Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[pvn]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should it be prohibitied? There is no burden on anyone to explain why things should be permitted, because that is the default position; the burden of proof is on those who want to invasively prohibit other people from freely engaging in voluntary transactions.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

And you do?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Please explain how I can violate your rights without interacting with you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no need to arbitrate a difference of opinion between us if we are not interacting. By saying we must pre-emptively decide this question, you're initiating interaction.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A dictator who dictates over exactly one person - me.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, without answering my second question in my previous post you're not disproving anything. For assault weapons (not fully-automatic assault rifles) to be necessary, I argue that they must have some positive ability that other weapons don't. So, again, couldn't the shop owners have defended themselves with something like a glock?

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make if they are "necessary" or not?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
We are talking about angry, but normal, people here, right? They're not zombies that will walk towards you until they fall. I would think that if you fire towards a group of people with any firearm, they run.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
I'm still not convinced that a handgun with a 20 bullet clip isn't sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great! Sounds like you found the gun that fits your needs.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be much more dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now the obvious follow-up: Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the weak would have no defense against the strong.

The people would have no check on the government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont look into the details like criminals don't obey laws

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a defeatist attitude. Why have any laws then? Criminals don't obey them anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

And "people are too dumb and/or evil to be allowed to have guns" is *not* defeatist?

Possession of a gun is not a crime; it may be *illegal*, against the law, but it's not a crime - there is no victim.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just worried about all the idiots who own a gun.
Idiots are dangerous and sadly there are too many of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

See what I mean?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Brainwalter: Do you really want everyone to carry assault weapons when the government collapses? I disagree that a gun in the house increases the safety of your family.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd prefer that only criminals have them?

[ QUOTE ]
bkholdem: Yes, Potter confiscated all guns not intended for law enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are guns intended for law enforcement special?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't get to decide a priori that their rights aren't being violated by your actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, someone has to. When your entire political philosophy is that individual rights can't be violated, then individual rights need to be defined.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Please explain how I can violate your rights without interacting with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am claiming that you are interacting with me. If you get to define when you are and are not interacting with me, then you can just come and take all my property and say "I'm not interacting with you. Sorry, you don't get to contest that assertion."

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no need to arbitrate a difference of opinion between us if we are not interacting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even when our difference of opinion is whether or not we are interacting? That doesn't make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
By saying we must pre-emptively decide this question, you're initiating interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that I am claiming that you have already initiated interaction. Again, if you steal something of mine and I say "Hey, you're interacting with me!", you can't turn around and say "Your claim that I am interacting with you is initiation of interaction! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

[ QUOTE ]
A dictator who dictates over exactly one person - me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. As noted earlier, you are also dictating over me by claiming what my rights are and are not.

[slickss]

People against gun control:

Do you agree or disagree that the problems with gun control in USA are caused by the American history and culture?

I am getting more and more convinced of this, here is why:

1) "Because the weak would have no defense against the strong."

2) You keep talking about how it is "my right to own a firearm". While I completely disagree that one should have a right for something like this, it isn't what this discussion is about. A society needs certain regulations, and we're discussing if gun control is one.

3) You keep talking about the need to protect yourselves from complete mayhem and anarchy, as if it was imminent. Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.

There is no doubt that strict gun control works very well in other countries. Yet, you're convinced that strict gun control in USA would only benefit criminal acts. Can anyone offer an explanation for this, different from mine - that Americans, in terms of guns, are straight out crazy?

To me, this discussion alone shows why guns are a big problem in USA.