Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
So what if they don't?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to ask this question then you obviously can see no reason for doing background checks at all. Which makes me wonder why you would do it yourself, if you see no benefit to it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mosdef, would you agree that pvn's owning of a car increases the chance that you could get killed in a car accident?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should he not be able to have a car because of this increased risk?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
but whatever the particular right is, there *must* be a way to *objectively* determine if the right is being violated. If there isn't, it can't be a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This directly contradicts your previous assertion that there can be disagreement on what is and is not a right. How can there be disagreement on what is and is not a right if they are objectively determined?

Sorry to leave out your other comments in my response - I think what I've said above requires a sufficient answer before I can address everything else you said which seems to be derivative from your apparently contradictory statement above.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mosdef, would you agree that pvn's owning of a car increases the chance that you could get killed in a car accident?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should he not be able to have a car because of this increased risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't think so. I am willing to accept the impact on me of his owning a car. Of course someone else may think he must be banned from having a car. We would need to resolve that difference of opinion, since if someone tried to forcibly take pvn's car away from him when I didn't think it was justified I would object to that.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mosdef, would you agree that pvn's owning of a car increases the chance that you could get killed in a car accident?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should he not be able to have a car because of this increased risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't think so. I am willing to accept the impact on me of his owning a car. Of course someone else may think he must be banned from having a car. We would need to resolve that difference of opinion, since if someone tried to forcibly take pvn's car away from him when I didn't think it was justified I would object to that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you not see that the owning of almost any object could in some way be used to harm another person? We would spend the rest of eternity "debating" on what should and shouldn't be allowed. We don't have rights to any certain amount of risk in our lives.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but whatever the particular right is, there *must* be a way to *objectively* determine if the right is being violated. If there isn't, it can't be a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This directly contradicts your previous assertion that there can be disagreement on what is and is not a right. How can there be disagreement on what is and is not a right if they are objectively determined?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. We can objectively determine if I have three frozen pizzas delivered to my door every morning. They are either there or they are not. That quality, for us to be able to objectively determine if the condition is violated or not, is a *necessary* criteria for rights. It is not a *sufficient* one, however.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mosdef, would you agree that pvn's owning of a car increases the chance that you could get killed in a car accident?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should he not be able to have a car because of this increased risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't think so. I am willing to accept the impact on me of his owning a car.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though you have a much higher chance of getting killed by a car than a gun?

I'm intrigued that my rights are contingent upon your irrational personal preferences.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course someone else may think he must be banned from having a car. We would need to resolve that difference of opinion,

[/ QUOTE ]

That person would, of course, be free to ban my possession of cars on his property, or to exclude me from his property altogether. Difference resolved.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a "call" you "make". There may be some disagreement on what is a right and what isn't

[/ QUOTE ]

Then doesn't there have to be some method to determine who's definition of rights with be forcably protected in our individual-rights based society? Or do you want us to use your definition because it's "obviously" the right one?

[ QUOTE ]
There is only risk when we interact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Ipso facto when I am at risk due to your actions we are interacting.

[ QUOTE ]
And I am not forcing you to interact with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

But somehow I am still ending up at risk of being shot by you even though the risk, by your own declaration, only exists when we are interacting. Are we interacting or are we not interacting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mosdef,

By your definition of "interacting" (anything that potentially creates any risk for you), anything anyone does is "interacting" with you: from driving their own car, to having a cookout in their backyard, to even staying home, because it is always possible to contrive some scenario in which something they do indirectly affects you or indirectly places you at risk.

That is not "interaction"; it's just the way the world works: anything has the potential to affect someone or something else. It isn't realistic or sensible to apply this standard to things or actions unless they have a significant chance of affecting you. A tiny such chance exists with everything and so is not worthy of consideration.

You might have a good argument if you could show that pvn's purchase of a gun significantly affects your chances for safety (and that means by affecting it at least as much or more so than many other common activities or purchases which are all taken for granted as parts of modern life in America).

If you can show such a significant effect as regards gun purchases, then more power to you and to your argument. If you can't, then you are arguing an unimportant aspect that should be dismissed. My guess is that the true answer lies somewhere in between, yet that gun purchases do not affect your chances for safety more than many other common activities or purchases. Nevertheless, I'll keep an open mind if you wish to attempt to show otherwise.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Why have any laws then? Criminals don't obey them anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laws stop crime about as well as red lights stop cars.

Laws only exist to tell you what to do and outline punishment for not doing it. They don't physically prevent anything.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't. We can objectively determine if I have three frozen pizzas delivered to my door every morning. They are either there or they are not. That quality, for us to be able to objectively determine if the condition is violated or not, is a *necessary* criteria for rights. It is not a *sufficient* one, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised that you don't see the consequence of your statement. For any right that you claim, it only takes one person to claim that it is not your right for you to "lose" that right under the necessity of "objectivity".

Are you telling me that there can be disagreement about what is objectively observable?