Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

What right? Your right to "feel" a certain way?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there doesn't. Just don't interact with people that have views you don't like. If they try to forcibly interact with you THEN you certainly have a case for arbitration.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, and actual violation of rights is no worse than a "feeling" of rights being violated?

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible scenario. Utilitarian calculus leads to oppression, invariably. And it requires some central planner to make decsions about "how satisfied" people should be, or are, and make centralized decisions based on those subjective judgements (unless you can show us a way of objectively mesauring satisfaction).

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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'

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to engage in a dialogue. I am only trying to point out that there will inevitably by conflict between people as to their claims on rights. When someone manufactures an "absurd" right that is not agreed upon by the people around them, their claims to that right will not be enforced.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% not true. Our whole legal system is built around the core idea that for every wrong, there is a remedy.

So that if you run over my mailbox, I can take you to court and have you fix it.
The whole concept of "preventitive" court action is maybe 20 years old and goes against the whole history of the legal system.

I mean, if i think for some reason that you might run over my mailbox, so what? Until you actually do there's nothing I can do.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

WHAT?

That's the ENTIRE POINT of ALL OF THIS. "America" could have already outlawed all guns, but hasn't. So there's no point in discussing it.

If your argument is that whatever the majority wants is right (might makes right reformulated) then what the majority MIGHT do is obviously fair game. That's what normative discussion is all about.

[bkholdem]

[ 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 ]

No offense dude, but this line of thought seems insane to me.

The 'rationale' of preventing violence is a feel good pipe dream, people who want to do bad things, do bad things. Government uses these people who do bad things as an excuse to grow their power through the 'necessity' of various programs and actions to 'help' and 'protect' us....

...but it is a lie because we are not helped or protected.

Wake up my friend. Please wake up.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there doesn't. Just don't interact with people that have views you don't like. If they try to forcibly interact with you THEN you certainly have a case for arbitration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with your supposed "solution". You can't ignore the impact your actions are having on other people or their claims that you are violating their rights. You don't get to decide a priori that their rights aren't being violated by your actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, and actual violation of rights is no worse than a "feeling" of rights being violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are defining an "actual" violation of rights based on your decision as to what my rights are. I say that you don't get to decide for me what my rights are.

[ QUOTE ]
Utilitarian calculus leads to oppression, invariably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree with this. I don't know how you made the jump from "the need for arbitration of definition of rights" to "a central authority defines rights for everyone". In fact, when you make the declaration that you are not violating my rights, rather than appealing to democratic rule for arbitration, you acting as the most centralized ruling authority possible - a dictator.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
No one is taking your guns away!

[/ QUOTE ]
for your info there are some well funded groups whose stated aim is disarm the entire US non police/military population.

as an aside, if I were you I would refuse to be xrayed at the airport. you can do that. Maybe you meant metal detector, but they have started to xray some passengers. since xrays are dangerous though they need your consent, which you do not have to give. But if you want to get cancer or whatever then just go ahead and waive hyour rights and consent to being xrayed.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If your argument is that whatever the majority wants is right (might makes right reformulated) then what the majority MIGHT do is obviously fair game. That's what normative discussion is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fair enough. I guess what I really object to is the assumption that since democracies could result in very bad things, democracy is bad. This still seems like a weak argument to me when we have lots of up and running democracies that aren't, for example, enslaving 49% of the population. So, to me, saying that democracy is bad because this could happen when it is visibly not happening is not convincing. You are right, however, that I shouldn't have claimed that such arguments are offside because I find them unconvincing. I apologize and thank you.

[slickss]

Lucky enough to be from a country where even law enforcement don't carry guns, I find the US gun policy to be completely insane.

However, I think it is too late to just remove all of them now. It might do something long-term, but not short-term. The American culture and the insane amount of guns already in possession makes it very difficult.

Can someone explain to me why an assault rifle, such as the AR-15, should be available to civilians?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
We certainly have the "keep and bear arms" part down pat, but not the "well regulated" militia part. Making it easy for most any adult to obtain a gun doesn't seem very "well regulated" to me, and it is certainly very easy to obtain a gun in this country. The system that allows Cho Seung-Hui, Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, etc, to easily obtain firearms....is NOT very "well regulated".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're equivocating. The constitution uses a different sense of the word "regulated."