Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345574 times)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #600 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 #601 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 #602 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 #603 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 #604 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #605 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #606 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #607 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 #608 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #609 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 #610 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: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #611 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 #612 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #613 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 #614 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 #615 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 #616 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 #617 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 #618 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 #619 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.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #620 on: April 04, 2016, 02:07:09 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.

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.

I was referring to a particular law that used to exist commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban.

Again, describe in general terms the type of gun law you would like to see and explain the benefits of such a law and why it would be worth giving up some rights to enjoy those benefits.

If you would you like to use the former law commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban as the basis for this discussion, I would be fine with that. Please explain why the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban should be re-enacted, and what benefits it would provide in exchange for limiting my rights.


Here is an example.

Free Speech Advocate: There should be no limits on speech.
Fire in Theater Guy: We should make it illegal to yell FIRE in a theater unless you actually think there is a fire.
FSA: Why?
FTG: Because it will prevent unnecessary panics and stampedes. It will save lives. More importantly, people will know that if someone DOES yell FIRE, there is probably a fire and they should leave. It will prevent the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect and save lives that way as well.
FSA: Well, you make a good point. And there is NO benefit to someone who says FIRE in a theater unnecessarily. The only reason to do so is malicious. Your proposed law will restrict free speech, but the pros out weigh the cons (of which there are actually none). So yes. Even though I am a free speech advocate, I will go along with your plan to limit speech in this way.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 02:25:01 PM by winkeyman »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #621 on: April 04, 2016, 02:14:49 PM »
And you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.


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.

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.

No, you are conflating natural rights from political statutes.  The criminal loses his natural rights only if he violates a natural right of another.  Otherwise it's not actually criminal, but simply a code infraction.  I don't lose my right to travel, simply for speeding, because speeding is a code infraction.  What you described was an actual violation of another human being's own natural human rights.  If you don't agree, feel free to argue in favor of child-boy-love, because I'd love to see how you do that one.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #622 on: April 04, 2016, 02:30:33 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'.

Except that is not how rights work.  Winkyman is correct, that he is starting with the root given assumptions that the framers of the Constitution did, that mankind has natural rights.  By that logic, natural rights cannot be 'infringed' by human governments, as a general rule, unless and until the particular individual in discussion has acted in such a way as demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to respect those natural rights in others.  Once you have demonstrated that you don't respect my own rights, I am no longer obliged to respect yours (no matter my own postion on natural rights) and neither is government/society/courts/police acting in my behalf or in defense of society in general.  That doesn't negate the root concept, that all human beings have certain, definable & undefinable, natural rights by reason of being human beings; at least until their own actions show that is not reciprocal.

Under natural rights/common law/natural law as a root given assumption in a society; no one has the right to violate the rights of others unless 'encroached' upon first, and that includes government acting as the representative of society collectively.  So you don't get a vote on my rights, or how they might be limited; they are only limited by my own actions or consent.  While I might agree to not own a TOW missile without oversight by a federal agency, you don't actually have a right of your own to compel me to negotiate, in the same manner that I don't have a right to compel you to take up arms of your own.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #623 on: April 04, 2016, 02:35:18 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, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #624 on: April 04, 2016, 02:37:12 PM »
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.

Exactly right. Rights should only be limited when they interfere with the rights of another. This is why the "AWB" ban lapsed - it was shown to be too onerous on the rights of individuals without measurably protecting the rights of anyone else.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #625 on: April 04, 2016, 02:49:42 PM »

Here is an example.

Free Speech Advocate: There should be no limits on speech.
Fire in Theater Guy: We should make it illegal to yell FIRE in a theater unless you actually think there is a fire.
FSA: Why?
FTG: Because it will prevent unnecessary panics and stampedes. It will save lives. More importantly, people will know that if someone DOES yell FIRE, there is probably a fire and they should leave. It will prevent the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect and save lives that way as well.
FSA: Well, you make a good point. And there is NO benefit to someone who says FIRE in a theater unnecessarily. The only reason to do so is malicious. Your proposed law will restrict free speech, but the pros out weigh the cons (of which there are actually none). So yes. Even though I am a free speech advocate, I will go along with your plan to limit speech in this way.

Actually, Winkeyman, a prohibition upon yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater falsely (i.e. deliberate incitement of a panic) does not limit free speech, because no one actually has to wear duct tape (or leave their voice box at home.   "Do you have a permit for that?" "Yes, the 1st Amendment") before entering a theater.  The practical ability to violate this law still exists, just as the practical ability to violate the laws against murder still exist.  Those statutes exist only to define how, exactly, we (as a society) will respond to rights violations amongst ourselves; not as a pre-emptive action or presumption of malice.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #626 on: April 04, 2016, 03:05:09 PM »

Here is an example.

Free Speech Advocate: There should be no limits on speech.
Fire in Theater Guy: We should make it illegal to yell FIRE in a theater unless you actually think there is a fire.
FSA: Why?
FTG: Because it will prevent unnecessary panics and stampedes. It will save lives. More importantly, people will know that if someone DOES yell FIRE, there is probably a fire and they should leave. It will prevent the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect and save lives that way as well.
FSA: Well, you make a good point. And there is NO benefit to someone who says FIRE in a theater unnecessarily. The only reason to do so is malicious. Your proposed law will restrict free speech, but the pros out weigh the cons (of which there are actually none). So yes. Even though I am a free speech advocate, I will go along with your plan to limit speech in this way.

Actually, Winkeyman, a prohibition upon yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater falsely (i.e. deliberate incitement of a panic) does not limit free speech, because no one actually has to wear duct tape (or leave their voice box at home.   "Do you have a permit for that?" "Yes, the 1st Amendment") before entering a theater.  The practical ability to violate this law still exists, just as the practical ability to violate the laws against murder still exist.  Those statutes exist only to define how, exactly, we (as a society) will respond to rights violations amongst ourselves; not as a pre-emptive action or presumption of malice.

True enough, and a good distinction to make.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #627 on: April 04, 2016, 05:52:32 PM »
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.

Exactly right. Rights should only be limited when they interfere with the rights of another. This is why the "AWB" ban lapsed - it was shown to be too onerous on the rights of individuals without measurably protecting the rights of anyone else.

In light of this argument, I'm going to go back to the same ridiculous arguments because they apply yet again.  Please stick with me to the end before you start pounding heads on keyboards.

Does surrounding your home with landmines infringe upon someone else's rights?  Unless that person is infringing upon your right (by entering your property), I don't really see how.  A landmine is a far more defensive weapon than a handgun.  Putting 'caution - landmine' signs all over your property would surely be better deterrent than owning a shotgun.  Why is it not OK to own a landmine . . . severity of potential accidents?  An awful lot of people die in gun related accidents every year.

Does owning a nuke infringe on someone else's rights?  If so, how . . . potential collateral damage?  If we're suddenly concerned about collateral damage from a nuke, maybe some similar arguments could be transferred across to handguns.  Nukes don't kill people, they're just a tool.  People who detonate nukes kill people.  You don't always have to use nukes, just having them is a great deterrence (it was the whole basis of the cold war, right?).  Yeah, some innocent people might die if you use a nuke improperly.  The same can happen if you use a gun improperly.

Obviously this is a hyperbolic overstatement - but it's for a purpose.  Sometimes we ban things just because they're dangerous.  Just owning a landmine doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Just owning a nuke doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Owning fully automatic weapons is considered dangerous as fuck, which is why they've been made more difficult to get a hold of.  An argument can be made that generally having a huge number of guns floating around in society is very dangerous (Albeit less so than a society where nukes and landmines can be purchased at every convenience store).

This is why talking about gun control is still reasonable.  Infringing on rights is sometimes OK when there's a net benefit.  Sadly, it's difficult to conclusively show data to support gun ownership or control.  Funding for gun research has been radically curtailed in the US (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx).  Research from other countries is typically dismissed out of hand.  A scenario has been created where it's not really possible to prove things one way or another with regards to the effects of gun control.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #628 on: April 04, 2016, 06:27:12 PM »
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.

Exactly right. Rights should only be limited when they interfere with the rights of another. This is why the "AWB" ban lapsed - it was shown to be too onerous on the rights of individuals without measurably protecting the rights of anyone else.

In light of this argument, I'm going to go back to the same ridiculous arguments because they apply yet again.  Please stick with me to the end before you start pounding heads on keyboards.

Does surrounding your home with landmines infringe upon someone else's rights?  Unless that person is infringing upon your right (by entering your property), I don't really see how.  A landmine is a far more defensive weapon than a handgun.  Putting 'caution - landmine' signs all over your property would surely be better deterrent than owning a shotgun.  Why is it not OK to own a landmine . . . severity of potential accidents?  An awful lot of people die in gun related accidents every year.

Does owning a nuke infringe on someone else's rights?  If so, how . . . potential collateral damage?  If we're suddenly concerned about collateral damage from a nuke, maybe some similar arguments could be transferred across to handguns.  Nukes don't kill people, they're just a tool.  People who detonate nukes kill people.  You don't always have to use nukes, just having them is a great deterrence (it was the whole basis of the cold war, right?).  Yeah, some innocent people might die if you use a nuke improperly.  The same can happen if you use a gun improperly.

Obviously this is a hyperbolic overstatement - but it's for a purpose.  Sometimes we ban things just because they're dangerous.  Just owning a landmine doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Just owning a nuke doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Owning fully automatic weapons is considered dangerous as fuck, which is why they've been made more difficult to get a hold of.  An argument can be made that generally having a huge number of guns floating around in society is very dangerous (Albeit less so than a society where nukes and landmines can be purchased at every convenience store).

This is why talking about gun control is still reasonable.  Infringing on rights is sometimes OK when there's a net benefit.  Sadly, it's difficult to conclusively show data to support gun ownership or control.  Funding for gun research has been radically curtailed in the US (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx).  Research from other countries is typically dismissed out of hand.  A scenario has been created where it's not really possible to prove things one way or another with regards to the effects of gun control.

Side note...fully automatic firearms aren't difficult at all to get. They're just fucking expensive.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #629 on: April 04, 2016, 06:31:35 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #630 on: April 04, 2016, 06:38:27 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #631 on: April 04, 2016, 06:50:31 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?
Pools kill even more children than guns.  Why do we accept pool related deaths?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #632 on: April 04, 2016, 06:53:31 PM »
Because it is a near certainty that land mines planted in my front yard will cause an accident. It is a near impossibility that my gun will. Mostly because guns do not and cannot fire on their own. Once planted and armed, a land mine will blow up when pressure is placed on it. Once loaded, a gun won't do anything until someone pulls the trigger.

It is not the mere ownership of a land mine that I have a problem with. It is the criminally negligent act of placing them in your front yard that I have a problem with.

I would have a similar problem with someone placing a loaded gun on their front lawn right up next to the sidewalk where children walk to school. I almost can't believe I have having this conversation.

It's not the possession of alcohol I have a problem with, it is the consumption of large amounts of it while driving an 18 wheeler I have a problem with. Can you really not see the difference? Are you trolling at this point?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #633 on: April 04, 2016, 06:59:32 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

You are many times more likely to kill yourself, or kill your toddler, by placing them into a child car seat and driving them to day care on a regular basis than anyone is likely to kill anyone with a firearm properly stored in a home, or even openly carried by a trained & licensed concealed carry permit holder.  Your 'practical' arguments will not hold up to real scrutiny, even if they mattered in a world where I have rights.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #634 on: April 04, 2016, 07:03:38 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

You are many times more likely to kill yourself, or kill your toddler, by placing them into a child car seat and driving them to day care on a regular basis than anyone is likely to kill anyone with a firearm properly stored in a home, or even openly carried by a trained & licensed concealed carry permit holder.  Your 'practical' arguments will not hold up to real scrutiny, even if they mattered in a world where I have rights.

In this hypothetical world where guns are banned because too many toddlers and dogs shoot people, can I be exempt from such laws because I neither have children nor dogs?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #635 on: April 04, 2016, 07:08:51 PM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #636 on: April 04, 2016, 07:11:17 PM »
There were 83 accidental fatal shootings in 2015 out of 73.6 million children that's a 0.000001 chance of being killed at home.

Sucks to be those 83, but you can't beat those odds. Seems like fear-mongering to me.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #637 on: April 04, 2016, 07:13:58 PM »
I'll take on the other one...


Does owning a nuke infringe on someone else's rights?  If so, how . . . potential collateral damage?  If we're suddenly concerned about collateral damage from a nuke, maybe some similar arguments could be transferred across to handguns.  Nukes don't kill people, they're just a tool.  People who detonate nukes kill people.  You don't always have to use nukes, just having them is a great deterrence (it was the whole basis of the cold war, right?).  Yeah, some innocent people might die if you use a nuke improperly. The same can happen if you use a gun improperly.


If you use a gun improperly, then you are held liable for that.  One well established principle is that of 'brandishing' a firearm; which is the act of displaying a firearm in public, as a visible threat.  I'm not talking about actually pointing it at someone, which is obviously a threat, but merely pulling it out of the holster and holding it in your hand, thus proving to everyone around you that you could use deadly force in very short order.  In some cases, this is already a crime, if the situation that you are in would imply that the brandishing gun owner is the one escalating a conflict.  A similar argument can be made for simply owning a nuke; while it's not pointed at anyone, you are effectively brandishing a weapon to everyone your weapon could reach.  This is exactly what "mutually assured destruction" nuclear deterrence theory depends upon.  Here is the thing, owning & carrying a handgun isn't about deterrence, it's about self-defense.  You will never know I'm armed in public, or if you do, it's already a very bad day.  That is the whole point of concealed carry, the ability to use force in self-defense, without using deterrence.  North Korea does have a right to self-defense, but they are the 'touched' teenager among soverign nations, who has already proven himself to be too unstable, and too willing to threaten his neighbors, to be entrusted with a handgun.  As a society, we assume that the gun owner is generally a rational, mentally stable person; until proven otherwise.  We don't let the known mentally disturbed buy firearms, either.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #638 on: April 04, 2016, 07:16:02 PM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

Quote
If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?
There's a clear implication there, unless you're just being ridiculous on purpose.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #639 on: April 04, 2016, 07:22:10 PM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

That's because, as I have pointed out before, the gun control side of this debate is dishonest.  I have demonstrated that actual gun control advocates would ban all guns if they thought that was possible, but propose "common sense gun control" regulations because they wish to move the Overton Window towards that end, until such time that they can ban all remaining weapons.  The primary tactic is to depend upon the ignorance of those without real firearms experience, or law degrees, to convince them that whatever activity they propose to prevent with their new law isn't already illegal, and whatever new government power they propose to establish isn't actually a new encroachment of gunowners' rights, or that whatever great policy they propose to establish (if not a new encroachment of gunowners' rights) already exists in some practical form.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #640 on: April 04, 2016, 07:28:13 PM »
If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

Usually it's a question of proportional force and discrimination of intent. With a normal gun, a person has to load it, aim it, take the safety off, and pull the trigger. A landmine doesn't have the capacity to discriminate against legitimate threats and incidental damage. It's an indiscriminate force.

Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #641 on: April 04, 2016, 07:38:51 PM »

Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

Which is one reason that a cop will get into a whole heap of trouble if he doesn't try to use his tazer against an agitated, but apparently unarmed, suspect; before pulling out his sidearm.  Even government agents are not exempt from established use of force rules, but notice that no one has proposed that cops can't carry firearms, or even that they shouldn't have access to their 'assault weapons' of choice.  We typically assume that the cops know which type of weapon is best.  Why, then, do you assume that a random gun owner does not?  Does he not, rationally, know better than a non-gun-owner, as to which type of weapon is best for his purpose?  Why, also, should I have to abide by the opinions of the uninitiated?  Shouldn't you, instead, consider what the professionals use?

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #642 on: April 04, 2016, 07:46:22 PM »
These are not straw man arguments, they are reductio ad absurdum arguments.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #643 on: April 04, 2016, 08:09:33 PM »
If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

Usually it's a question of proportional force and discrimination of intent. With a normal gun, a person has to load it, aim it, take the safety off, and pull the trigger. A landmine doesn't have the capacity to discriminate against legitimate threats and incidental damage. It's an indiscriminate force.

Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

A more accurate situation may be to insert a 100-ft distance between the person with a knife and the person with the gun.  A knife is considered a deadly weapon and, depending on circumstances (ability/opportunity/jeopardy - the deadly force triangle) the use of deadly force is justifiable. Shooting someone in the foot with a .22 and shooting someone in the head with a shotgun is not really different in the eyes of the law - it's all classed as lethal/deadly force.

The force used does need to be reasonably proportionate (or one level above), but this introduces a fair amount of situational complexity.  A 9yo with a baseball bat against a 6'4 240lb guy is one thing, but a 6'4" 240lb person with a baseball bat vs a 5'1" 105lb person is another story entirely.


Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

Which is one reason that a cop will get into a whole heap of trouble if he doesn't try to use his tazer against an agitated, but apparently unarmed, suspect; before pulling out his sidearm.  Even government agents are not exempt from established use of force rules, but notice that no one has proposed that cops can't carry firearms, or even that they shouldn't have access to their 'assault weapons' of choice.  We typically assume that the cops know which type of weapon is best.  Why, then, do you assume that a random gun owner does not?  Does he not, rationally, know better than a non-gun-owner, as to which type of weapon is best for his purpose?  Why, also, should I have to abide by the opinions of the uninitiated?  Shouldn't you, instead, consider what the professionals use?
This introduces another complication when discussing use of force outside of law enforcement. Your average CCW holder has no intermediate escalation available.  A police officer has many -- starting off with uniformed presence and voice commands, then going through soft hand control, hard hand control, OC/pepper spray, Taser, baton, and finally firearm.  A private citizen generally has no intermediate force options available - whether or not they know which weapon is appropriate is largely irrelevant when they do not generally have access to anything in the intermediate range.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #644 on: April 04, 2016, 11:38:41 PM »
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.

Technically, in the US, without a constitutional amendment, they're not allowed to take them away or even restrict them. They do. But... Cowards will be cowards and tyrants love to play the victim.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #645 on: April 05, 2016, 12:16:43 AM »

Obviously this is a hyperbolic overstatement - but it's for a purpose.  Sometimes we ban things just because they're dangerous.  Just owning a landmine doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Just owning a nuke doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Owning fully automatic weapons is considered dangerous as fuck, which is why they've been made more difficult to get a hold of.  An argument can be made that generally having a huge number of guns floating around in society is very dangerous (Albeit less so than a society where nukes and landmines can be purchased at every convenience store).

This is why talking about gun control is still reasonable.  Infringing on rights is sometimes OK when there's a net benefit.  Sadly, it's difficult to conclusively show data to support gun ownership or control.  Funding for gun research has been radically curtailed in the US (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx).  Research from other countries is typically dismissed out of hand.  A scenario has been created where it's not really possible to prove things one way or another with regards to the effects of gun control.

How many nukes have been set off by private parties? None... The materials are out there and legally obtainable to build one. Easy? No. Possible? Very. Who has used this extremely dangerous thing you speak of? Governments.

Landmines? Again, easily created, yet only really used by governments. Much larger explosions can be achieved (and have) using other perfectly legally obtained materials.

Automatic Weapons? Easy to make. Completely impractical in most domestic combat situations. Governments readily use them. I think there have been a few deaths that were accidents attributed to fully automatic weapons.

To the point I go! The 2nd amendment was reaffirmed by our forefathers because they just got done fighting a very bloody war against..... A GOVERNMENT! An oppressive 'society' that refused to recognize their Natural Rights. We have the 2nd amendment there to defend ourselves from anyone and everything. How we do so is our choice, not the government's and definitely not the sheep's.

Only a coward stands behind a piece of paper issued by tyrants and demands free men to obey.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 12:21:14 AM by Cyaphas »
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #646 on: April 05, 2016, 12:26:03 AM »
There were 83 accidental fatal shootings in 2015 out of 73.6 million children that's a 0.000001 chance of being killed at home.

Sucks to be those 83, but you can't beat those odds. Seems like fear-mongering to me.

These numbers seem even more minuscule when you look at the democide occurring in countries that do not allow their subjects to bear arms.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #647 on: April 05, 2016, 03:45:07 AM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

I'm pretty sure we covered this - with background checks free and able to be performed by the public for private weapon transfers and NO restrictions upon magazine capacity or weapon style for persons who pass the background check. It still wouldn't have any effect upon crime rates, illegal weapon sales or mass shootings, but might just be worth it to stop gun grabbers pissing and moaning about 'assault weapons' and 'smart guns' and 'going back to the wild west' and all the other bullshit they whinge about...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
  • Age: 22
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #648 on: April 05, 2016, 04:29:37 AM »
Quote
1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.
To me it's not the idea of living in a safe or unsafe place. It's the idea of feeling safe no matter where you live. We live in a safe area in CT, but the Cheshire home invasion took place a 30 minute from us. And Cheshire is considered a area too! I don't own a firearm, but my parents do and they keep it in their house. My mom especially is home alone quite a bit, and I worry less about her by the facts that she has a gun, knows how to use it, and it's perfectly legal.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)
Yes, my parents practice several times per year.

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?
My parents are the only ones living at home, but yes they know the basic drill if someone enters the house.

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?
My parents will first address the intruder and declare that they have a gun. If they attack, they will be shot. I don't think this outcome would result in arrest. It's self-defense.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #649 on: April 05, 2016, 05:33:55 AM »
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, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Moonshadow, I'm not asking you to defend your human right to self-defense. What I am saying is that we all pretty much accept that the right to self-defense is not unlimited, that not all armaments are necessary for personal self-defense and thus it is reasonable to ban certain types of armaments if there is a societal benefit to the ban. If one wishes to use the self-defense argument against such a ban, one should be able to justify why the armaments being banned are reasonable and/or necessary for self-defense. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban that Winky brought up that he thought was an infringement on the right to self-defense. The US is not a war-zone. I highly doubt the weapons included in the ban were really necessary for self-defense. Prior to and after the ban did people start to go around carrying those types of weapons for reasons of self defense. The ban itself was never declared a violation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that the opposition to that ban was NEVER about self-defense, but rather a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned. But then, I openly admit that I am not a gun expert. So I'm asking you gun experts who think that the ban was an infringement on the inherent right to self-defense, WHY?