Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I think he's saying is that your only subjected to this risk if you interact with him. That is, if you don't want to take the risk of getting shot, don't deal with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my property is next to his and his bullets can travel from his property into my property, I can't avoid to risk. My point is that it is not always easy or even possible to avoid interaction. In fact, it seems to me that he is forcing me to take on risk on my property without consulting me.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's been no interaction until a bullet actually does travel from his property to yours.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
There's been no interaction until a bullet actually does travel from his property to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The state is not actually using force to coerce behaviour from you until you break the law and the put you in jail."

True or not true?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's been no interaction until a bullet actually does travel from his property to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The state is not actually using force to coerce behaviour from you until you break the law and the put you in jail."

True or not true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non sequitur.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's been no interaction until a bullet actually does travel from his property to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The state is not actually using force to coerce behaviour from you until you break the law and the put you in jail."

True or not true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you could make that case. It still seems to me that you're saying:

The threat that the state will harm me if I violate their rules is a violation of individual rights.

The threat that pvn will accidentally shoot mosdef regardless of what mosdef does is not a violation of his rights because it's just a threat and that doesn't count.

I don't find that set of arguments compelling.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's been no interaction until a bullet actually does travel from his property to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The state is not actually using force to coerce behaviour from you until you break the law and the put you in jail."

True or not true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you could make that case. It still seems to me that you're saying:

The threat that the state will harm me if I violate their rules is a violation of individual rights.

The threat that pvn will accidentally shoot mosdef regardless of what mosdef does is not a violation of his rights because it's just a threat and that doesn't count.

I don't find that set of arguments compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

The agents of the state make explict threats. You do XYZ, then I will do this. You do ABC *or* I will do this.

Am I giving you ultimatums?

Am I making threats?

Am I being negligent?

Your house might catch on fire and spread to my property. Therefore building a house on your propert is a "violation" of my "rights".

Your dog might leave your property, come onto mine, and bite me. I might get rabies. I might die. Therefore, your possession of a dog is a "violation" of my "rights".

Your decision to *not* possess a gun could lead to a situation where you could be in a position to shoot an attacker, but be unable to. I could then be stabbed by that attacker. Therefore, your decision to not have a gun is a "violation" of my "rights".

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I being negligent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if you are being negligent then that is a violation of my rights. I don't think that you can be the one to determine if you are being negligent.

[ QUOTE ]
Your house might catch on fire and spread to my property. Therefore building a house on your propert is a "violation" of my "rights".

Your dog might leave your property, come onto mine, and bite me. I might get rabies. I might die. Therefore, your possession of a dog is a "violation" of my "rights".

Your decision to *not* possess a gun could lead to a situation where you could be in a position to shoot an attacker, but be unable to. I could then be stabbed by that attacker. Therefore, your decision to not have a gun is a "violation" of my "rights".

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all correct. You are entitled to interpret those risks that I am foisting on you as being a violation of your rights. I may claim that they are not a violation of your rights, and then an arbritration process is required to come to a resolution.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I being negligent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if you are being negligent then that is a violation of my rights. I don't think that you can be the one to determine if you are being negligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. So you admit that just having the gun is not a violation? I think we're done here.

[ QUOTE ]
That is all correct. You are entitled to interpret those risks that I am foisting on you as being a violation of your rights. I may claim that they are not a violation of your rights, and then an arbritration process is required to come to a resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I claim you owe me four hundred pounds of blow. I have nothing but the assertion. Is an arbitration process "required" to resolve this? How many arbitrators do you think will entertain such claims? I can just ignore you.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think getting shot is the only threat to your safety?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no. But this threat to my safety, getting shot, can to some extent be prevented. Others can too, probably, but we're not discussing them right now.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best way to formulate policy. Let's just pull some numbers out of my ass and go with that. Good show!

[/ QUOTE ]
I pulled some numbers out to further explain what I meant, i.e. to make it easier for others to understand exactly what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep everyone in individual padded cells. Then nobody will hurt anyone else. This would save far more than just one life, so obviously it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More good policy-making. "I *think* that anyone who buys a car is more likely to run over someone than not to. So no cars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read everything? I don't think I could've addressed this more clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
If the "vast majority" are only used for target practice, how can it possibly be that *more* guns are used for evil purposes than good? You just said that *more* than 50% are used *only* for good things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me be more specific then.

Good: A life was saved because of a gun.
Bad: A life was lost because of a gun.
Neutral: Target practice.

I never said that more than 50% is used for bad things. Please stop attacking me by putting words in my mouth. The beauty of online forums is that you can go back and read what I wrote, so there should be no confusion as to what my words were.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think getting shot is the only threat to your safety?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no. But this threat to my safety, getting shot, can to some extent be prevented. Others can too, probably, but we're not discussing them right now.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best way to formulate policy. Let's just pull some numbers out of my ass and go with that. Good show!

[/ QUOTE ]
I pulled some numbers out to further explain what I meant, i.e. to make it easier for others to understand exactly what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep everyone in individual padded cells. Then nobody will hurt anyone else. This would save far more than just one life, so obviously it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More good policy-making. "I *think* that anyone who buys a car is more likely to run over someone than not to. So no cars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read everything? I don't think I could've addressed this more clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
If the "vast majority" are only used for target practice, how can it possibly be that *more* guns are used for evil purposes than good? You just said that *more* than 50% are used *only* for good things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me be more specific then.

Good: A life was saved because of a gun.
Bad: A life was lost because of a gun.
Neutral: Target practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the gun was used to kill a rapist by an old lady? Is this life lost a bad thing? I wouldn't think so.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think getting shot is the only threat to your safety?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no. But this threat to my safety, getting shot, can to some extent be prevented. Others can too, probably, but we're not discussing them right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you basically just want to ignore any effects that the policy you advocate might have. The intention is good, so that's enough for you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best way to formulate policy. Let's just pull some numbers out of my ass and go with that. Good show!

[/ QUOTE ]
I pulled some numbers out to further explain what I meant, i.e. to make it easier for others to understand exactly what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understood perfectly. You are appealing to emotion instead of logic, and you made up numbers to back your emotional claim.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep everyone in individual padded cells. Then nobody will hurt anyone else. This would save far more than just one life, so obviously it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More good policy-making. "I *think* that anyone who buys a car is more likely to run over someone than not to. So no cars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read everything? I don't think I could've addressed this more clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you've been very clear.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the "vast majority" are only used for target practice, how can it possibly be that *more* guns are used for evil purposes than good? You just said that *more* than 50% are used *only* for good things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me be more specific then.

Good: A life was saved because of a gun.
Bad: A life was lost because of a gun.
Neutral: Target practice.

I never said that more than 50% is used for bad things. Please stop attacking me by putting words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said more were used for bad things than good. Then you said more than 50% were used only for things like target practice. I consider target practice a good thing - it doesn't hurt anyone unwillingly, it increases the shooter's proficiency (he's now less likely to accidentally shoot you!), it increases the shooter's satisfaction (as evidenced by the fact that he voluntarily does it).

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of online forums is that you can go back and read what I wrote, so there should be no confusion as to what my words were.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not confused at all.