Actual act of rebellion in America

[Makaze]

Again, taking things to the logical extreme isn't the best solution, because invaders don't show up overnight (which means there's time to get out or fight, since I think that countries without some sort of government structure are rare), among other things. So, I ask you this, instead: If an invader takes over, and every last citizen is either dead or fled, does it matter what kinds of rules they impose? 'sides, if there was no government in the first place, then there were only whatever community rules that existed (which in itself is a social contract of sorts), and I don't see why you wouldn't do something about the situation before it went critical.

Except in this specific case, these guys were pegged on laws involving the land (illegal burning, IIRC), which is very much under the government's control. So I don't think they have a leg to stand on in your example.

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I was breaking down the argument from the social contract by demonstrating that it is an appeal to "might makes right". In response, you say that it does not matter because they do not have the might to win? From my perspective, that is a concession that might would make right, if they had it.

If that is truly your position, then you are arguing that whatever happens has a right to happen. You cannot pick and choose when to apply this logic, so you can never side with the loser. Therefore I would be right if I killed you so long as I got away with it. But you would not want to die, making it an incoherent position. About as persuasive as punching me in the face.

If that is not your position, then you must have some other means to make your point. You must have some argument that it ought to happen other than "it is it likely to happen".

[eclipse]

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I was breaking down the argument from the social contract by demonstrating that it is an appeal to "might makes right". In response, you say that it does not matter because they do not have the might to win? From my perspective, that is a concession that might would make right, if they had it.

If that is truly your position, then you are arguing that whatever happens has a right to happen. You cannot pick and choose when to apply this logic, so you can never side with the loser. Therefore I would be right if I killed you so long as I got away with it. But you would not want to die, making it an incoherent position. About as persuasive as punching me in the face.

If that is not your position, then you must have some other means to make your point. You must have some argument that it ought to happen other than "it is it likely to happen".

What I mean is that a government needs other people to be meaningful. If there's no one around, then those in charge are playing Calvinball with themselves.

Pure "might is right" is really rare, because constantly worrying about someone taking stuff you care about by force sucks, and anyone in this position with half a brain would get out if feasible. This is why most governments have rules like "don't shank random people" and "don't burn down other people's houses for shits and giggles". When arguing from the stance of freedom (which is what the guy I originally quoted said), it's impossible to argue for absolute freedom, because we've already given up certain freedoms just by living as citizens of a country.

Do you have any thoughts about the ongoing incident in the opening post?

[blah the Prussian]

Natural rights are distinct from legal rights, in that they are universal and not dependent on the legal character of any given state at any given time. Life, liberty and property are all natural rights. We have the right to our lives, to do as we please, and to own what's ours. These fundamentals can't be rejected without rejecting everything that makes a free society free (not to mention any conception of basic human dignity). Using this as a foundation, it is easy to argue that we have the right to acquire guns (a matter of property) and to use them (a matter of liberty) especially while in defense of our lives. This assumes we are not unnecessarily harming others in the pursuit of these things. The purpose of government is to guarantee our rights and in doing so instill some manner of order and harmony.

The matter of creating effective policy is a far more complicated process than simply appealing to lego block philosophy, but nevertheless "defending" the right to bear arms, as inherently unnecessary as such a thing might be, is simple to do. As far as I'm concerned a government loses legitimacy when it tries to tell me I don't have a right to defend myself.

Gun control is not meant to stop common criminals? That's news to me. I hardly think the aim of gun control advocacy is exclusively the defeat of the non threat posed by predominantly nonviolent hillbilly militias. I would have assumed it was for the minimization of gun violence overall.

You're giving these militants far too much credit. They pose no threat to the American government.

So essentially you are saying that these natural rights only exist in your opinion. Is there any document hat actually establishes these natural rights? Also, in my understanding gun control was always mostly about stopping mass shootings.

And... why? The risk of an armed rebellion successfully toppling the US government is zero.

Secondly, I take issue with the claim that "gun control was not meant to stop crime". That's never been true; gun control has always been meant to stop crime. You think the United Kingdom, which hasn't seen a battle on it's territory in over three hundred years, restricted handguns because they thought that there was a risk of armed rebellion? Because you're seriously deluded if you believe that.

I know that now there is very little risk of armed rebellion. But history is extremely unpredictable. Ask someone in 1988 if they thought that the Soviet Union would cease to exist in three years and they would have laughed in your face. Who knows what situation America will face in 50 years? And no, once again, gun control was always mostly about stopping mass shootings, but as they are irrelevant to this thread I have focused mostly on armed rebellion.

@EricaofRenais: To be clear, I am not in favor of banning all guns, just assault weapons, so hunting rifles for example would be fine. Also, I am an American living in the Czech Republic at the moment.

Edited January 5, 2016 by blah2127

[Makaze]

What I mean is that a government needs other people to be meaningful. If there's no one around, then those in charge are playing Calvinball with themselves.

Pure "might is right" is really rare, because constantly worrying about someone taking stuff you care about by force sucks, and anyone in this position with half a brain would get out if feasible. This is why most governments have rules like "don't shank random people" and "don't burn down other people's houses for shits and giggles". When arguing from the stance of freedom (which is what the guy I originally quoted said), it's impossible to argue for absolute freedom, because we've already given up certain freedoms just by living as citizens of a country.

Do you have any thoughts about the ongoing incident in the opening post?

My point is that we are not morally obligated to give up those freedoms. Instead of saying "we've given up certain freedoms", you could say "we've come to accept that there is nothing we can do about certain violations of our freedoms". Your posts in this thread seem to derive that the current government ought to maintain power simply because it is able to maintain that power.

"It's the law." It doesn't have to be the law. You need to justify the creation of the law on its own merits.

"You give up freedoms by living under a state." It doesn't have to be this state, or that particular set of freedoms. You need to justify why I ought to give up these particular freedoms on their own merit.

I believe you have better arguments than defense of the status quo for the sake of defense of the status quo.

My thoughts on this incident are that the militia are idiots with no real cause to back them up. They will be killed or arrested and the public will either cheer or forget about them. This incident is of no significant consequence except in how it may affect the political landscape going forward. It is probable that politicians will use this incident to further their own careers by pushing for so-called preventative measures. Those measures will attempt to take even more freedom away from all citizens in the name of national security.

I have seen people from all sides of the situation using it to argue for their own agenda. Monarchists, fascists, socialists. Lots have turned it into a race issue, arguing about why the police haven't slaughtered everyone, as if that's the core of the issue. Others have turned it into an argument about the right to bear arms, as if that is the core of the issue. The core of the issue is whether or not it makes sense to take over a government building to protect arsonists. In the rush to make this confrontation into a metaphor for their own struggles, no one is tackling this issue head-on. There are no good guys in this situation. In the end I believe the mightiest biased group will write the history and life will go on.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Makaze

[eclipse]

My point is that we are not morally obligated to give up those freedoms. Instead of saying "we've given up certain freedoms", you could say "we've come to accept that there is nothing we can do about certain violations of our freedoms". Your posts in this thread seem to derive that the current government ought to maintain power simply because it is able to maintain that power.

"It's the law." It doesn't have to be the law. You need to justify the creation of the law on its own merits.

"You give up freedoms by living under a state." It doesn't have to be this state, or that particular set of freedoms. You need to justify why I ought to give up these particular freedoms on their own merit.

I believe you have better arguments than defense of the status quo for the sake of defense of the status quo.

My thoughts on this incident are that the militia are idiots with no real cause to back them up. They will be killed or arrested and the public will either cheer or forget about them. This incident is of no significant consequence except in how it may affect the political landscape going forward. It is probable that politicians will use this incident to further their own careers by pushing for so-called preventative measures. Those measures will attempt to take even more freedom away from all citizens in the name of national security.

I have seen people from all sides of the situation using it to argue for their own agenda. Monarchists, fascists, socialists. Lots have turned it into a race issue, arguing about why the police haven't slaughtered everyone, as if that's the core of the issue. Others have turned it into an argument about the right to bear arms, as if that is the core of the issue. The core of the issue is whether or not it makes sense to take over a government building to protect arsonists. In the rush to make this confrontation into a metaphor for their own struggles, no one is tackling this issue head-on. There are no good guys in this situation. In the end I believe the mightiest biased group will write the history and life will go on.

Lemme sum it up - because without the loss of the freedom to shank people at will, you'd be dead. As would I. Neither of us have the might to survive in a truly lawless society.

Huh, interesting. For the core of the issue, I believe the answer is obvious - no, it does not make sense. I feel that they shouldn't have set the fires in the first place, but the past cannot be undone. Instead, I feel that they should take responsibility for their actions, and holing up in a wildlife refuge isn't how to do it. Now they've compounded trespassing on top of arson, which is even more to answer for.

[Makaze]

Lemme sum it up - because without the loss of the freedom to shank people at will, you'd be dead. As would I. Neither of us have the might to survive in a truly lawless society.

Huh, interesting. For the core of the issue, I believe the answer is obvious - no, it does not make sense. I feel that they shouldn't have set the fires in the first place, but the past cannot be undone. Instead, I feel that they should take responsibility for their actions, and holing up in a wildlife refuge isn't how to do it. Now they've compounded trespassing on top of arson, which is even more to answer for.

You yourself said it isn't useful to take things to extremes. Your current argument justifies any and all laws. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here by assuming that when a woman who got publicly caned by the state because she was accused of looking at someone other than her husband pleas to you for help, you will not respond by saying she should not complain because a state of complete lawlessness would be worse. It's an appalling argument then and it's an appalling argument now. You have to address every law on its own merits.

I also think it is obvious. It begs the question, why is this so controversial? Why are we talking about it? And why do you feel yourself that it warrants talking about the validity of law of the sake of law, when that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Makaze

[eclipse]

You yourself said it isn't useful to take things to extremes. Your current argument justifies any and all laws. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here by assuming that when a woman who got publicly caned by the state because she was accused of looking at someone other than her husband pleas to you for help, you will not respond by saying she should not complain because a state of complete lawlessness would be worse. It's an appalling argument then and it's an appalling argument now. You have to address every law on its own merits.

I also think it is obvious. It begs the question, why is this so controversial? Why are we talking about it? And why do you feel yourself that it warrants talking about the validity of law of the sake of law, when that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

It's the rationale for WHY laws exist in the first place - because the alternative is worse. It doesn't mean that all governments are equal, and I don't know how you drew that conclusion. However, a lack of government can and will suck harder than most forms of government out there.

For the second time, please look at the context of my original reply. As long as people agree that they're not going to do certain things (like when they follow laws that are convenient for them), they've given up part of their freedom. That's why labeling the idiot arsonists as "freedom fighters" is horribly wrong. I don't like it when I see a weird tangent based off of a lack of context, which is what you're doing.

[Makaze]

It's the rationale for WHY laws exist in the first place - because the alternative is worse. It doesn't mean that all governments are equal, and I don't know how you drew that conclusion. However, a lack of government can and will suck harder than most forms of government out there.For the second time, please look at the context of my original reply. As long as people agree that they're not going to do certain things (like when they follow laws that are convenient for them), they've given up part of their freedom. That's why labeling the idiot arsonists as "freedom fighters" is horribly wrong. I don't like it when I see a weird tangent based off of a lack of context, which is what you're doing.

I'm saying that your argument is bad because it can be used to justify any law. It is a matter of intellectual honesty. You can't pick and choose which contexts to use that logic in without committing sophistry. You can apply the logic to argue that anyone who breaks any law is not a freedom fighter since they follow some convenient laws. We know some people who both break laws and follow convenient ones are still freedom fighters. Your conclusion is reasonable but your argumentation is not. Say they aren't freedom fighters because they violate other's freedom. Say they are not freedom fighters because they fight for their own gains, not freedom itself. Find a more defensible reason.

[Phoenix Wright]

So essentially you are saying that these natural rights only exist in your opinion. Is there any document hat actually establishes these natural rights?

even if there were a document that said "natural rights" exist, they still wouldn't. life, liberty, property, etc., those are privileges that are exercised only by very few. (well, life isn't, but the quality of many lives in the world--though ultimately subjective--can be argued to be not anywhere near as good as others.) even if they did exist...

Natural rights are distinct from legal rights, in that they are universal and not dependent on the legal character of any given state at any given time. Life, liberty and property are all natural rights. We have the right to our lives, to do as we please, and to own what's ours. These fundamentals can't be rejected without rejecting everything that makes a free society free (not to mention any conception of basic human dignity). Using this as a foundation, it is easy to argue that we have the right to acquire guns (a matter of property) and to use them (a matter of liberty) especially while in defense of our lives. This assumes we are not unnecessarily harming others in the pursuit of these things. The purpose of government is to guarantee our rights and in doing so instill some manner of order and harmony.

...is an extremely convoluted way of looking at it. do ordinary citizens have the right to seize property? to own bombs? mines? to physically harm other citizens? to verbally harass other citizens? to own assault rifles? tanks?

living in a government means one does not have the natural right to property, liberty, or even life if there exist executions in the state. "own what's yours" is incredibly non-descriptive and useless.

the only way to instill order and harmony is to limit freedoms. to limit the sale and distribution of certain types of dangerous weaponry is but one way to instill order. i can say that it's pretty clear that the benefits of being able to own fully automatic weaponry, to purchase firearms without background checks or psychological exams, etc., do not outweigh the costs. these are things that the united states just doesn't need its citizenry to have.

on the off-chance that marshal law becomes a reality, we're fucked anyway! less extremely, the actual likelihood of anything happening on the scale gun nuts like to cite are basically nil. more mass shootings happen than there are days in a year, police shootings (of innocents) happen in greater numbers every year. guns aren't protecting us, they're killing us, m8. when was the last time there was a violent insurrection? 1775? we need to demilitarize the police and the citizenry. that will lead to a safer future.

As far as I'm concerned a government loses legitimacy when it tries to tell me I don't have a right to defend myself.

lol

Edited January 5, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

Phoenix while I agree with you the last time there was a major violent insurrection was 1865.

[Duff Ostrich]

being unable to defend yourself != relinquishing your right to bear arms

Care to suggest any alternatives? Mace, knives, bats, or a motor vehicle? Should I just use my teeth and nails?

hahaha

hahahahaha

hahahahahahaha

operating firearms is a victimless activity

that's priceless

I shoot guns for sport on a semi regular basis, and have never killed or otherwise harmed any living thing with them. In what way is my operation of these weapons victimizing anyone? A serious answer would be appreciated. Punctuation is optional.

So essentially you are saying that these natural rights only exist in your opinion. Is there any document hat actually establishes these natural rights? Also, in my understanding gun control was always mostly about stopping mass shootings.

To be clear, I am not in favor of banning all guns, just assault weapons, so hunting rifles for example would be fine. Also, I am an American living in the Czech Republic at the moment.

It is my opinion that natural rights are fact??? There are plenty of documents establishing the foundations for western philosophy and the liberal democracies that followed from it. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Paine, Aristotle: basically half of the required literature for a phil 101 class. Do you really reject that we have certain inalienable rights?

What do you think an "assault weapon" is, by the way? Feel free to use the definition signed into law by the Clinton administration, which used a made up set of standards that is not recognized by the arms industry or anyone knowledgeable on the subject. Several popular guns were added into this definition even though they didn't fit the already arbitrary criteria, because the Democrats needed to have recognizable guns banned in order for the public to think anything was accomplished... when it was otherwise evident that nothing was. "Assault weapons" are one of the most obvious red herrings in all of politics. It's a meaningless term.

even if there were a document that said "natural rights" exist, they still wouldn't. life, liberty, property, etc., those are privileges that are exercised only by very few. (well, life isn't, but the quality of many lives in the world--though ultimately subjective--can be argued to be not anywhere near as good as others.) even if they did exist...

...is an extremely convoluted way of looking at it. do ordinary citizens have the right to seize property? to own bombs? mines? to physically harm other citizens? to verbally harass other citizens? to own assault rifles? tanks?

living in a government means one does not have the natural right to property, liberty, or even life if there exist executions in the state. "own what's yours" is incredibly non-descriptive and useless.

the only way to instill order and harmony is to limit freedoms. to limit the sale and distribution of certain types of dangerous weaponry is but one way to instill order. i can say that it's pretty clear that the benefits of being able to own fully automatic weaponry, to purchase firearms without background checks or psychological exams, etc., do not outweigh the costs. these are things that the united states just doesn't need its citizenry to have.

Convoluted? Here I feared people would tell me that it's too simplistic. I can't do these concepts justice on an internet forum.

Even North Koreans have rights. We are entitled to certain liberties whether or not the the government chooses to recognize them. Once again, the American constitution was written with these things in mind, and the constitutional monarchies, democracies, republics, and other assorted free nations of the world are following a similar model. Why else do we have vaguely representative governments? What's the point of suffrage? Why are we generally allowed to do what we want? We could always put women under veils. We could sentence people to death for apostasy. But we don't, and the reason why we don't is part of a very specific tradition. Your claim that rights are nothing more than privileges is simply wrong, because it is not the assumption under which our governments were created.

Obviously there are limits to freedom. The notion of natural rights acknowledges that we don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others. That's the whole point! And nevertheless a functioning society requires that we surrender certain things to a government as anarchy is nothing more than a very bloody road to tyranny. However any restriction on freedom needs to be justified.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Tryhard]

Care to suggest any alternatives? Mace, knives, bats, or a motor vehicle? Should I just use my teeth and nails?

You know, the common argument is the fact that knives etc are as effective at killing someone as firearms (which isn't true tbh so at least you got that right), so you're actually going against most anti-gun control stances with that. Maybe you're right, guns are the only way to defend yourself. I do come from the UK though, and people find themselves without the need for defense in most cases. There has even been a crackdown on teenagers carrying knives, supposedly for the same "protection" that you stated.

A gun might make you feel better if you see it as such, but how much is it going to help if the attacker has one as well, especially if premeditated? Brazen shootouts in public areas?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Tryhard

[blah the Prussian]

Care to suggest any alternatives? Mace, knives, bats, or a motor vehicle? Should I just use my teeth and nails?

I shoot guns for sport on a semi regular basis, and have never killed or otherwise harmed any living thing with them. In what way is my operation of these weapons victimizing anyone? A serious answer would be appreciated. Punctuation is optional.

It is my opinion that natural rights are fact??? There are plenty of documents establishing the foundations for western philosophy and the liberal democracies that followed from it. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Paine, Aristotle: basically half of the required literature for a phil 101 class. Do you really reject that we have certain inalienable rights?

What do you think an "assault weapon" is, by the way? Feel free to use the definition signed into law by the Clinton administration, which used a made up set of standards that is not recognized by the arms industry or anyone knowledgeable on the subject. Several popular guns were added into this definition even though they didn't fit the already arbitrary criteria, because the Democrats needed to have recognizable guns banned in order for the public to think anything was accomplished... when it was otherwise evident that nothing was. "Assault weapons" are one of the most obvious red herrings in all of politics. It's a meaningless term.

Convoluted? Here I feared people would tell me that it's too simplistic. I can't do these concepts justice on an internet forum.

Even North Koreans have rights. We are entitled to certain liberties whether or not the the government chooses to recognize them. Once again, the American constitution was written with these things in mind, and the constitutional monarchies, democracies, republics, and other assorted free nations of the world are following a similar model. Why else do we have vaguely representative governments? What's the point of suffrage? Why are we generally allowed to do what we want? We could always put women under veils. We could sentence people to death for apostasy. But we don't, and the reason why we don't is part of a very specific tradition. Your claim that rights are nothing more than privileges is simply wrong, because it is not the assumption under which our governments were created.

Obviously there are limits to freedom. The notion of natural rights acknowledges that we don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others. That's the whole point! And nevertheless a functioning society requires that we surrender certain things to a government as anarchy is nothing more than a very bloody road to tyranny. However any restriction on freedom needs to be justified.

We'll do your second point first because it is easier. Firstly, the arms industry is obviously biased in this whole matter, because they are looking to make money. Secondly, care to provide some evidence that no one knowledgeable about guns was consulted?

Now for your first point. In my mind, there is only one right that should never be violated: the right to trial by jury. All other rights must be violated at some point for society to function. The problem with "inalienable" rights is that they are far too absolutist of a term. Even the right to life should be violated during times of civil war. This is why the law is so detailed, because it can be more specific than the brittle concept of inalienable rights.

[Lord Raven]

Care to suggest any alternatives? Mace, knives, bats, or a motor vehicle? Should I just use my teeth and nails?

There's a thing called Martial Arts, there's even a few (read: many) whose focus is self defense, if you really feel that unsafe. There are knives. You can defend yourself from just about everything but guns if you take away guns - but the beauty is that firearms ownership after banning guns will dwindle to a point where the very few who are obtaining guns have to go through the black market and face obscene markups to buy them.

Tryhard is correct in that if you have a gun, then your attackers also have guns. This puts you in at best a mexican standoff and at worst a shootout in the case where your attacker has a firearm; if you are both lacking it, then only the most desperate (with cash to burn) end up with firearms and you're much less likely to have to defend yourself from another firearm. Onto the next point that was addressed to dondon;

I shoot guns for sport on a semi regular basis, and have never killed or otherwise harmed any living thing with them. In what way is my operation of these weapons victimizing anyone? A serious answer would be appreciated. Punctuation is optional.

Your specific example does not constitute the (large) number of Americans that do end up harming others with it.

Honestly, you live in Detroit where shit like this is commonplace - if I'm reading my sources correctly yall had 570 gun-related crimes (130 homicides and 440 non fatal) up until June 21st. You can't possibly be serious when you are equating your non violent use of firearms with the conventional use of firearms.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Lord Raven

[CyborgZeta]

Most gun crimes occur in large urban areas. California and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and they still have some of the largest homicide rates.

What about all the other areas of the country, particularly rural areas, where gun crimes hardly occur? I can't agree with a gun ban. That would disenfranchise the thousands of responsible gun owners that don't cause any problems.

And what about home defense or property defense? People in states like Alaska or Wyoming have to worry about bears or wolves on their property. Other people want to be able to defend themselves in the event of a home invasion. I have to highlight the urban vs rural difference again, since police departments in rural areas are not as large and often do not respond as quickly as one would like.

I think what we need is better enforcement of current gun laws, which is what Obama is proposing. Increased gun control measures should be a state thing. If more urban states want tighter gun restrictions, then that's their prerogative.

[dondon151]

I shoot guns for sport on a semi regular basis, and have never killed or otherwise harmed any living thing with them. In what way is my operation of these weapons victimizing anyone? A serious answer would be appreciated. Punctuation is optional.

here's a serious answer

people get shot

by guns that people own and operate

you claimed that operating firearms is a victimless action. it obviously isn't because people get shot by firearms all the time. you qualified that "safely" operating firearms is a victimless action, but this qualification is completely useless. risky activities are victimless when done safely almost by definition. sex with children is a victimless action if conducted "safely." you cannot ensure that all firearm operators operate firearms safely.

Edited January 5, 2016 by dondon151

[tuvarkz]

here's a serious answer

people get shot

by guns that people own and operate

you claimed that operating firearms is a victimless action. it obviously isn't because people get shot by firearms all the time. you qualified that "safely" operating firearms is a victimless action, but this qualification is completely useless. risky activities are victimless when done safely almost by definition. sex with children is a victimless action if conducted "safely." you cannot ensure that all firearm operators operate firearms safely.

Are you seriously comparing the use of firearms with pedophilia?

Also, related-It's not just guns that you can assault people with. Knives, wrenches, and other utility tools can easily be used as weapons too-do you intend on putting some sort of control on them as well?

[Radiant head]

Most gun crimes occur in large urban areas. California and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and they still have some of the largest homicide rates.

Increased gun control measures should be a state thing. If more urban states want tighter gun restrictions, then that's their prerogative.

The problem here is that people don't need to declare customs when they travel interstate. So unless gun control is enacted at the federal level, it doesn't do anything.

[Duff Ostrich]

You know, the common argument is the fact that knives etc are as effective at killing someone as firearms (which isn't true tbh so at least you got that right), so you're actually going against most anti-gun control stances with that. Maybe you're right, guns are the only way to defend yourself. I do come from the UK though, and people find themselves without the need for defense in most cases. There has even been a crackdown on teenagers carrying knives, supposedly for the same "protection" that you stated.

A gun might make you feel better if you see it as such, but how much is it going to help if the attacker has one as well, especially if premeditated? Brazen shootouts in public areas?

Knives are savage as weapons, but nowhere near as effective. Gun enthusiasts don't arm themselves with knives for a series of very good reasons.

If I met a crazed shooter out in public I would almost certainly turn around and run away regardless of if I was armed. The moment I pull out a gun I become the next target, after all, and I have no illusions about my perfectly average (but competent) level of skill. If a burglar enters my home in the dead of night, however, I will grab it, yell that I'm armed, and hopefully hear his footsteps as he retreats out my door to count his blessings. I have no desire to shoot anyone, but the security it gives to my home is undeniable (assuming I abide by proper handling, storage, and so on).

A premeditated attempt on my life will probably succeed no matter what I have on hand.

We'll do your second point first because it is easier. Firstly, the arms industry is obviously biased in this whole matter, because they are looking to make money. Secondly, care to provide some evidence that no one knowledgeable about guns was consulted?

Now for your first point. In my mind, there is only one right that should never be violated: the right to trial by jury. All other rights must be violated at some point for society to function. The problem with "inalienable" rights is that they are far too absolutist of a term. Even the right to life should be violated during times of civil war. This is why the law is so detailed, because it can be more specific than the brittle concept of inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights are "brittle"!? You heard it here first! The concepts I'm talking about are not meant to be taken in absolutes when discussing matters of policy. I'm simply arguing, with the whole of the Enlightenment as my evidence, that these are the ideas which inform how we all look at the world, whether or not you realize it. We feel entitled to freedom of choice in almost all things. You presumably value your independence. These are your rights. No government can ever give them to you, though ideally it will respect your right to exercise them as often as is reasonable.

In any case I don't know or care whether or not the Clinton Administration consulted firearms expertise. I mean, they probably did, but the law was still meaningless political pandering. I've got enough proof of that:

There's a thing called Martial Arts, there's even a few (read: many) whose focus is self defense, if you really feel that unsafe. There are knives. You can defend yourself from just about everything but guns if you take away guns - but the beauty is that firearms ownership after banning guns will dwindle to a point where the very few who are obtaining guns have to go through the black market and face obscene markups to buy them.

...

Honestly, you live in Detroit where shit like this is commonplace - if I'm reading my sources correctly yall had 570 gun-related crimes (130 homicides and 440 non fatal) up until June 21st. You can't possibly be serious when you are equating your non violent use of firearms with the conventional use of firearms.

Martial arts? I'm a skinny armed nerd who plays Fire Emblem. The skill necessary to meaningfully apply such self defense techniques is prohibitively high, and it doesn't account for people (women, the elderly) who are far less physically suited for such a thing. Firearms meanwhile have a much lower barrier to entry, and expertise is not required to use one effectively. They are the great equalizer. Guns are in fact so uniquely egalitarian that I would consider it a women's rights issue.

One of the problems with your hypothetical scenario is you assume the impossible: Guns are everywhere in this country. They will never go away, and nothing short of forced confiscation would make access to firearms more difficult. Naturally this would lead to an actual armed rebellion, far more dangerous than the Bundys.

I can't deny that Detroit is a smoking crater of a city. The disproportionately high level of gun violence has everything to do with over a century of institutionalized racism, crushing poverty, and the failure of the manufacturing industries. Detroit, Flint (home of Michael Moore), and so on would have fallen apart and be terrible places to live even without guns... And just to be totally forthcoming I live in a neighboring suburb and only enter the city for work.

However, even where I live the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible people. How can you even suggest that the assaults and murders represent the majority? That's simply not even remotely true.

here's a serious answer

people get shot

by guns that people own and operate

you claimed that operating firearms is a victimless action. it obviously isn't because people get shot by firearms all the time. you qualified that "safely" operating firearms is a victimless action, but this qualification is completely useless. risky activities are victimless when done safely almost by definition. sex with children is a victimless action if conducted "safely." you cannot ensure that all firearm operators operate firearms safely.

Your comparison is absurd: Sex with children cannot be victimless. Regardless I don't have to ensure that all operators operate firearms safely. Such an expectation would be beyond unreasonable. People are unsafe with cars all the time, and far more deaths result from that in spite of comprehensive regulation! Instead I only have to appeal to the self evident truth that the vast majority are willing and able to act safely and responsibly. It is completely factual to say that firearms in this country are usually operated in a way that does not victimize anyone in any way, and that most gun owners never victimize anyone with their guns.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Moblin Major General]

Whatever President Obama thinks he's doing, it's futile, considering the Pentagon will encourage weapon manufacturing regardless. Now, what would help to limit gun violence would limit gun sales not by targeting the customer, but the business or seller. If you are a liscened dealer and sell to someone who fails a background check, you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter. If they passed, you can be subpoenaed. This is similar to the Don't Lie for the Other Guy law. If bought at a chain store, the seller is terminated, and the company is fined a significant sum.

[Lord Raven]

Martial arts? I'm a skinny armed nerd who plays Fire Emblem. The skill necessary to meaningfully apply such self defense techniques is prohibitively high, and it doesn't account for people (women, the elderly) who are far less physically suited for such a thing.

then get better

Firearms meanwhile have a much lower barrier to entry, and expertise is not required to use one effectively. They are the great equalizer. Guns are in fact so uniquely egalitarian that I would consider it a women's rights issue.

This is also why it's just as dangerous.

What the fuck at the last sentence? You can't just say guns are a women's rights issue. You're really stretching the rubber here.

One of the problems with your hypothetical scenario is you assume the impossible: Guns are everywhere in this country. They will never go away, and nothing short of forced confiscation would make access to firearms more difficult.

well I linked an article earlier that showed how gun violence trended in the UK as it was banned. It's not impossible because it has happened before.

Naturally this would lead to an actual armed rebellion, far more dangerous than the Bundys.

The US military vs a bunch of gun nuts? I think I know who I'm gunning for.

I can't deny that Detroit is a smoking crater of a city. The disproportionately high level of gun violence has everything to do with over a century of institutionalized racism, crushing poverty, and the failure of the manufacturing industries. Detroit, Flint (home of Michael Moore), and so on would have fallen apart and be terrible places to live even without guns... And just to be totally forthcoming I live in a neighboring suburb and only enter the city for work.

It also has a lot to do with the weapons they have access to. In fact, you ever think guns perpetuate those issues by acting as an easy way to kill other people? They are part of the problem.

However, even where I live the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible people. How can you even suggest that the assaults and murders represent the majority? That's simply not even remotely true.

I never said that, but you are ignoring that there are also a lot of gun owners are also negligent and wind up risking hurting others (and in fact have). Just because a majority are responsible doesn't mean the irresponsible can function with them and not hurt others.

You are also equating guns to self-defense yet you don't tell me whether or not you actually carry a gun with you for the purpose of self-defense. Do you do this? Do people around you do this? How much safer do you actually feel with a gun then compared to without?

[Parrhesia]

If I met a crazed shooter out in public I would almost certainly turn around and run away regardless of if I was armed.

Good thing there aren't many crazed shooters if they can't have guns to shoot lol

They are the great equalizer. Guns are in fact so uniquely egalitarian that I would consider it a women's rights issue.

The last time I heard 'the shotgun was the great equaliser' was my boss' anecdote about his great-aunt. She didn't mean as a woman, though. She meant as part of the IRA.

[Terrador]

>The skill necessary to meaningfully apply such self defense techniques is prohibitively high

This is just not true. Effective self-defense begins with being observant, being cognizant and physically capable enough to just move somewhere else when trouble starts developing, and taking certain common-sense measures to make you and your place of living less of a target to begin with. A physical response is a last-ditch, and usually very unlikely to succeed, measure once all these have failed (or, as is sadly much more common, haven't been meaningfully attempted to begin with)--and even then, developing the ability to act constructively when faced with danger is typically much more difficult than learning to perform a well-grounded elbow or what have you. Stay woke.

E: Also, in terms of being the great equalizer... imagine you want to do violence upon somebody, as an act of opportunity or because despise this nerd or because your reputation is on the line--whatever. When are you going to reveal that you have a weapon?

When they are in absolutely no position to do anything about it. Personal space and presence of mind will save your life more than your quick-draw ever will.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Terrador

[dondon151]

Are you seriously comparing the use of firearms with pedophilia?

yes, because the specification of safety is completely useless. of course an activity that has been defined to not hurt anyone won't hurt anyone. safe pedophilia is a victimless activity. safe cocaine use is a victimless activity. safe drunk driving is a victimless activity.

with this trick of language here i've made statements that are factually correct yet mostly worthless.

Edited January 6, 2016 by dondon151

[Duff Ostrich]

Safe drunk driving is impossible. Pedophilia always has a victim. Cocaine is not safe to the user, but should probably be legalized anyway.

Every single one of your comparisons are bogus. You have failed to explain how using firearms in a responsible manner leads to the victimization of anyone. You have instead suggested that guns can be used to victimize people and therefore... what, exactly?

Edit: I am not simply talking about hypotheticals of responsible or "safe" gun use. I am saying that this is how guns are used by almost everyone, to such an overwhelming degree that bans are unjustifiable for this reason.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Duff Ostrich