Guns in America - Page 15

Jamougha · #**141** 09-18-2007, 02:02 PM

[ 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.

benfranklin · #**142** 09-19-2007, 01:42 AM

[ 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.

bluesbassman · #**143** 10-01-2007, 01:03 PM

[ 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?

DrewDevil · #**144** 10-01-2007, 02:16 PM

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.

jeffnc · #**145** 10-01-2007, 03:04 PM

[ 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.

jeffnc · #**146** 10-01-2007, 03:07 PM

[ 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.

iron81 · #**147** 10-01-2007, 03:22 PM

[ 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.

DrewDevil · #**148** 10-01-2007, 03:31 PM

[ 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.

iron81 · #**149** 10-01-2007, 03:45 PM

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.

jeffnc · #**150** 10-01-2007, 04:06 PM

[ 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.)