons" (and please define this term so I can stop putting it in quotes) that you need to restrict my rights?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #597 on: April 04, 2016, 01:59:20 PM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #598 on: April 04, 2016, 02:02:22 PM »
Maybe this will help display the absurdity of this "conversation."

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY right to own a firearm at all!

Now this is a straw man argument.  The reason to bring other weapons into the conversation is that some weapons are controlled.  Firearms are weapons.

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree that limits on weapons are necessary!  We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited.

^ Is more what I've been saying.

Yes, it is a straw man. No doubt about it. And it had the intended effect. It got you to state a position that actually makes some sense in the context of our society. Specifically the last statement of Z: "We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited."

Ok, lets do that. In the U.S. the first half or 3/4 of the 20th Century, the "line" so to speak was drawn in the wrong place. Many obviously incorrect laws existed that made it illegal for most people to practice their natural right to keep and bear arms. However, at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, we have made a lot of progress in fixing that.

-We got rid of the Assault Weapons Ban
-We liberalized concealed carry. Today, most Americans can obtain a concealed handgun license. Many don't even need a permit.
-We are expanding open carry. Many Americans can Open carry, and some don't need a permit.
-We are working on breaking down obviously wrong NFA restrictions.
-We are expanding the number of places carry is allowed.
-New guns are designed and marketed all the time and are purchased at record speeds.
-Many CHL holders don't need a background check when buying a gun.
-We passed a law preventing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
-We repealed many of the worst parts of the 1968 GCA
-We won some important court cases regarding the 2A
-We are fighting against the totally wrong "May issue" CHL license policies in some states and locales.

There are many more things I could mention. We have won a lot of battles, and we will win the battles we are currently fighting. Then, we will begin new battles to get rid of other obviously incorrect gun laws and policies and attitudes that still exist.

You might wonder why we are winning. It seems that the rest of the "civilized" world is going in the OTHER direction. The reason we are winning and will continue to win is because we are on the right side. I am correct about all the natural rights stuff. And everyone knows it. Even people who HATE guns and pretend ignorance know deep down that the United States us founded on the existence of natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. So the anti gun folks lack a legal or moral leg to stand on. That is why we have been able to knock over these laws one at a time and will continue to do so.

Your entire justification seems to boil down to "It was wrong earlier in the 20th century but it is getting better now." That isn't much of a justification. For instance, why exactly do you believe that limiting ownership of assault rifles is an unreasonable limit? One might wonder why assault rifles are needed for self defense.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't need to justify anything. I have the right to own so-called "assault weapons." If you can demonstrate the overwhelming need to ban "assault weapons", I might at least consider entertaining the idea that such a policy might make some sense. The people with the rights don't need to justify their rights, the people who want to RESTRICT rights need to demonstrate why it is so critical that a right needs to be restricted.  Feel free to do so.

So why, in your mind, is it so important to ban "assault weapons" (and please define this term so I can stop putting it in quotes) that you need to restrict my rights?

Seems to me that YOU were the one that brought up the assault weapons ban and when you did, you didn't use quotes. Remarkable how you are seem unwilling (or perhaps unable) to take your position beyond the inane "right to self-defense" point. I would think reasonable people ought to be able to defend their positions.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #599 on: April 04, 2016, 02:03:09 PM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

Please see my above post. There is no AWB. I have the right to own "assault weapons". Please, define "assault weapons," and then explain why such a law is so important that I should give up some of my rights to enjoy the benefit of such a law.

I am not being facetious. This is how this type of discussion should go.