Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist in nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every living thing defends itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant, you're discussing the right to bear arms, not to defend oneself. Besides which, since when does an is imply an ought?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, that is really dense.

Second, I don't understand your Clintonspeak.

[/ QUOTE ]

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist in nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every living thing defends itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant, you're discussing the right to bear arms, not to defend oneself. Besides which, since when does an is imply an ought?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, that is really dense.

Second, I don't understand your Clintonspeak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dense? Expand. If you believe that 'natural rights' come from the example of living things and we observe that weapons are not used by any living things other than humans then it seems to run contrary to your point.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dense? Expand. If you believe that 'natural rights' come from the example of living things and we observe that weapons are not used by any living things other than humans then it seems to run contrary to your point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, humans are tool users. If we had big horns on our heads, we might defend ourselves like this. But we don't. So if a little old lady is attacked and she picks up a board with a nail in it and defends herself, this is very natural for a human. A firearm is an obvious progression of this concept.

For someone who is quoting Hume, I think you are being exceedingly contrary.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope more Americans get guns. An armed population is the last defense agains tyrany.

By the way, that is a good 'blog' entry on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF are you guys waiting for then? You've had a tyrant running your country for what, 8 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we got rid of him in 2000.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, we got rid of him in 2000.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: Guns in America
 

As someone who was a liberal in 2000, (high school), can you elaborate on that? I know clinton was crazy with the drug war, but don't know much else. Except that Hunter Thompson considered him a scumbag (which is good enough for me, but I'd like to know details.)

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or, try this page for info on gun control and genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

A counterpoint:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm

I ought to mention that the idea of gun ownership doesn't bother me at all, but there are better anti-gun control arguments (many of which are in this thread) than trying to connect it with genocide.

Re: Guns in America
 

My dad just bought a 454 Casull with a 2 1/2" barrel. I have nothing else to add except that I'd like to shoot it.

Re: Guns in America
 

Ouch. Buy lots of Advil first.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who was a liberal in 2000, (high school), can you elaborate on that? I know clinton was crazy with the drug war, but don't know much else. Except that Hunter Thompson considered him a scumbag (which is good enough for me, but I'd like to know details.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Slick Willy wrote a ton of executive orders, which is a way to enact law without that pesky Congress. Reagan wrote a few more, but that was mostly to undo the ton of executive orders written by Carter. Clinton also pardoned a fairly notorius list of criminals. He also got us involved in war in Kosovo without Congressional action, which nobody bitches about when they bitch about Iraq. BTW, we still have forces in Kosovo today.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
He also got us involved in war in Kosovo without Congressional action, which nobody bitches about when they bitch about Iraq. BTW, we still have forces in Kosovo today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody complains about that because it actually improved life a lot for the Kosovans and didn't cost huge numbers of lives.

Re: Guns in America
 

Claiming someone must be scum because Thompson thought they are scum is pretty pointless, the guy thought EVERYONE was a pig.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ouch. Buy lots of Advil first.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT. Get some earplugs while you're at it.

Re: Guns in America
 

I didnt really read this whole thing, because if we are debating gun control (this is about gun control, right?)nobody ever changes their minds. But i did see something the other day that was very interesting. I'm probably not going to change your mind, the same way i can't change your views on abortion no matter what i say, but here's an interesting occurence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming someone must be scum because Thompson thought they are scum is pretty pointless, the guy thought EVERYONE was a pig.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't consider him scum. Hunter was given to exaggeration. But it does lower my opinion of Clinton.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt really read this whole thing, because if we are debating gun control (this is about gun control, right?)nobody ever changes their minds. But i did see something the other day that was very interesting. I'm probably not going to change your mind, the same way i can't change your views on abortion no matter what i say, but here's an interesting occurence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my mind somewhat, as have others in this thread, after reading Paul Phillips write about it.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ouch. Buy lots of Advil first.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT. Get some earplugs while you're at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 3 handguns that I've shot with the most kick so far were :

3 - Grizzly Win Mag
2 - Desert Eagle .50AE
1 - S&W 629 2" barrel 44mag with wood MFN grips

for those that have shot guns like these how much more will the Casull with the 2 1/2 barrle kick(Hogue grips)?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist in nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every living thing defends itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant, you're discussing the right to bear arms, not to defend oneself. Besides which, since when does an is imply an ought?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, that is really dense.

Second, I don't understand your Clintonspeak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dense? Expand. If you believe that 'natural rights' come from the example of living things and we observe that weapons are not used by any living things other than humans then it seems to run contrary to your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Self-defense is inherent to the nature of every living thing. Most living things do not use weapons (tools) because they are intellectually and/or physically incapable of using tools, not because of any choice or ethical decision. The fact that a fish does not use a weapon to defend itself against a fisherman is a result of the physical capabilities of the fish, not a result of its nature or its natural instinct. By your logic, we should restrict ourselves to the least common denominator, and use no tool that is not available to every form of life.

Self-defense is a natural instinct, and I defy anyone to logically argue that I have no right to self-defense. If I do not have a natural right to self-defense, then someone has a natural right to harm or kill me. I may chose to give up my right to self-defense for what I consider to be a greater good, but no one has a right to demand that of me. You might argue that society can trump the individual right (that's why Socrates drank the hemlock), but that is an individual ethical choice.

If I have a right to self-defense, how can anyone draw an objective limit on the means of self-defense? Is it OK to defend myself with a baseball bat, but not with a knife? With a knife but not with a gun? With a shotgun but not with a handgun? If I have the right to defend myself, why do I not have the right to use all of the technology and human intelligence available to me? And why do I not have the right to use all of the technology and human intelligence available to a potential attacker?

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that 'natural rights' come from the example of living things and we observe that weapons are not used by any living things other than humans then it seems to run contrary to your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every living thing uses every weapon available to it to defend itself. Game animals do not choose to not use firearms against hunters. If they could, they would. They all do the best that they can.

I have yet to see any logical argument that a human cannot use any means for self preservation (which includes protection of family and community). I think that self-defense is a sufficient argument for the right to bear arms.

Re: Guns in America
 

ben,

AFAICT the argument you are presenting simply 'why don't I have the right to bear arm?', which is not an argument at all. The onus is not on someone else to prove that you don't have that 'right', it's on you to give a convincing argument that you do. Preferably while avoiding both Hume's Guillotine and Hume's Fork.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
ben,

AFAICT the argument you are presenting simply 'why don't I have the right to bear arm?', which is not an argument at all. The onus is not on someone else to prove that you don't have that 'right', it's on you to give a convincing argument that you do. Preferably while avoiding both Hume's Guillotine and Hume's Fork.

[/ QUOTE ]
The right in question is the right to self defense. If you agree that's a right, then the onus is on you to explain why it should be "the right to self defense except with guns."

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ben,

AFAICT the argument you are presenting simply 'why don't I have the right to bear arm?', which is not an argument at all. The onus is not on someone else to prove that you don't have that 'right', it's on you to give a convincing argument that you do. Preferably while avoiding both Hume's Guillotine and Hume's Fork.

[/ QUOTE ]
The right in question is the right to self defense. If you agree that's a right, then the onus is on you to explain why it should be "the right to self defense except with guns."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that there are any 'natural rights'. Rights are a social construction, not an objective fact.

You can also have the right to self defence by any means at your disposal, but not have the right to bear arms. I don't see how the two are incompatible.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]


I don't agree that there are any 'natural rights'. Rights are a social construction, not an objective fact.



[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that I am not entitled to defend myself or my family or my property unless society specifically grants me permission to do so? The only way that you can argue against the existence of natural rights is to argue in favor of this statement.


[ QUOTE ]
You can also have the right to self defence by any means at your disposal, but not have the right to bear arms.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with this logic:

A. I have a right to defend myself with any means at my disposal.

B. I have a gun at my disposal.

C. I don't have a right to defend myself with a gun.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that there are any 'natural rights'. Rights are a social construction, not an objective fact.



[/ QUOTE ]

So if some society democratically constructed the policy that a certain racial minority was to be rounded up and murdered, would you claim that was unjust? If so, on what basis?

Re: Guns in America
 

In a recent 20/20 report, John Stossel claimed that American children were 100 times more likely to die in swimming pools than by a handgun. The show was about how we are scared too much by some things and not enough by others.

I didn't bother checking Stossel's claim, but maybe someone here can.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope more Americans get guns. An armed population is the last defense agains tyrany.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming this is tongue in cheek. Otherwise, it's the most ludicrous thing I've read in a long time.

A population "armed" with handguns is no more effective against a modern, powerful tyrannical government than a BB gun is at killing bear. Unless you plan to house laser equipped tank battalions and squadrons of F16s along with the extensive crews to operate them, then your "arms" are a complete joke.

The time when that might have been true was about 200 years ago. Now if you live under a tyrannical government, you're just screwed. If you live under a democracy that threatens to become a tyranny, then you better vote and vote well.

There are essentially no good arguments against some sort of gun control, although there are some good reasons citizens should own guns.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
One portion absolutely amazed me:

90
Number of guns in the U.S. for every 100 citizens, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, making it the most heavily armed country in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not necessarily true. For example, let's say that everyone who owned a gun owned 10 of them. Since a gun user can only shoot 1 gun at a time (no silly counterarguments please), it still could be that only 1 in 10 Americans are actually armed. A gun user with 10 guns is no more "heavily armed" than one with 2 guns.

Point being simply that we should be careful about the conclusions we jump to regarding statistics.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a recent 20/20 report, John Stossel claimed that American children were 100 times more likely to die in swimming pools than by a handgun. The show was about how we are scared too much by some things and not enough by others.

I didn't bother checking Stossel's claim, but maybe someone here can.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't need to check it. Unless he worded it differently than you, that's complete [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope more Americans get guns. An armed population is the last defense agains tyrany.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming this is tongue in cheek. Otherwise, it's the most ludicrous thing I've read in a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
He probably wasn't being tongue-in-cheek. He's talking about an insurgency or rebellion which is reasonable.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a recent 20/20 report, John Stossel claimed that American children were 100 times more likely to die in swimming pools than by a handgun. The show was about how we are scared too much by some things and not enough by others.

I didn't bother checking Stossel's claim, but maybe someone here can.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't need to check it. Unless he worded it differently than you, that's complete [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like it's based on an article by Freakonomics author Stephen Levitt. He says the ratio of accidental death for children under 10 to pools in America is 1/11,000, while the ratio for gun deaths is 1/1,000,000.

Re: Guns in America
 

Well, I found this link which says drowning deaths represnt 16% of childhood accidental deaths and guns represent 1%. However, a large number of drowning deaths are in lakes and bathtubs (for infants). It looks like children are more likely to accidentally die in swimming pools than by firearms, but it isn't close to 100 times as likely. Also, that stat does not count murders by firearms.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

A bunch of crap. His arguments are completely unconvincing (which is not to say his conclusion is wrong.) It's ironic that he states "In the context of the eighteenth century, 'well-regulated' did not mean 'subject to numerous regulations.'" since he took the whole militia reference out of context.

The wording of the constitution made sense in the context in which it was written, but not today. Which, again, does not mean citizens should not be allowed to carry guns. It just mean the original reasons are outdated.

A veiled attempt to imply that allowing Jews in WW II Germany-controlled Europe to own guns might have prevented the holocaust is outrageous.

By the way, Hitler's rise to power was by VOTE, not power. The Nazi party's first attempt at seizing power by force was a complete failer. The Nazi party obtained a 37% vote (which was very large given the fragmented nature of German politics at the time). The final "nail in the coffin" - the Enabling Act which essentially put Hitler into power as a dictator - was VOTED in (albeit after "eliminating" the Communist party by subterfuge.)

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you understand modern warfare as well as you seem to think you do. See Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet primarily), Iraq, and other examples of how a well armed population can be an absolute bitch to forcibly coerce even in the face of very modern armies.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't think you understand the point that was being made. It's not a question of "forcibly coercing" someone. It's the fact that you cannot escape a tyranny (or overthrow it) just because you have guns. In other words, restricting the right to vote does not require forcibly coercing anyone. You simply don't hold a vote, and no one has the strength to overthrow you if you own the armed forces of the country.

Obviously this doesn't hold if a country is in complete disorder (like Iraq for example.) But that is not part of the natural evolution of a country - that was a "catastrophic event" caused by an outside influence. A modern government in stable control cannot lose power simply because its citizens own guns.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt read most of this thread so I might be repeating what someone else said.

Hand guns SUCK. They are absolutely pointless. People use the excuse that "they need them for protection". Protection from what, other people with guns? That is [censored]. I dont think they'd need these guns if nobody had guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to assume you're not really stupid, but that you just stopped thinking briefly.

There are lots of ways stronger and more skilled people can kill weaker and less skilled people, without guns. For an extreme example, I think an 80 year old woman should be able to defend herself against a 30 year old ex-football linebacker who breaks into her house to rob her. A handgun might help her out a bit.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bernard Harcourt article

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish we had more of his sort of clarity and logic:

NRA stands for the proposition that “it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people
who kill people.” The central idea here is that instrumentalities—in this case
handguns—are just that: instrumentalities. They are not to be blamed for what
people do wrongly with them. If you follow the logic of that argument, then
you would expect a member of the NRA to respond, when confronted with the
Nazi gun laws argument, in the same manner: “it’s not gun registration that
causes genocide, it’s people who cause genocide.”

There is no other conclusion to jump to here - simply that their logic is wrong and hypocritical. (This of course does not mean that guns should or should not be controlled.)

Re: Guns in America
 

Bringing Hitler/Nazi Germany into any argument is usually needlessly inflammatory.

I think you can make the point that it's a lot tougher to be a dictator/tyrant over an armed populace than an unarmed populace.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the argument about instrumentalities. I don't think anyone has ever argued that gun control CAUSES genocide--only that it facilitates genocide, for the genocide-minded.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]


If I have a right to self-defense, how can anyone draw an objective limit on the means of self-defense? Is it OK to defend myself with a baseball bat, but not with a knife? With a knife but not with a gun? With a shotgun but not with a handgun? If I have the right to defend myself, why do I not have the right to use all of the technology and human intelligence available to me? And why do I not have the right to use all of the technology and human intelligence available to a potential attacker?


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose that a weapon is invented which you would allow you to kill simply by blinking your eyes twice while looking at your target. Further suppose that the weapon is the size of a credit card, makes no noise, etc. In other words, it is virtually undetectable.

Do you seriously contend that your "natural right" to possess such a weapon should be unfettered. Such a weapon would be so dangerous, so prone to misuse, and so likely to lead to accidental killings that it simply would have to be banned to the extent possible by any well-governed society.

Re: Guns in America
 

what could banning that weapon do? it would still find its way into the hands of criminals, and then we're [censored]. right?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
what could banning that weapon do? it would still find its way into the hands of criminals, and then we're [censored]. right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but that is irrelevant to my point. Benfranklin's position is that a society would be wrong to ban such a weapon, even if it were possible to do so effectively, because he has a natural right to defend himself with every bit of technology available to humankind.

Re: Guns in America
 

yes, and i think he's absolutely right. if criminals on the street had access to such a superweapon, then i absolutely believe people should be given access to the same weapon to defend themselves.

think about it. say i was the only guy in the world with said superweapon. i would be a pretty powerful killing/robbing machine. but now say everyone on the street has one. oops.. my power has been diminished severely, because i now fear retribution.

Re: Guns in America
 

I think somebody needs to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark again.