posted
I think the last two points are the most divisive in discussion over gun ownership, and the least likely points that people will change their mind about.
To the second to last point, on the uses of firearms, there is a division over what people perceive firearms were *designed for* and what people actually *use them for*. (Person A says they collect guns because they are shiny, and Person B says that doesn't matter because guns are designed to kill)
To the last point, people often ignore the accidental death statistics for mundane objects/tools/machines to focus on the accidental death from firearms, because of the perception of what firearms are *designed for*. (Person A says an unwatched bottle of drano on the floor can kill a child just as easily as an unsecured gun, and Person B says drano wasn't designed to kill so those accidents are somehow more acceptable.)
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:*The use of deadly force on an assailant is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.
This is NOT mostly agreed upon.
The use of deadly force on an assailant is not appropriate except perhaps in a situation in which we know someone else is certain to die otherwise. I'm not sure such a situation is even possible in real life (because knowing the intentions of an assailant is nearly impossible), but I certainly doubt it is common. In most situations involving an assailant, it would be highly inappropriate and very unethical to kill the assailant. If someone grabs a woman's purse, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is sneaking around in your backyard, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is in a fight with you, it is not appropriate to shoot them.
Also importantly, there is no "social contract" of nonviolence at play here. Our obligation to not kill eachother does not stem from a mutual agreement. Rather, I think it stems from the inherent value of people's lives. You cannot forfeit that value - your life has value regardless of how you act. Killing you can thus only be ethical if there is some justification that exceeds the value of your life.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Tres, since you still seem to be interested in this aspect of the topic, would you mind responding to my post on that subject?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, I think it's mostly agreed on if the words "where a reasonable threat of physical harm or death extists absent the use of repsonsive deadly force" are inserted after "assailant."
I think there's significant disagreement to the idea of shooting an assailant when there is a safe way to escape or there's no threat of physical harm.
Tres's attempts to muddy the waters by adding non-assailants as an example in his refutation notwithstanding, I think the general conclusion is correct.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
**The use of deadly force on an assailant where a reasonable threat of physical harm or death extists absent the use of repsonsive deadly force is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
(Caveat: I have no legal knowledge) I believe the second amendment gives a right to WMDs. I feel it should be amended for that reason. I don't expect anyone else in the country to agree with me, though.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: I do agree with you that life has inherent value.
Where we don't see eye to eye is that if someone chooses to disregard the value of my life that I'm obligated to still value theirs. If someone is in need of killing because of their own free choices that endanger another life, then they have put themselves into that situation and death is just a repercussion.
I hope with all my heart that when I leave this world it will be without anyone's life on my hands. But it's not entirely up to me. If someone breaks into my home and doesn't respond to clear instructions to lay down on the ground, I'll probably shoot them.
And I probably will not shoot them in an attempt to wound them (trying to minimize the damage to them), but in the safest way possible to me and my family, that is, twice in the chest and once in the head. My stated goal is to stop them from harming my loved ones, and the surest way to do that is to kill them.
I don't want this person dead, I don't want them in my living room either! This was not my choice, it was theirs. It was further their choice to not lay down on the ground with their hands in full sight.
At a certain point you have to take personal responsibility. Life is about your choices and some of those choices have repercussions.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a country where the Government owns all the guns, the government owns all the power. It is the inalienable right of all Americans to overthrow thier government in self defense if neccesary. When the government has all the guns, such rebellion dies too quickly.
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns.
Guns are not nearly enough to defeat the advanced weapons of the modern American military. If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
And in all likelyhood if it came down to needing to overthrow the government, do you really think the entire military would be without exception completely loyal to the govt, to the point of being willing to brutally suppress their own fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, neighbors?
Realistically, if we were standing up to our own govt, we would probably be doing it in the way the Iraqi's are so doing right now.
I think I agree with KOM in that our real protection against an oppressive government isn't our guns, its the fact the military is in the control of civilians, elected by civilians.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tres--actually guns won't allow you to defeat the US military, and I don't beleive we should all arm ourselves with tanks and c-4 explosives. Face it, there are more dangerous people out there than our military.
However guns are neccessary to defeat our government if it becomes neccesary. See Iraq for a blueprint on how to do it.
Stone-Wolf--great summation. I believe that the vast majority of the US population is in favor of limited gun-control that meets but does not exceed the following.
1) Licensing and testing for basic safety of all weapon owners.
2) Limiting ages where people can own guns, or use them without adult supervision.
3) Severe limitations on what can cause a person to loose their gun ownership license--crimminal violence, drug addiciton, phsychological problems that would make guns dangerous to the user or to others.
(Suicide with a gun is a lot easier than most other means.)
4) Limitations on what kind of guns can be owned. No automatic weapons, cop-killer armor peircing rounds, or grenade launchers etc. You don't use those guns for hunting, target shooting, or protection. You only use them for collectable purposes, which would be allowed under another license (probably an expensive one).
Personally, I'd like to see ballistics fingerprinting of all guns as well, so that when a gun is used in a crime we can determine where it came from.
HOwever the gun industry has mostly bought the upper powers of the NRA, and use its political force to block any attempt to cut into their sales. If the bad guys had to go on the black market to buy their guns, it would hurt sales. So instead of coming up with reasonable laws most people agree on, that neither gives free range to shoot what and where you want, or confiscates all the guns, we get useless debates, talking points, and spin.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't use those guns for hunting, target shooting, or protection.
Just to be contrary, I've used automatic weapons for target shooting. They are loads of fun. It's not like I was really aiming, though - I was just watching sparks fly off the rusted out barbecue grill target we have since turned into a collinder.
I have not, however, used a grenade launcher - though I'd imagine they could also be a lot of fun if used in a secure environment with appropriate safety measures taken.
Blowing stuff up really can be fun. I mean, firecrackers aren't even legal in NJ - and what are they except an entertaining way to watch stuff blow up? (Again, with appropriate training and safety practices observed)
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Overview: (please let me know if you feel the stated status aren't accurate or if I didn't hit a major topic of discussion)
*Gun ownership/carrying by citizens keeps down violent crime. Status: Disputed.
For the moment ignoring all the other aspects and uses of guns, I will say that gun ownership and carrying increases the sense of preceived risk presented to criminals. If a substantial portion of the population is armed, then criminals will think twice about engaging in criminal behavior.
Now that may or may not have any effect on the statistics, but a completely disarmed population sends a message to criminals that anything goes and that preceived consequences are nil.
quote:*Gun ownership/carrying should require licensing/safety training/physiological evaluations/background checks. Status: Agreed.
Agree and disagree, guns are dangerous and therefore every idiot on the face of the earth should not be allowed to buy, own, and use them.
Certainly, training is critical. Too many people think that just because they have seen a few 'Rambo' or 'Die Hard' movies they know everything their is to know about guns. That is SO NOT true.
The problems is this makes gun ownership very selective. It creates a selection process that is very much open to political manipulation. In many states it is the County Sherif that has the final say on whether someone can carry a gun, but, even if there are no negative factors that could justify your permit being denied, the Sherif can do it simply because he doesn't like you, or simply because he knows you supported the candidate that opposed him in the last election.
It is conceivable in the correct, or should I say incorrect, political climate that all Democrates would be uniformly denied guns and all Republican would uniformly be granted guns.
On one hand, I don't mind that 'someone is watching', but my big question is 'who is watching the watchers?'
quote:*High explosives, automatic weapons, & weapons that could be used to wipe out a large segment of people should be restricted. Status: Mostly Agreed.
Just one problem with this, the Bill of Rights is not about hunting or sport shooting, it is about the rights of citizens to form an army, a militia, that has the power to, if nothing else, threaten the existing government. Our right to keep and bear arms is the means by which we the people maintain our place in the power structure of government. If we willingly give up the sources of our power as citizens, then we can't cry when we suddenly we are powerless to affect the will of government.
Explosives, because of the obvious danger, are indeed restricted in our society. Yet, those in the know, know that explosives can be made from common household items. Yet, very few people seek out that information, and even fewer are crazy enough to try to apply it.
There are reasonable bounds to the use and possession of these extreme weapons, but I don't think military style semi-automatic weapons should be banned.
quote:*The US constitution's second amendment is designed to give citizens the ability to overthrow its own government. Status: Moderatly Disputed
Close but not quite. The Bill of Rights does not give the people the right to overthrow the government willy-nilly. We have the right of subversion and rebellion, BUT ONLY to the extent that the government has become corrupt and has strayed substantially from the founding documents and prinicples. Further our rebellion can only be for the purpose of bringing the government BACK in line with those founding documents and principles.
We only have the right of revolution within the bounds of the founding documents and principle, and only to bring the exiting government back in line with those documents and principles.
quote:*The use of deadly force on an assailant is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.
Not quite, any response to an attack or preceived attack must be a measured response. If some redneck is intent on shoving you in a bar room dispute, that is not free and open license to shot him dead. You are only allowed to respond with sufficient force to prevent the attack on yourself. That much and no more.
Now that doesn't mean that you match force with equal force. It would be unwise to stand and trade blows with someone who is substantailly bigger and/or more experienced than you. You can use MORE force than is being directed at you because that is certainly what it will take to STOP the attack, but you can't use excessive force. Further once the attack is clearly stopped, you can not continue to use force. In that case, your actions cross the line into assault.
So, you are allowed to use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself and to stop the attack on your person, but only that much and no more.
quote:*Firearms ownership has multiple purposes, i.e. protection, sport, hunting, collecting, etc. Status: Moderatly Disputed.
I don't understand your response here at all; 'moderately disputed'??? Though I don't know for sure, it seems safe to conclude that you really don't know anything about gun use in America. Millions of rounds of ammunition are expended every year and know one is harmed, nothing is destroyed. Thousands of Boy Scouts qualify in fire arms every year, how is that not a legitimate alternate gun use? Firearms sporting competitions are held all across the country, both professional and amatuer, every year, and no harm is cause to anyone. Believe it or not, MOST hunters do not kill anything. Yes, they go hunting, and a few of them kill and USE game, but most hunters are unsuccessful.
There are many gun collectors who admire guns as an aspect of history, the application of physics and chemistry, and the craftsmanship of the gun maker. Many truly historical gun collectors will never ever fire any of their guns.
How can you moderately dispute what is so obviously true. A vast vast majority of gun ownership and use provides great enjoyment to many and no harm to anyone. How is that not clearly 'multiple purposes'?
quote:*Firearms risk of accidental death is much like other dangerous objects, minimal with proper handling and training. Status: Disputed.
Again, I'm not sure which part you dispute; 'much like other dangerous objects' or 'minimal with poper handling and training' or some other aspect that is unclear to me? Cars are dangerous and many people are injured and killed each year by them. Mostly these injuries are caused by operator error, either error in physical action or error in judgement.
The same is true of guns, they are dangerous, and when that danger is not respected and treated with extreme caution, people get hurt. But keep in mind that far far far fewer people get hurt than those many many many who handle guns for their whole lives and are never harmed and who never harm anyone.
Again this is one of those things that make me think that you have very little experience with guns and shooting. If you really were experienced with guns, you would have a far clearer sense of perspective and proportions regarding guns. Not everyone who touches a gun instantly drops over dead.
Common sense, caution, and ridged safety procedures are what insure gun safety and those are the very things that insure automobile safety, airplane safety, kitchen knife safety, high school sports safety, and every other hazard encounted by people every day of their lives.
So, again, I'm not really sure what it is you are disputing.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
(Caveat: I have no legal knowledge) I believe the second amendment gives a right to WMDs. I feel it should be amended for that reason. I don't expect anyone else in the country to agree with me, though.
That's the craziest thing I've heard all day. For what reason do you think the second amendment gives that right? And how do you think it should be amended?
Blue Wizard -
quote:Close but not quite. The Bill of Rights does not give the people the right to overthrow the government willy-nilly. We have the right of subversion and rebellion, BUT ONLY to the extent that the government has become corrupt and has strayed substantially from the founding documents and prinicples. Further our rebellion can only be for the purpose of bringing the government BACK in line with those founding documents and principles.
We only have the right of revolution within the bounds of the founding documents and principle, and only to bring the exiting government back in line with those documents and principles.
Not that I necessarily disagree that we have the right to rebel, but where is this right guaranteed to us? It is NOT inherent in the second amendment. If you look at similar amendments that were passed in state constitutions, and in original drafts of the second amendment, many of them include "for the defense of the State" in there. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights do I recall there being a provision to overthrow the government, the entire point of our new Democracy was to AVOID what they saw going on across the ocean in France. Read what Adams was writing to his friends from France at the time. Read about the half dozen uprisings and rebellions they had to put down with mercenaries and militias. They weren't big fans of mob rule.
They'd just finished fighting off a monarchal tyranny, not a democracy. I won't deny that there was a degree of safety in knowing that individuals had guns if push came to shove, but they were supposed to be organized into state run militias, not mobs of people trying to tear down the government.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blue Wizard, the statements that you are responding to are an overview of the discussion not my personal views. If you want to know my personal views, read my posts.
And in point of fact I have worked at three different shooting ranges. I am a marksman and own a small arsonal. I've put five shots into a one and a half inch group from 45' away, free standing with a pistol.
(Edit) Sorry if this sounds harsh, that was just anger talking.
posted
Yeah, I've come into this quite late. I was keeping track of it at work though, but I won't log in there.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The use of deadly force on an assailant is not appropriate except perhaps in a situation in which we know someone else is certain to die otherwise. I'm not sure such a situation is even possible in real life (because knowing the intentions of an assailant is nearly impossible), but I certainly doubt it is common. In most situations involving an assailant, it would be highly inappropriate and very unethical to kill the assailant. If someone grabs a woman's purse, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is sneaking around in your backyard, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is in a fight with you, it is not appropriate to shoot them.
Ummm, yeah... There is a certain way to ascertain which level of force is used on someone. I work at the base in Groton. If someone were to come charging up no weapon in hand, I would not use a gun. Instead I would use pepper spray or a baton, depending on which I had. If they had a knife, I would use the same. Now, if they came charging up with their car...I would shoot. And they won't be driving their car anymore. If they shoot, I shoot back. An' I don't shoot to injur them. I keep watch over items of national security. It is within my orders to make sure that is not violated. Lethal force is approved for when: you or someone else is at risk of death or serious injury, escape, risk of national security, and self defense. I don't need to read their minds to know what their intentions are. Most people give that away physically.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Blue Wizard, the statements that you are responding to are an overview of the discussion not my personal views. If you want to know my personal views, read my posts.
And in point of fact I have worked at three different shooting ranges. I am a marksman and own a small arsonal. I've put five shots into a one and a half inch group from 45' away, free standing with a pistol.
(Edit) Sorry if this sounds harsh, that was just anger talking.
My apologies...heat of the moment and all that. I guess, in a sense, I understood you were summarizing the general view, and not stating your personal views. In light of that, and with 20/20 hindsight, the personal comments I made were uncalled for. So again...sorry.
But, if we both step back, and take what appears to be personal comments directed at you, and make them comments about the people who hold the general opinion, I don't think I'm that far off.
I see so many people making public statements about what guns do and don't do, and what gun owners do and don't do, and what the government should do about it all, and it is clear from their statements that they neither have knowledge of guns and gun use in our society, but they have no knowledge or have given no thought to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and how it applies to the government/citizens relationship.
I cringe everytime I see some Talking Head (news reporter) comment on the 6 o'clock news that military weapons don't have anything to do with hunting (or handguns or any other type of gun or policy they may be objecting to a the moment).
Well, that may be true, but if they actually read now and then, they would know that the Bill of Rights doesn't have anything to do with hunting. But both military style weapons and the Bill of Rights DO have something to do with forming and maintaining a 'well ordered militia'.
In my view, the Bill of Rights established a clearly needed FOURTH branch of government. A fourth branch that like the other branches was designed to create a balance of power and assure that government never gets out of control. That collective ammendment created these four branches of government, control, and balance; Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and THE PEOPLE. We, the People, have power over government, and as soon as we give up that power, that is the beginning of the end for America as we know it.
Please take my comments as directed at the general opinions expressed and not at you personally. In that light, I suspect you will actually agree with what I said.
Again, genuine apologies for any offense or anger you may have felt.
posted
The "fourth branch" isn't a PART of the government though. The government is entirely made up of people from the that "fourth branch," and we have complete control over who serves in the other three branches.
The Bill of Rights did nothing to establish, or show the necessity of a fourth branch. The Constitution, and the basis of democracy vested the power in the people, not the Bill of Rights. It was set up to specifically guarantee the rights of the people, but wasn't meant to to limit those rights. It placed certain things off limits to the control of the government, unless the people should choose to amend those rights.
Maybe it's just your wording that is tripping me up, but you're saying EVERYONE is part of the government, in which case no one is being governed
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
(Caveat: I have no legal knowledge) I believe the second amendment gives a right to WMDs. I feel it should be amended for that reason. I don't expect anyone else in the country to agree with me, though.
That's the craziest thing I've heard all day. For what reason do you think the second amendment gives that right? And how do you think it should be amended?
Unlike you, I don't twist the Bill of Rights until it's barely recognizable trying to make it say what I want it to say.
The second half of the second amendment says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It doesn't say: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless the weapons are really, really dangerous."
As I said, I'm not a lawyer, I don't have the slightess idea what legal language would be needed to change it. I'm not even sure if, legally, my understanding holds any water at all. I'd love to see what Dagonee has to say about that.
I'd just prefer that we amended it rather than pretending we're not breaking it with every law we make. I'm funny that way.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unlike you, I don't twist the Bill of Rights until it's barely recognizable trying to make it say what I want it to say.
Now that's amusing, as I don't think I do that at all. Where have I said that I want to outlaw all guns? The amendment just says that people get to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say what kind. I'm curious as to a further definition of the quote above.
And "arms" btw, was an 18th century definition. Madison and Adams couldn't possibly have dreamed of nuclear weapons or sarin nerve gas. Following your definition of the second amendment, it guarantees me the right to buy a tank, an aircraft carrier, a nuclear weapon, a death star, whatever.
And you think that I am twisting the language of the Second Amendment (to be specific, we aren't talking about the other 90% of the bill)? I think you're twisting it beyond reason to make it say what you want it to say.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You're right. I think, though, blacwolve is saying that, since it specifically *doesn't* say what kind, it protects *all* kinds.
By not restricting the word "arms" to mean a certain type of weapon, it therefore covers all weapons.
So, you can arm yourself with a knife, a gun, a bazooka, a tank, or a backpack nuke. To restrict that would be to "infringe" upon your right to arm yourself.
Note: Not that I agree with that totally, per se, but I can see the rationale.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
the problem with this lack of restriction is that at the time there was very little difference between hunting/sport weaponry and military armaments.
So, if the intent of the amendment was to allow the civilian populus the capacity to militarily oppose a government's military forces, then it would seem we should have the right to buy and own tanks and cruisers etc...
However, if the intent was to do the above within the realm of what is also usable as a common tool, then we now have a discrepancy between the amendment and modern reality.
That being said, I personally think somewhere in-between is best. As mentioned, Iraq is oddly a good example. The insurgents are effectively what the amendment says we should have the capability to be. They have access to small arms and some primarily non-military explosives, and manage to do a decent enough job disrupting the government.
The thing is that most of us would agree that allowing the general populus to have unlimited access to military weaponry would not be a great idea. The world has changed a lot since the 1700s, and the exact version of reality that the founding fathers envisioned here doesn't make much sense any more. however, some middle-ground can certainly be found that fulfils at least a decent portion of the spirit of that amendment. Perhaps that middle ground allows for civilians to own M-16s and P-90s, perhaps it's more restricted to hunting rifles and semi-auto pistols.
If you think about it, even were we allowed to have tanks or fighter aircraft, we'd never have enough to really take on the government in any concievable way that would be much/at all more effective than just having a few rifles. Basically, most everything above the level of assault rifles is so prohibatively expensive that no one would be able to buy it or enough to make the military blink. So the argument that not having guns or powerful enough guns makes it impossible to overthrow the government is about as valid as the complaint that we can't overthrow the government because the civilian populus doesn't have trillions of dollars worth of cash to spend on "defense"
And I think an important distinction is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant us the "Right to overthrow the government" instead it grants us the "Right to have the physical ability to overthrow the government"
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Two actual events come to mind. In New York a crazy person decided to kill a subway train full of people, several brave people rushed him, most of them died, but eventually someone wrestled him down, while he was reloading. Something like 12 dead, 6 hurt. If a single one of them had had a gun, it would have been over.
It's a bit of a moot example really. If there was strict gun control in the US, chances are the crazy person wouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
So the need for passengers to have a gun in response would be negated.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since I would regret that victim-child had to shoot aggressor-child, but not hold victim-child morally culpable, I don't see why you think this leads to a different conclusion.
I don't think it changes the moral calculus. Rather, I think people tend to emotionally undervalue the life of the aggressor and thus are too quick to say it is okay to just kill him or her. An aggressor is a human being too - someone's child - and being an aggressor in that situation does not make his or her life any less valuable, in the same way that a parent shouldn't value a behaving child more than a misbehaving child.
What I don't understand is how someone would throw away the aggressor's life, just on the chance that the aggressor might get kill someone. I use the parent example because I think most parents, honestly, would do whatever possible to try to save BOTH children. I don't think most parents would be willing to sacrifice the aggressor child just on the chance that he or she might harm the victim child. I think that if they truly love both children as much as they should, then they'd find any option other than the one that would most likely save both lives to be unacceptable. I think the law (including moral law) should respect the value of both lives in the same fashion.
quote:The first is similar to assumption of risk - it's well known that people will attempt to defend themselves against aggression. Therefore, aggressors have assumed the risk of responsive violence. Second, and more important, by violating the social contract of non-aggression, they have also forfieted some (note I said some) of the benefits of that contract.
As I said earlier, I don't think this is a matter of any social contract. The reason you don't kill people is not because of some mutual agreement that you have bound yourself to follow, in exchange for something else. Rather, the reason you don't kill is because a human life is inherently valuable. It should be entirely unilateral. No matter what you do, I don't kill you because your life has inherent value. They can't sacrifice that value. They can't get rid of it even if they wanted to. They are valuable, no matter how they act.
I think this is at the heart of the pro-life argument, by the way. We have no need to make a social contract with fetuses. They can do nothing to harm us. So why do people think we shouldn't kill them? Because, if they are people, they have inherent value. It is an entirely unilateral thing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather, the reason you don't kill is because a human life is inherently valuable.
Historically, this is a more modern, Western point of view. Especially to the extent you're saying it goes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:An aggressor is a human being too - someone's child - and being an aggressor in that situation does not make his or her life any less valuable, in the same way that a parent shouldn't value a behaving child more than a misbehaving child.
But it does mean that if someone is to bear the cost of violence, the one who initiated it is the preferable choice to bear it.
quote:What I don't understand is how someone would throw away the aggressor's life, just on the chance that the aggressor might get kill someone.
What I don't understand is why you keep underselling this with words like "chance". There are 16,000 murders a year in this country - it's not like it doesn't happen. We're not talking just a "chance," and to the extent you keep misrepresenting my position with continued use of the term "chance" you are being dishonest. We're talking, in many cases, stated intentions. In others, clearly implied intentions. If someone intentionally swings a baseball bat at my head, I am not making a huge leap to think they want to physically harm me. And the person doing the swinging is well aware that this action will be interpreted as life-threatening.
I also don't think there has to be a chance of death. One should be allowed to use deadly force to resist rape, serious injury, and unlawful binding/restraint.
quote:would do whatever possible to try to save BOTH children.
Maybe. Maybe not. You, of course, are assuming that both children are saveable.
You are also misusing your analogy. It's not the parents deciding who will be saved. It's the children. The parent isn't there. (In your analogy, the parent was the government. Self-defense generally occurs when the government is not present - i.e., when mommy is out shopping.)
So you are asking the child to sacrifice his own life on the chance that this other person who has launched the use of deadly force and possibly even announced his intention to kill might not mean it.
It's one thing to say it's noble for that child to sacrifice himself to avoid killing his brother. It's another thing to say we ought to use the coercive threat of punishment to attempt to force him to make that sacrifice.
quote:I think the law (including moral law) should respect the value of both lives in the same fashion.
In your scenario, the law is favoring the life of the aggressor who chose to use deadly force.
quote:The reason you don't kill people is not because of some mutual agreement that you have bound yourself to follow, in exchange for something else.
You've misinterpreted me, quite badly. The reason we don't kill people is because it is generally morally wrong to do so. The reason we don't use force in many situations in which it would be otherwise moral to use force is because of the social contract. Therefore, I may not use certain levels of force to defend property - because in this society we have decided that we will submit most property disputes to the jurisdiction of a neutral arbiter - the state.
If I were in the jungle, and someone was taking my only meal in 48 hours, I would be justified in using more force to prevent that.
We're not talking only about what is right or wrong. We're also talking about what the law should require of one.
And I don't think the law should require me to sacrifice my life to you if you choose to come at me swinging a machete.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Nope, but very limited access to guns does mean less people have them.
The stats about shootings in Australia (significant decrease as gun access decreased) back them up.
It is, however, virtually impossible to put that horse back in the barn.
Good point.
The recalls here after the Port Arthur massacre were pretty successful, but that's on a (relatively to the US) tiny population, and a population that never had gun ownership levels (or gun-attachment levels )that the US does.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The stats about shootings in Australia (significant decrease as gun access decreased) back them up.
I am curious, though. As shootings went down, did all violent crime go down as well? Did the number of wrongful deaths go down? Did removing guns make Australian society safer and less violent?
I really don't know, but I'd doubt it. Is there somewhere I can find those numbers?
I really think that if every gun on the planet were to miraculously disappear tomorrow, there wouldn't be too significant a drop in the number of violent crimes or wrongful deaths in the long run.
Also, no one has yet brought Switzerland into the discussion, where 1 in 3 people own a gun, yet "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept". The gun does not cause crime - social factors cause crime. The gun is just one of the methods by which people are committing crime.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
See my posts and the links therein, and Juxtapose's posts.
Homicides - either down or steady, dependant on which sources you use. Violent crime - up. (However, this is mostly non-gun related violent crime and rarely fatal.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn- I don't want it to say that. I can't imagine anyone thinking that having nukes just lying around for the taking is a good idea. That's exactly why I think it needs to be amended. I'm not quite sure why the concept that I might think the 2nd Amendment says something I disagree with is difficult for you.
It's like FlyingCow say, the amendment doesn't specify the type of arms. Since it doesn't specify, you have to assume it means all. The founders had no way of knowing that in the future, there would be arms so destructive we couldn't allow our citizens to handle them. But they knew that they couldn't predict the future, so they created an amendment process so that when unpredictable things happened, they could be provided for in the Constitution.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: [QUOTE]Also, no one has yet brought Switzerland into the discussion, where 1 in 3 people own a gun, yet "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept". The gun does not cause crime - social factors cause crime. The gun is just one of the methods by which people are committing crime.
While this is true, it's also misleading. In the first place, those are rifles, not handguns. In the second place, ammunition for them is extremely tightly controlled, with restrictions on its purchase. In the third place, it's illegal to actually carry the rifle in public, except going to and fro a firing range. In short, as far as individual self-defense is concerned, these guns are totally useless - and likewise for committing armed robbery, to be sure.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My boyfriend told me that right before WWII Hitler visited a Swiss Shooting Contest. That was when he decided that invading Switzerland would be a very bad idea. Does anyone know if that's true?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not worried though, for several reasons. One, the second amendment, by itself, doesn't guarantee your right to a gun, it merely stops the federal government from infringing upon that right. Second, and apparently this is disputed, it was meant to refer to militia, or what we would today call the National Guard, which DOES have tanks and fighter jets, etc. Third, the government has placed restrictions upon our freedoms for centuries, your freedom of speech isn't universal, your freedom of religion isn't universal, your "right" to a gun or weapon, isn't universal, and the militias were meant to be regulated by the states, not free floating WMDs in random houses.
I don't think an amendment is necessary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, KoM, the article states that there are 600,000 rifles and 500,000 pistols - roughly equal between handguns and shoulder firearms, it seems.
You are right, though, that the Swiss model is misleading - just not in the way you stated. The Swiss society is entirely different from the American one, and has developed in a unique way throughout its history. *This* more than anything else is why crime is low - it's just not part of their culture.
Laws do not keep people from shooting one another. We have laws against carrying weapons in the open and shooting people in the US, and they have laws against carrying weapons in the open and shooting people in Switzerland. Our cultural difficulties prove to be more powerful than the legal deterrant far more often than theirs do.
The prevalence of guns alone does not cause crime. It stands to reason, therefore, that a lack of guns would not cause crime to cease.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: And I completely disagree that it was meant to refer to militia.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. It's right in the same amendment, in the same sentence even, it's more expressly stated in previous drafts of the amendment, it's talked about in the correspondence of the framers at the time, it's expressly written into dozens of state constitutions, and it's been discussed and reaffirmed dozens of times over by Supreme Court Justices. There's still disagreement over the issue, and my mind could be changed if there was a wealth of data presented to me that clearly overruled my view and all the scholarship that backs me up, but this is how I see it, and I'm not alone. (Well, maybe I'm alone on THIS BOARD, but not in historical scholarship and supreme court decisions on the matter). And I don't know what you've read that gave you your current tightly held belief.
As for the Swiss thing, I've never heard that story, though I'm not ruling out that it took place. I highly doubt that's why Switzerland wasn't invaded though. It had few natural resources to be exploited, and would have been extremely costly for the Germans to take. Getting armor and men through the heavily fortified mountains, especially when the Swiss had a couple years really to build bunkers and plan precisely for it, to say nothing of German inexperience with fighting in that terrain or weather, would have meant extreme cost to the German army, which really wasn't necessary at all. They had control of the airspace over Switzerland (after threatening the Swiss into submission), and they could just go around, take over everything nearby, and take out Switzerland with a bombing campaign when the time came.
It wasn't worth the manpower at the time, to say nothing of the fact that the Swiss were incredibly capable and smart fighters.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have nearly enough knowledge of the law to argue with you on a legal basis about the second amendment. I'm just a citizen, I've only read the Bill of Rights, are you saying that only people who have spent years studying a subject should have opinions on it?
None of my beliefs about anything legal are tightly held. I've changed my mind about several issues over the years as I've gotten new information, or reassessed my own moral priorities. Heck, in May, if asked, I would probably say I was a moderate leaning libertarian. Now, if asked, I would say I was somewhere between a socialist, a populist, and a democrat. That's a pretty big shift right there.
Which is to say, that I'm completely open to changing my mind based on new information, if that information convinces me that I'm wrong.
I posted what I did in the hopes that someone in this thread would tell me why my interpretation was wrong. No one has. FlyingCow correctly interpreted what I meant and said he disagreed with it. You said that I was wrong because the amendment clearly referred to miltias. I said I disagreed with that. You said I shouldn't disagree with it because smart people say you're right. The end result is that I still don't understand why I'm wrong.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
(Gimme a day or two, I'll rustle up some references to those "smart people" and at least give you a taste of what the other side's argument is)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:While this is true, it's also misleading. In the first place, those are rifles, not handguns. In the second place, ammunition for them is extremely tightly controlled, with restrictions on its purchase. In the third place, it's illegal to actually carry the rifle in public, except going to and fro a firing range. In short, as far as individual self-defense is concerned, these guns are totally useless - and likewise for committing armed robbery, to be sure.
You were correct until you started making conclusions about the facts. While the sale of ammunition is restricted, everybody with a rifle has ammunition for that rifle. Those rifles are certainly not useless for home defense, and their presence is a huge deterrent for home invasion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but now you've introduced the new category of home defense, which I do not think anyone so far on this thread has been saying anything about. All the examples I've seen thus far are muggeries and preventing bank robberies and suchlike, and for those I will stand by my statement. Also, that ammunition is supposed to be kept 'sealed'; I don't know how good the seals are, but if they are at all tough, it's a bit of a problem if you need it fast.
To draw any conclusions about the deterrent effect of rifles at home, we'd need much better statistics than the current assertion that Switzerland has very low rates of gun crime. We now need to know whether its rate of home burglaries is particularly low, compared to its mugging rate, with both compared to, say, nearby France (preferably urban areas compared to urban). This would actually be a very useful statistic for drawing conclusions about the deterrent effect of guns, because these rifles cannot possibly be deterring muggings, so we can separate out the cultural whatnots and get only the effect of guns.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it does mean that if someone is to bear the cost of violence, the one who initiated it is the preferable choice to bear it.
We all are the ones bearing the cost for a killed person, assuming human life has inherent objective value to us. Certainly the friends and family of the person killed bear the cost.
quote:What I don't understand is why you keep underselling this with words like "chance". There are 16,000 murders a year in this country - it's not like it doesn't happen. We're not talking just a "chance," and to the extent you keep misrepresenting my position with continued use of the term "chance" you are being dishonest.
A situation in which chance is not involved is not a real situation. Nobody can see into the future to determine for sure what an aggressor is going to do to them. Nobody can see into the future to see if trying to kill that aggressor will make them more safe, or less safe. Instead, they make a judgement call on what is more likely. In other words, they take a chance.
Yes there are thousands of murders that happen. But how many intruders enter people's homes without killing anyone? I bet the number is far more than those that kill. How many people threaten someone but don't follow up on that threat? Once again, I bet the number is far more than those who do follow up. So in those situations, it is only reasonable to conclude that there is a chance the aggressor will kill someone - and there is a chance they will not. "Chance" is at the heart of the matter.
If you could predict the future with certainty, it might be more acceptable to kill people in order to save more lives than that one. But you cannot predict the future. Maybe there could be a situation where you know the aggressor so well that you are pretty darn sure what he or she will do, in which case you could come close to predicting the future. But in most situations, that is not going to be the case.
quote:The reason we don't kill people is because it is generally morally wrong to do so. The reason we don't use force in many situations in which it would be otherwise moral to use force is because of the social contract. Therefore, I may not use certain levels of force to defend property - because in this society we have decided that we will submit most property disputes to the jurisdiction of a neutral arbiter - the state.
I don't believe I have agreed to that social contract. Certainly nobody ever asked me about it or gave me the option of opting out. How can that qualify as a contract with me then?
In addition, even if I'm in the jungle and someone takes my only meal in 48 hours, I am still only right to kill them if not doing so will result in my own death, or the death of someone else. The difference between the jungle and here is that people here will enforce that morality - in the jungle I could get away with doing the wrong thing, except perhaps until God's judgement, if you are a Christian.
quote:It's one thing to say it's noble for that child to sacrifice himself to avoid killing his brother. It's another thing to say we ought to use the coercive threat of punishment to attempt to force him to make that sacrifice.
I said nothing about punishing anyone. I just said we shouldn't allow the children to have guns in order to allow them to kill eachother when they get into a fight.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:which I do not think anyone so far on this thread has been saying anything about.
Actually, I had talked about this.
quote:To draw any conclusions about the deterrent effect of rifles at home, we'd need much better statistics than the current assertion that Switzerland has very low rates of gun crime.
From what I've read, Switzerland's low crime and gun rates are because of the overall economic level of the country - there's not as much of a poor, underpriveliged class. Also, since all adults are trained as part of the military, there is a different attitude of responsibility among the general population.
Economics and heightened responsibility have helped lead to low rates of gun crime - not the presence or lack of guns.
I use Switzerland as a clear example that the presence of guns doesn't cause crime. It's absurd to think that they do. They are inanimate objects, and don't cause anything.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Switzerland also has a very regulated (for lack of a better word) society. Rules and order are very important, particularly publicly. This has resulted in some nasty racism, anti-semitism, and some other -isms, but presumably also contributes to the low rate of crime.
It also results in some marvelous clocks and watches.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To BlueWizard: It's cool. I do agree that a lot of the negative views about guns are held by people who do not have a lot of experience with them. I feel that statement should be made as a general statement instead of pointing it at anyone in particular.
On the first page I made the statement "Have you ever been in a situation where you needed a gun? I'll bet you haven't." and it was viewed as a personal attack.
To Tresopax: Yes, all life has value. But not the same value. Value is not absolute. Diamonds are valuable, but part of their value is their rarity. If the diamond sellers of the world released their huge stockpile of diamonds onto the market, the price of diamonds would plummet. Value is a comparison and a judgment.
Human life is valuable. But not an absolute value. Are Ghandi's and Martin Luther King Jr.'s lives more valuable than Hitler and Stalin? Yes! Yes they are.
When you choose to use violence you are devaluing your life, because you are devaluing the lives of your victims. That's the social contract.
The social contract is, you don't kill me, I won't kill you. The social contract is, if you do not break the law, you will not be punished, and if you do, you will.
To Lyrhawn: I would be very interested to see those documents you are referring to. I agree with Blacwolve that the second amendment needs to be redefined for modern times. So seeing what the founders meant when they put it down originally would be a goodness.
To FlyingCow: I agree that the Swiss situation at very least disproves the idea that more guns = more crime (or the Old West argument).
quote:the Swiss were incredibly capable and smart fighters.
Of course they were! They could pick their teeth, open a bottle of wine, cut down a small tree, clean their nails and cut something all with the same knife!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)that the US does.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
