Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[iNow]

We're now nearly a thousand posts in. If the argument is still about ground rules then we may as well just give up.

 

Or, said another way... We've been arguing about building a stable house for so long that we've accomplished nothing while everyone else has managed to setup entire communities and playgrounds, moved in, sent their kids to school, had more kids, and joined local clubs, and established holiday traditions.

[zapatos]

Good point. And we shouldn't have to explicitly state that the ground rules require you to "be logical and polite".

On the other hand, it is a much tougher discussion in the U.S. since we have a "Right" to bear arms and most other countries do not.

To continue with the analogy I'm beginning to be sorry I ever started , everyone else started with a nice flat field with access to transportation on which to build, while we started with a rocky, rattlesnake infested Superfund site that was a former Native American burial ground.

[dimreepr]

while we started with a rocky, rattlesnake infested Superfund site that was a former Native American burial ground.

 

 

And who knows what type of pet will emerge?

Other than it’s without a soul.

[waitforufo]

On the other hand, it is a much tougher discussion in the U.S. since we have a "Right" to bear arms and most other countries do not.

Why the quotation marks? All people have the natural right to bear arms. That is part of being human. The U.S. simply recognizes that natural right.

[zapatos]

All people have the natural right to bear arms. That is part of being human.

No they don't.

[iNow]

Believe his distinction is that gun ownership is a right provided by nature (the deistic god, perhaps), and that governments do little more than take away rights... they do NOT grant them, which is what he asserts your comment implies.

 

Not intentionally misrepresenting you, waitforufo. Is that at least close to your thinking on this subject, or perhaps you can correct me where needed?

[John Cuthber]

Why the quotation marks? All people have the natural right to bear arms. That is part of being human. The U.S. simply recognizes that natural right.

What is natural about maintaining the ability to kill others easily and at little or no personal risk? Why is this a right?

[waitforufo]

Believe his distinction is that gun ownership is a right provided by nature (the deistic god, perhaps), and that governments do little more than take away rights... they do NOT grant them, which is what he asserts your comment implies.

 

Not intentionally misrepresenting you, waitforufo. Is that at least close to your thinking on this subject, or perhaps you can correct me where needed?

You hit the nail on the head.

What is natural about maintaining the ability to kill others easily and at little or no personal risk? Why is this a right?

They have the natural right to bear arms to defend themselves from others and from oppressive government.

By the way, believing in natural rights, including the right to bear arms, is a very liberal way of thinking.

Edited April 7, 2016 by waitforufo

[zapatos]

You hit the nail on the head.

 

They have the natural right to bear arms to defend themselves from others and from oppressive government.

 

By the way, believing in natural rights, including the right to bear arms, is a very liberal way of thinking.

Your religious / philosophical beliefs may provide you comfort when you are sitting in front of your fire in your living room, but in the real world they mean exactly squat. Unless there is someone willing and able to enforce that right it is nothing more than electrical charges zipping around in your brain.

I believe I should be king of the world but that doesn't make it so.

[waitforufo]

Your religious / philosophical beliefs may provide you comfort when you are sitting in front of your fire in your living room, but in the real world they mean exactly squat. Unless there is someone willing and able to enforce that right it is nothing more than electrical charges zipping around in your brain.

I believe I should be king of the world but that doesn't make it so.

All modern governments based on western thought find there foundation in natural rights. Like modern science and the scientific method they are a product of the enlightenment. Natural rights are the foundation of liberal thinking. Losing the philosophical foundation of your society would be a catastrophe.

[zapatos]

All modern governments based on western thought find there foundation in natural rights.

Yet in Spain they do not have the right to bear arms. So much for their 'natural rights'.

[John Cuthber]

All modern governments based on western thought find there foundation in natural rights. Like modern science and the scientific method they are a product of the enlightenment. Natural rights are the foundation of liberal thinking. Losing the philosophical foundation of your society would be a catastrophe.

Yes. But in many or most cases that doesn't include the right to bear arms.

So the US is the one being weird here.

Countries don't enshrine the right to do everything.

It's all very well to call it liberal to allow guns.

But it's not a recognition of reality.

All laws restrict behaviour; they generally do it to maintain or protect liberty.

In particular, it is not very liberal to allow people to shoot children, because that infringes on their rights.

 

Sureley the right to survive childhood out-weighs the right to carry something dangerous and nearly pointless?

[overtone]

...and just like that, we're once again avoiding the actual topic and focused instead on comments on style and personal barbs. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I have several times pointed out to you that such a focus - which I was objecting to from that poster, but have from you as well in the past - is a waste of time. So why do you guys keep it up?

 

 

We're now nearly a thousand posts in. If the argument is still about ground rules then we may as well just give up.

Which argument? The gun control debate in the US is hopelessly gridlocked for the near future by irrational and immature extremists on both sides.

 

If you are basing your efforts to reduce the number of child deaths and injuries from gunfire in the US on gun control, you may as well give up. It was never a promising route, given the situation in the US, and the failure of reason to persuade and shift the argument has reduced its odds to negligible.

 

But there are many other approaches to that goal, that are not gridlocked. I have attempted several, on this forum, and been greeted by objections to my attempts to "deflect" the discussion and so forth,

 

including by that very poster.

 

So in the future: can we expect more reasonable responses to such attempts?

 

 

What is natural about maintaining the ability to kill others easily and at little or no personal risk? Why is this a right?

That's misdescribed - there are no such circumstances as "easily and at no personal risk". But meanwhile: It's a right in part because without it one becomes immediately vulnerable. It's called self defense.

 

 

Sureley the right to survive childhood out-weighs the right to carry something dangerous and nearly pointless?

Or drive a private car instead of hiring professional transit.

 

Or go swimming for recreation.

 

Or eat unhealthy foods. Own a television. Ride a bicycle anywhere besides the back yard.

 

Is there anything the right to survive childhood does not outweigh? Not much.

 

It's a bad argument. And as such it's a threat. Such arguments in the hands of governmental power can be used to justify almost anything. Power that need not justify itself and answer to reason is dangerous.

 

Preventing the US government from employing such arguments in the restriction of civil rights and liberties is exactly the purpose of the Constitution, and the entire reason for the existence of the Bill Of Rights.

Edited April 7, 2016 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Yet in Spain they do not have the right to bear arms. So much for their 'natural rights'.

It's a shame that Spain does not recognize the natural rights of its citizens.

 

Yes. But in many or most cases that doesn't include the right to bear arms.

So the US is the one being weird here.

Countries don't enshrine the right to do everything.

It's all very well to call it liberal to allow guns.

But it's not a recognition of reality.

All laws restrict behaviour; they generally do it to maintain or protect liberty.

In particular, it is not very liberal to allow people to shoot children, because that infringes on their rights.

 

Sureley the right to survive childhood out-weighs the right to carry something dangerous and nearly pointless?

Trading liberty for safety is never a good plan. As Benjamin Franklin said, soon you will have neither liberty or safety.

[zapatos]

It's a shame that Spain does not recognize the natural rights of its citizens.

 

 

Why? According to you "All people have the natural right to bear arms" anyway. Why should it matter whether or not the government recognizes that right?

 

Compared to the US, Spain has lower rates of crime, fear of crime, rape, and violent crime. Admittedly they do have a higher rate of software piracy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime

 

In what tangible way would Spanish citizens benefit if their government recognizes their right to bear arms?

[iNow]

You hit the nail on the head.

 

They have the natural right to bear arms to defend themselves from others and from oppressive government.

All modern governments based on western thought find there foundation in natural rights. Like modern science and the scientific method they are a product of the enlightenment. Natural rights are the foundation of liberal thinking. Losing the philosophical foundation of your society would be a catastrophe.

Thanks for confirming. Glad I didn't misrepresent you.

 

Also, to be clear, I am very sympathetic to this stance and tend to agree with much of what you say (or at least the motivations you cite for saying it).

 

Where I (and I suspect many others) struggle is in the conflation of ones natural right to defend themselves with their right to do so using the one very specific instrument we call "firearms." There are, after all, a multitude of ways to defend ourselves and, while guns may sometimes make that far simpler, they're hardly required and too frequently come with copious unintended downstream consequences (as evidenced in this thread and others).

 

Again, there is agreement that self defense is a natural right. Claiming, however, that this is one and the same as being able to do so with one very specific type of weapon strains credulity, equivalent to a child suggesting that their right not to go hungry means they have a right to eat candy any time they desire.

 

To reiterate, there is common ground here, and I doubt you'd find anyone participating (liberal, conservative, left, right, male, female, old, young, brown, blue, or otherwise) who disagrees with the basic premise that ones natural right to defend themselves must be protected.

 

Unfortunately, your argument in its current form will leave many people unconvinced. The mere assertion that the right to firearm ownership is natural and equivalent to the right of self defense is specious at best, especially given how countless many examples we have of free peoples across the planet whose rights to gun ownership are heavily restricted yet whose right to self defense (and related freedoms) remain unimpeded.

[waitforufo]

Thanks for confirming. Glad I didn't misrepresent you.

 

Also, to be clear, I am very sympathetic to this stance and tend to agree with much of what you say (or at least the motivations you cite for saying it).

 

Where I (and I suspect many others) struggle is in the conflation of ones natural right to defend themselves with their right to do so using the one very specific instrument we call "firearms." There are, after all, a multitude of ways to defend ourselves and, while guns may sometimes make that far simpler, they're hardly required and too frequently come with copious unintended downstream consequences (as evidenced in this thread and others).

 

Again, there is agreement that self defense is a natural right. Claiming, however, that this is one and the same as being able to do so with one very specific type of weapon strains credulity, equivalent to a child suggesting that their right not to go hungry means they have a right to eat candy any time they desire.

 

To reiterate, there is common ground here, and I doubt you'd find anyone participating (liberal, conservative, left, right, male, female, old, young, brown, blue, or otherwise) who disagrees with the basic premise that ones natural right to defend themselves must be protected.

 

Unfortunately, your argument in its current form will leave many people unconvinced. The mere assertion that the right to firearm ownership is natural and equivalent to the right of self defense is specious at best, especially given how countless many examples we have of free peoples across the planet whose rights to gun ownership are heavily restricted yet whose right to self defense (and related freedoms) remain unimpeded.

The right to self defense includes more than just defense against dangerous individuals alone or in groups. The history of mankind casts a rather unpleasant light on government and how governments treat people. United States history is a great example of that. Also, I sure hear a lot of complaining about the actions of the United States government right here on Science Forums. This includes the last 50 years. Yet many on this forum longingly look forward to the day that the american people are disarmed. That's strange in my opinion.

 

With regard to my argument being specious, I beg to differ. How many pieces of gun control legislation are being discussed on congress? How may are waiting the president's signature. Compare that to recent Supreme Court rulings. Compare that to the increasing number of states states that permit concealed carry. I think most, other than here on Science Forums, are convinced that the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing.

[iNow]

[dimreepr]

The right to self defense includes more than just defense against dangerous individuals alone or in groups. The history of mankind casts a rather unpleasant light on government and how governments treat people. United States history is a great example of that. Also, I sure hear a lot of complaining about the actions of the United States government right here on Science Forums. This includes the last 50 years. Yet many on this forum longingly look forward to the day that the american people are disarmed. That's strange in my opinion.

 

With regard to my argument being specious, I beg to differ. How many pieces of gun control legislation are being discussed on congress? How may are waiting the president's signature. Compare that to recent Supreme Court rulings. Compare that to the increasing number of states states that permit concealed carry. I think most, other than here on Science Forums, are convinced that the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing.

 

 

It’s a good thing for profit margins, not people so the question is who convinced you?

[overtone]

 

 

Again, there is agreement that self defense is a natural right. Claiming, however, that this is one and the same as being able to do so with one very specific type of weapon strains credulity, equivalent to a child suggesting that their right not to go hungry means they have a right to eat candy any time they desire.

And you don't register that as ludicrously offensive.

 

You don't post your "second amendment scorecard" as a joke, a parody, or deliberately provocative nonsense designed to elicit anger. You think it actually makes sense as an observation.

 

You guys cannot help yourselves - you simply cannot make reasonable, rationally reasoned, reliably responsible arguments. And then when people refuse to trust you with political power, you look around for some bogeyman, some lobbyist or NRA organizational influence.

 

Gridlock. You'll find its cause in the mirror.

[dimreepr]

Wow, what did you ask of your mirror? “mirror mirror on the wall who flips allegiance most often of all?”

[overtone]

 

Why? According to you "All people have the natural right to bear arms" anyway. Why should it matter whether or not the government recognizes that right?

 

 

Or any other right?

 

 

In what tangible way would Spanish citizens benefit if their government recognizes their right to bear arms?

 

 

Probably none, for many years. On the other hand, there was that one time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War I suppose such times will never come again, for sure, eh?

 

Meanwhile, folks are talking about the reintegration of Spain into the caliphate - beginning with economic pressure from the giant piles of investment cash sitting across the Mediterranean, and Spain's economic doldrums. So the matter of militia, even though Spain lacks the violent streak of regular American life, is not some inconceivable issue no one could dream of affecting Spain.

 

Bringing us to this:

 

 

The mere assertion that the right to firearm ownership is natural and equivalent to the right of self defense is specious at best, especially given how countless many examples we have of free peoples across the planet whose rights to gun ownership are heavily restricted yet whose right to self defense (and related freedoms) remain unimpeded.

We wish them all continued good luck.

 

Meanwhile, the recent examples of disarmed and unarmed people whose freedoms have been taken from them by men with guns are worth noticing.

 

As is the obvious agenda: heavy restriction of the right to gun ownership in the US. Burdening ownership, and taking away the guns people currently own.

Edited April 7, 2016 by overtone

[waitforufo]

There have been no tyrants overthrown in the US since the approval of the constitution because we have the second amendment. Armed citizens would not tolerate a tyrant.

[John Cuthber]

There have been no tyrants overthrown in the US since the approval of the constitution because we have the second amendment. Armed citizens would not tolerate a tyrant.

So, let me get this straight- you don'rt think it has anything to do with the citizens- armed or otherwise- not being dumb enough to elect a tyrant in the first place?

[iNow]

Since this argument has already been addressed elsewhere, I'll just leave it at that:

 

http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/

• Militias were largely ineffective in our own Revolutionary War.
• Militias in the modern era have overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty.
• Liberty and the degree of gun ownership in a society are uncorrelated.
• Even if they were positively correlated, the idea that gun control leads to tyranny is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
• Even if this thought process wasn’t fallacy ridden, the historical examples gun advocates supply don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
• Even if the historical cases displayed what gun advocates contend they do, the argument would still fail as applying the lessons from the examples to the US overlooks massive cultural and socio-economic differences.