Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think your neighbor owning somehting is infringing on your rights, go ahead and take him to court and see what happens. That's what courts are for.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along. An independent process like a court system is necessary to decide if my claim that my rights are being violated is valid. pvn's stance has been that my claim that he is violating my rights doesn't matter because under his concept of rights my rights aren't being violated. I don't find that acceptable, because if we allow the alleged violator of rights to decide if rights are being violated then there would be no rights for anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it to an arbitrator. I never said you shouldn't. It's just that no reputable one is likely to agree with you.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, I claim it is worth the inconvenience if one more life is saved with gun control than without.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, show your calculations.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Take it to an arbitrator. I never said you shouldn't. It's just that no reputable one is likely to agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I see how it works. You don't get to decide what my rights are, a "reputable" arbitrator does. I don't suppose that your definition of "reputable" is "one that agrees with pvn's point of view"? No, of course not.

[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.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is another application of the broken window fallacy. You only account for what you see (felons denied guns) and not at what you can't see (people killed because it's too difficult to defend themselves effectively).

[/ QUOTE ]

Conversely, you only account for what you see (people who used guns in self defense) and not what you can't see (crimes that never happened because the criminal never got guns in the first place).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not ignoring those crimes. I say that the scenario in which a potential criminal is thwarted by a background check and gives up all plans for obtaining a gun is fairly absurd on its face for the reasons that have been pointed out several times (vast majority of criminals don't use gun stores/shows, can just as easily have a friend get a gun, etc).

I suppose you could use marginal economics in this instance. I think the decision for both a potential criminal and a law-abiding citizen to buy a gun are made on the margin. I think that the decision to become a violent criminal is not something that is taken lightly and so the criminal would be more determined to acquire a gun than the citizen would.

[ QUOTE ]
It is easy to bend statistics to fit your viewpoint. The issue is whether we feel, as a society, we should try to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to acquire guns. I think we should. If you think it is a useless effort because criminals will always find a way to get a gun, then I disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you could show that there is a strong effect, then you may have more of a leg to stand on. But without doing away with guns entirely or very invasive spying on gun owners, guns will always be had fairly easily. And you always have to remember that when you make it harder for criminals, you make it harder for the law-abiding, and it seems logical that the law-abiding would be more easily deterred from buying a gun by the very fact that they are law-abiding, while the criminal is by definition, not law-abiding.

[ QUOTE ]
Please note I've never said that any law-abiding citizen should be denied the right to own a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nor have I accused you of such.

[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.

[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.