Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because I say that someone has the right to claim that their rights are violated doesn't mean that I think that their rights are violated or that any action needs to be taken. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Total backpedal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a backpedal at all, you just misinterpretted the direction I was going.

When someone says "I have the right to such and such" and someone else says "That violates my right to such and such" there must be a resolution. The resolution will, in the end, leave one person feeling that their rights are violated. That is inevitable. So it is not sufficient to say "I demand a gun as my right" because someone else can simply counter with "I demand that you not have a gun as my right."

The same applies to your attempt at reductio ad absurdum through the paranoid racist who demands that blacks not go anywhere near him. He can't get his wish only because no arbritration process will give it to him.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Just because I say that someone has the right to claim that their rights are violated doesn't mean that I think that their rights are violated or that any action needs to be taken. Do you see why?



Total backpedal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so does that mean that you want to be able to "demand" that guns be confiscated, but that you dont really want it to happen. Like "demanding" blacks be removed, but not expecting it or wanting it to happen.

Or do you mean you want force used to evict blacks from your daily path and you want force used to remove all guns from your society?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
hey look I can find arguably biased web-sites and studies to support my view too ...so I will post my biased studies to counteract your biased studies! Feel free to browse on your own


[/ QUOTE ]


lol

the 'chidren and guns' issue that is first there: do you realize that they included hardened street criminals, gang members who commit feloines and murder people as their 'child victims' LMAO

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's what we do: carry on doing what we were doing, me having my gun, noting your objection in the log book, you whining about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is insufficient because my rights are still being violated. What do we do now?

I'm sorry, but you're really just saying that inaction is always the solution. There needs to be an arbitration process to resolve different views of individual rights. If the arbitration process agrees with me, then your gun must be forfeited. I'm sorry that you feel this is a violation of your rights, but that's not any worse than me feeling that my rights are being violated. The best we can hope for is the maximum number of people being optimally satisfied (or minimally dissatisfied to put it in a more depressing way).

Democracy ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone pointed out, you're talking about preferences, not rights. Claiming your preferences are rights doesn't make them so.

Also, the best thing is NOT necessarily for the maximum number of people to be most satisfied, or least dissatisfied. What if all Americans wanted to enslave all Canadians? Hey, we'd have a 90%+ satisfaction rate between the two countries combined that way, since Americans outnumber Canadians by almost 10-1 ! Democracy FTW!?

The best thing is for the rights of the individual to be respected and inviolate - and rights start with not being subjected to aggressions or coercions by others. That's what America was founded on; it's just too damned bad that so many people today don't know that or realize it, or care.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

When someone says "I have the right to such and such" and someone else says "That violates my right to such and such" there must be a resolution. The resolution will, in the end, leave one person feeling that their rights are violated. That is inevitable. So it is not sufficient to say "I demand a gun as my right" because someone else can simply counter with "I demand that you not have a gun as my right."

[/ QUOTE ]

Under that system there are no rights at all. Maybe you are a real communist. I have a car, a right tot that property. You say you have a right to me not having a car.

Under the biblical-english-american system, my statement of having a property right in my property is well established, your statement of you having a right to me not having a car is simply crazy talk.

Now under the communist system, I think you are absolutely correct.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's what we do: carry on doing what we were doing, me having my gun, noting your objection in the log book, you whining about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is insufficient because my rights are still being violated. What do we do now?



[/ QUOTE ]

welcome to my ignore list. that's what I do.

I am not interested in continuing a dialouge with someone who thinks that any claim they make about what their wishes and preferences are is a 'right'

[revots33]

Forget about outlawing guns, I don't think most Americans want that anyway.

But why are gun owners so pissed off every time anyone proposes a regulation that would at the very least make it a little tougher for a criminal to get a gun, and at the very worst be a slight inconvenience to legitimate gun owners?

I mean, is x-raying me at the airport a violation of my rights also? Probably. But it's an annoyance I'm willing to live with if it makes it harder for criminals to get weapons on a plane.

Life is full of annoyances that impact the majority (bag searches at stadiums, drunk driving checkpoints, for ex.) in an attempt to prevent a tiny minority from harming others. It pisses me off but it's something we have to live with in an age where one person can have the technology to harm many very quickly.

You still have your guns and you can sleep peacefully at night knowing your loaded weapon is by your bedside. No one is taking your guns away!

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
welcome to my ignore list. that's what I do.

I am not interested in continuing a dialouge with someone who thinks that any claim they make about what their wishes and preferences are is a 'right'

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately for us powerful forces are working to move the US into this very paradigm, where individual rights must be "balanced" with the community good. Key is the "right" of people to "feel safe" and other fuzzy thinking. That is what the hate speech laws are all about, for example.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
As someone pointed out, you're talking about preferences, not rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do rights get defined? If we define rights as the set of conditions that are all people are entitled to, there will be different views of what that set of conditions is. Rights are nothing more than a preferred set of such conditions. Rights are preferences. What you think are the rights of all individuals is your opinion only.

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming your preferences are rights doesn't make them so.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes a right then? You telling me what my rights are?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the best thing is NOT necessarily for the maximum number of people to be most satisfied, or least dissatisfied. What if all Americans wanted to enslave all Canadians? Hey, we'd have a 90%+ satisfaction rate between the two countries combined that way, since Americans outnumber Canadians by almost 10-1 ! Democracy FTW!?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no doubt that America has the resources to conquer Canada. They have not. Ergo, they must have chosen not to do so. Trying to discredit democracy by pointing out what the majority could choose to do but are obviously choosing not to do is a poor debating technique, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
The best thing is for the rights of the individual to be respected and inviolate - and rights start with not being subjected to aggressions or coercions by others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. But it is not possible to prevent violation of rights without having a preventive force. That preventive force in action inevitably makes people feel that their rights are violated. It is unavoidable, and it sucks.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget about outlawing guns, I don't think most Americans want that anyway.

But why are gun owners so pissed off every time anyone proposes a regulation that would at the very least make it a little tougher for a criminal to get a gun, and at the very worst be a slight inconvenience to legitimate gun owners?

I mean, is x-raying me at the airport a violation of my rights also? Probably. But it's an annoyance I'm willing to live with if it makes it harder for criminals to get weapons on a plane.

Life is full of annoyances that impact the majority (bag searches at stadiums, drunk driving checkpoints, for ex.) in an attempt to prevent a tiny minority from harming others. It pisses me off but it's something we have to live with in an age where one person can have the technology to harm many very quickly.

You still have your guns and you can sleep peacefully at night knowing your loaded weapon is by your bedside. No one is taking your guns away!

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to realize these inconviences are designed to make you feel better, but don't actually do anything. The recent ban on having liquids in your luggage, and needed the plastic bag is one example of this joke. I was late for a flight and had my liquids seperated in a plastic bag, but forgot to take it out of my suitcase in my rush. Screeners didn't even think twice and let me through. It's all an illusion to make you feel safer.