Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Wotan
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the lexicon:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

Here's my first sentence:

"Your freedom would be curbed, but it would not be immoral since the rights of non-gun owners would be furthered."

Freedom is not a right. Eg you don't have the freedom to pee on others property. What you do have are rights which define and limit your freedom where appropriate (as per the lexicon's definition). You should review those Objectivist theories of rights you recommended to me!

"Defining and sanctioning" does not mean "limiting." Rights don't limit freedoms. The right to liberty utterly sanctions freedom of action. What limits my moral and legal freedom of action is not my rights, but others' rights. Rights don't limit my action, they tell other people what I am free to do - they limit what others can do to me. You don't have the right to pee on others' property because of their right to property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, and not that it bears on the questions of morality or rights, can you explain to me why, as of 2002, the reported rates of assault victimhood and rape victimhood in the UK were more than double those in the US? Because it seems to me that denying women the tools to defend themselves will invite these brutal crimes.

Interesting stats which I cannot deny. I do deny your conclusion however that a lack of firearms invites these crimes. I deny this based on the stats below of which I would be interested in your opinion - http://fleshisgrass....weapon-updated/ (green highlight mine & orange text my commentary):

In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009(2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. Percentage of murders carried out with a firearm is 67%.

In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12(5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6). Percentage of murders carried out with a firearm is 7%.

References - Available in link above.

The conclusion here is clear as daylight - that a preponderance of firearms cause a lot of deaths. If you disagree you are claiming that the 67% of gun murders would all switch to a different weapon and that all of these weapons would be as effective as a gun in causing death. This implies that you believe that guns are ineffective as a form of attack/defence. Because this position is absurd, you must logically accept that UK style gun control (which is nowhere near as draconian as my proposals in above posts) is effective in saving lives.

(I agree that these stats have nothing to do with the morality of banning firearms under an Objectivist morality.)

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate, one of the first things you learn when studying statistics is the difference between correlation and causation. I could just as easily have said that higher murder rates cause the ratio of gun murders to rise relative to total murders, but my claim would be as unjustified as yours.

If guns were outlawed in the US, the firearms murder ratio could not possibly change as much as you claim (edit: as much as you'd have me claim). For that ratio to drop from 67% to 0%, you'd need to magic all guns out of existence. Laws are incapable of doing that. A slightly more realistic claim would be that the ratio would drop by 60% to mirror the UK ratio. But we know that the US is different from the UK in many ways, including population distribution, demographics, culture, etc. If we outlawed guns here, I'd expect the tools used for murder to change, with other weapons picking up a good portion of the slack. I'd expect the distribution of murders to shift somehow. This could possibly happen through increased border violence as drug cartels are gifted with another cash cow, and possibly through fewer murders performed by women and the elderly. I am completely certain that these two things would happen, even if I can't accurately predict how they'd happen. The particulars will shift to other people.

I also find it extremely likely (a near certainty, in fact) that violent assaults, rapes, and other crimes involving the presence of the victim (as opposed to burglary, for instance), would increase. I am astounded that you are so quick dismiss this particular point. Under gun control, the elderly, disabled and female would once again be at the complete mercy of their assailants. Their assailants would know this. Something I suspect with less confidence is that the overall murder rate would rise. But even if it drops, we have no moral justification to cause some to be assaulted so others can be saved from murder. The only moral solution is to allow people the tools necessary for their defense and to accept whatever distribution of crime results.

We've strayed from the topic, so I'll try to bring it back in. Yes, I regard it as a fair claim that UK-style gun control would have prevented the Aurora massacre, because I doubt that the abomination who committed this crime would have had the connections to secure firearms under such laws. But would he have instead become a bomber, a poisoner or something else? Perhaps; economics tells us that people choose substitutes when faced with supply shortages. But again, this doesn't address the more important moral problem. We have no justification for preventing (or changing) this crime at the expense of the safety of other people, especially when the crime could have been mitigated by moviegoers taking more responsibility for defending themselves.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conclusion here is clear as daylight - that a preponderance of firearms cause a lot of deaths.

Kate, one of the first things you learn when studying statistics is the difference between correlation and causation.

There isn't even a correlation there. Even if all she was doing is looking to establish correlation, generalizing from one single example would still betray her lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts in Logic, let alone the field of Statistics. Correlations are established between variables, not two numbers. A variable changes value, and the correlation has to be there as it does.

Like I pointed out, there are US states all along the Canadian border with violent crime and himicide rates that are lower than the Canadian and European average. Furthermore, Switzerland is a sizeable country with widesread gun ownership and minimal crime. Same for other European countries which allow widespread gun ownership but have crime spike to go along with it. These aren't statistical anomalies, they are countries and states with millions of people, owning millions of guns, in them. If there was a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates, that correlation should be reflected in these samples as well, not just the one Kate cherry picked.

The existence of those rates that directly contradict her claim, in large samples of populations (and in fact in every conceivable sample, with the exception she picked), is scientific proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violence.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you disagree you are claiming that the 67% of gun murders would all switch to a different weapon and that all of these weapons would be as effective as a gun in causing death.

Only if you treat vicims as inanimate objects, and murderers as robots without free will or emotions. Then, the only factor in determining the success of a homicide attempt would be the effectiveness of the weapon. But, in the absence of that premise, there is no logic to your argument.

In the case of a homicide attempt of one human by another, there are a multitude of factors determining the success of the attempt, and the effectiveness of the weapon is very low down that list. Some of the more important factors are:

1. The determination and ability of the murderer. This is by far the most important factor. If the murderer is a determined adult with an able body and mind, his success is virtually guaranteed. The tool he uses is irrelevant, such a murderer could achieve his goal with considerable certainty, no matter what his tool.

2. The second most important factor is the means and ability of the victim who, in the real world, unlike in your fantasy, isn't an inanimate object, to defend himself. While the main weapon of an attacker is surprise (which is why an attacker who is able and determined will likely succeed no matter what), the main weapon of the victim is preparedness. That is why it is essential to have a gun, in your home and on your person when you leave home. So that, when a would be murderer inevitably surprises you (no matter what his tool), you will be ready to defend yourself.

Once a victim is likely to be armed, the threshold of what it would take for an attacker to assure his success rises dramatically. Killing an unarmed victim is easy with any tool, including his fists. Killing an armed victim is considerably more difficult and risky.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky, I didn't mean to speak about correlation strictly as statisticians use the word. I can see how I created confusion by mentioning statistics in my lead-in. Edit: you're right that these two statistics alone are not enough to come to any conlusions about correlation, let alone causation.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If guns were outlawed in the US, the firearms murder ratio could not possibly change as much as you claim (edit: as much as you'd have me claim). For that ratio to drop from 67% to 0%, you'd need to magic all guns out of existence. Laws are incapable of doing that. A slightly more realistic claim would be that the ratio would drop by 60% to mirror the UK ratio. But we know that the US is different from the UK in many ways, including population distribution, demographics, culture, etc. If we outlawed guns here, I'd expect the tools used for murder to change, with other weapons picking up a good portion of the slack. I'd expect the distribution of murders to shift somehow. This could possibly happen through increased border violence as drug cartels are gifted with another cash cow, and possibly through fewer murders performed by women and the elderly. I am completely certain that these two things would happen, even if I can't accurately predict how they'd happen. The particulars will shift to other people.

I agree that people would switch to other weapons as a result of a gun ban. Because other weapons are less effective than guns at killing, there would be an overall decrease in deaths.

See http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/6937457.stm for how criminals get guns in the UK - mostly it's 1 or 2 weapons at a time being smuggled. The market isn't big enough for gangs to war over control of gun sales.

I also find it extremely likely (a near certainty, in fact) that violent assaults, rapes, and other crimes involving the presence of the victim (as opposed to burglary, for instance), would increase. I am astounded that you are so quick dismiss this particular point. Under gun control, the elderly, disabled and female would once again be at the complete mercy of their assailants. Their assailants would know this. Something I suspect with less confidence is that the overall murder rate would rise. But even if it drops, we have no moral justification to cause some to be assaulted so others can be saved from murder. The only moral solution is to allow people the tools necessary for their defense and to accept whatever distribution of crime results.

I grant that rapes may be higher as a result of a gun ban, but murders would be less. I would rather be raped than murdered as would anyone who values their own life.

We've strayed from the topic, so I'll try to bring it back in. Yes, I regard it as a fair claim that UK-style gun control would have prevented the Aurora massacre, because I doubt that the abomination who committed this crime would have had the connections to secure firearms under such laws. But would he have instead become a bomber, a poisoner or something else? Perhaps; economics tells us that people choose substitutes when faced with supply shortages.

First a lot of (most?) gun deaths happen in the heat of the moment with no time for the killer to make a bomb or poison. For this reason these methods aren't substitutes for guns.

In a case where there is a lot of planning, the gun still wins as it gives the psycho the satisfaction of pulling the trigger and seeing instant gruesome effects. With bombs the killer would have to leave the room and witness nothing, and poison they most likely wouldn't be present. Less satisfaction would be gained by the psycho.

I can see bombs and poison being a substitute for a gun only in the case of terrorists who may or may not be deriving satisfaction from the act of killing another, and who are doing it more for abstract religious reasons. Plus they are trying to create a general climate of fear.

But again, this doesn't address the more important moral problem. We have no justification for preventing (or changing) this crime at the expense of the safety of other people, especially when the crime could have been mitigated by moviegoers taking more responsibility for defending themselves.

I grant that you are breaking a persons freedom by banning them from owning a weapon and that this is wrong under an Objectivist morality. On the surface you may even be harming their safety if they would have been one of the people who successfully ward off an attack with a gun. However, in general I think the person's safety is increased (see argument above). But to increase someone's safety by taking away a freedom is also wrong under Objectivism.

With regards to this morality discussion in general, I don't think it's worth discussing because I will never convince you (!). You are an Objectivist and I am a moral consequentialist. We are both entitled to our opinions on morality, but neither of us are entitled to our own empirical facts which is why I wanted to focus on the reasonable claim that gun control would result in fewer gun deaths. A lot of gun advocates would not have conceded this as being reasonable. I guess because they don't have an alternative to consequentialism they need to somehow show that gun control increases gun deaths to have a hope of defending guns.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, moral consequentialism = pragmatism.

How exactly do you decide what a constitutes a good outcome, and how do you predict to 100% accuracy that it will happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but neither of us are entitled to our own empirical facts which is why I wanted to focus on the reasonable claim that gun control would result in fewer gun deaths.

Do you know what the word empirical means? It means the exact opposite of "reasonable claim". Your reasonable claim isn't an empirical fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate, people who value their own lives fight hard to be neither raped nor murdered. You need not choose between the two. Individuals that assume responsibility for their own defense and take care not to place themselves in danger will likely achieve this goal. It appears to me that there will be bad consequences when one interferes with their assumption of defensive responsibility.

See http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/6937457.stm for how criminals get guns in the UK - mostly it's 1 or 2 weapons at a time being smuggled. The market isn't big enough for gangs to war over control of gun sales.

The US is way larger than the UK. My own state of WI is a little bigger than England while being fairly close to the median of all states by size (area).The US has two porous land borders, low population density and established criminal cartels that already have a monopoly on drug and human trafficking. Even ignoring the response of the right-wing militia types, attempts to establish gun control here would end in disaster.

Gun control, from the standpoint of reducing available guns (and thus driving down gun violence) only works when you can isolate the gun-controlled areas from the non-controlled areas. In the US, the worst gun violence occurs in the most tightly gun-regulated areas precisely because it is impossible to isolate them. Washington D.C., Chicago, Cinemarks, schools and universities all have no-gun policies. It is impossible to isolate them from the US, and it is impossible to isolate the US from the rest of the world. Again, for these reasons, attempts to impose UK-style gun control here will end in disaster. Even if you could isolate the US, there is no moral way to justify the inevitable increase in rapes and violent assaults.

Edited by FeatherFall
Spelling, clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate, people who value their own lives fight hard to be neither raped nor murdered. You need not choose between the two. Individuals that assume responsibility for their own defense and take care not to place themselves in danger will likely achieve this goal. It appears to me that there will be bad consequences when one interferes with their assumption of defensive responsibility.

I don't mean that an individual has to choose between the two. Under gun control, if we accept that you are statistically more likely to be raped but less likely to be murdered, this is preferable. Since being murderered is worse than being raped.

The US is way larger than the UK. My own state of WI is a little bigger than England while being fairly close to the median of all states by size (area).The US has two pourous land borders, low population density and established criminal cartels that already have a monopoly on drug and human trafficking. Even ignoring the response of the right-wing militia types, attempts to establish gun control here would end in disaster.

Good point. I think these factors would lessen the effectivness of gun control, sure, but wouldn't destroy its effectiveness.

Gun control, from the standpoint of reducing available guns (and thus driving down gun violence) only works when you can isolate the gun-controlled areas from the non-controlled areas. In the US, the worst gun violence occurs in the most tightly gun-regulated areas precisely because it is impossible to isolate them. Washington D.C., Chicago, Cinemarks, schools and universities all have no-gun policies. It is impossible to isolate them from the US, and it is impossible to isolate the US from the rest of the world. Again, for these reasons, attempts to impose UK-style gun control here will end in disaster. Even if you could isolate the US, there is no moral way to justify the inevitable increase in rapes and violent assaults.

Yes I agree that if the US bans guns then guns will still come from Mexico and Canada. But nowhere near as many as that are now legally sold in gun shops. But of course there would then be more deaths from people not being able to defend themselves with guns, and rapes etc. But overall deaths would decrease. We can go back and forth with all these factors. But we've not studyed this properly and aren't professional statisticians.

Here is a perfect blog post that summarises the facts - http://www.washingto...nd-gun-control/ - Note point 4 & 5:

4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different state., Citations here.

5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive.

Here is a pro gun response to that blog: http://pjmedia.com/b...-slanted-story/

This is all about being able to successfully distinguish who to listen to and how to distinguish truth from fiction. Washington Post blog vs PJ Media blog? Krugman or Schiff? Most climate scientists or Heritage Institute? Most people just listen to those who repeat and buttress views they already hold. Remember, you can have whatever morality you want to have but you can't have your own facts.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never once asked to have my own facts. Nor have I dismissed any data by calling into question the credibility of a source. I consider this to be a big mistake; data and methods should be argued, not sources. When you dismiss the PJ Media (PJM) story because you believe it to be less trustworthy than the Washington Post, you make that exact mistake. So no, Kate, we are not entitled to our own facts. Attacking the source is one way to try to have our own facts. Let's quit that, shall we?

Now it's time to attack the Washington Post's data.

For points 1 and 4, I'd like to present another study from Harvard (I'll call it the "2nd Harvard Study"), Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide:

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are [sic] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.

The part of the text that I bolded describes "cherry picking" which is exactly what happened in the Duke study and the first Harvard study (in the Washington Post article to which you linked). I suggest reading the conclusions of this "2nd" Harvard study, which takes a more complete look at the available data. It shows that Russia, a gun-controlled country, at one point had a murder rate more than four times higher that of the US. It also shows that murder rates in Europe were at all-time lows prior to gun control. By dismissing the PJM story, you also dismiss the critique of Harvard 1's reporting methods, which completely whitewash a government's massacre of civilians. Finally, dismissing the PJM story, you also dismissed the United States' Center for Disease Control, which found that states with laws that were more lenient in allowing people to carry guns in public have lower murder rates - by 17.4%.

I'm not too concerned about point 2 because I think distribution of guns is not important for this discussion (After all, the mass shooting that sparked this thread was in the West, not the South). Nor am I concerned with point 3, because I don't know what significance it could have here and, besides, we have recently seen a rise in gun purchases - and the option to carry concealed weapons, but I'll address that later.

Point 5 may be the worst example of misleading statistics. Florida's map is (intentionally?) misleading. It compares gun "violence" to three factors: "Assault" weapons bans, trigger lock mandates or "safe storage" mandates. Oh, how much there is to untangle. The PJM story does a good job of taking Florida to task about including suicides with gun "violence." Now, are the three factors good indicators of which states have "strict" gun-control? No. Here's why:

Firstly, laws that are in place in the US to ban "Assault" weapons really do no such thing. A real assault weapon is one that is a "selective fire" weapon; that is, it has two modes of fire, one for firing a single bullet when the trigger is pulled, and another mode that allows more bullets to be fired per pull of the trigger - either short bursts (2 or 3 rounds), or fully-automatic fire. These types of selective fire weapons are already pretty much illegal - as all fully-automatic weapons are. So-called "Assault Weapons Bans" really ban things like magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, collapsible stocks, pistol-grips, etc. They do almost nothing to make the weapon less lethal. They do everything to make ignorant people think that politicians are protecting them.

Secondly, safe storage and trigger locks don't do anything to make the weapons less lethal either. They may have a small benefit in reducing accidents, child-possession of weapons and suicides. But as we already know, suicides have no place in a map of "gun violence."

Thirdly and finally, I noticed my own home state of Wisconsin on that map. WI has been, for a very long time, an "open carry" state. That is, if you legally own a gun (any 18 year old without a criminal record can), then you could carry it around in almost every public place, so long as you didn't conceal it. You could carry loaded rifles and shotguns into bars (the hunter's tradition and all). If a cop came around to ask for your ID because you were "disturbing the peace" simply by carrying a loaded gun, you could have politely told him to piss off. If he detained you, the city government that paid him would have been exposed to massive liability. I use the past-tense for all of this because WI gun laws have changed in the past year. We are now the 49th state to allow concealed weapons (the only state left without some form of concealed carry is Illinois, just south of us). Yet, Wisconsin is listed as evidence that gun control reduces gun "violence." Why? Probably because of the law that once prohibited guns from the passenger compartment of cars. Rubbish. Completely ridiculous rubbish.

Edit 2: over the last 15 years, the US has seen a declining murder rate combined with more laws permitting concealed carry. Here's a neat map.

Edited by FeatherFall
Correct attribution of sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this what changed in this country, back in the 1930, 1940 1950 and even into the early 1960 people were not afraid of guns or people who owned them, by looking back to the turnout to one of Herb Parsons shows people then enjoyed shooting and owning guns.

So what has changed in the past 50 years to bring out so much hate and distrust for guns and people who own guns.

Is it because back in the 1930 and 1940 most people lived in small towns and farms, and used guns as a tool to put meat on the table and today most people live in large city's and feel owning a guns is not PC and they feel they no longer have a place in society.

Or is all the hate and mistrust a by product of the bad press coverage guns and people who use them get everyday in the media.

I remember back when i was a kid, being able to hunt and shoot well was something to be proud of, it was a right of passage to becoming a man.

Now if you tell people you like to hunt they look at you like your some kind of freak and don't even think about telling them you own a AR15 or reload ammo because they will think your some kind of home grown terrorist planning to take over the government.

I would hate to admit that the best pro gun control argument is mainly driven by fear (of guns in general, of people with guns, of the damage guns cause, etc.) but I think that has a lot to do with it. Why do people hate guns? It's probably a combination of many things: where you grew up + social norms + your own experiences with gun owners (legal or otherwise) + a belief that throwing fire at fire won't put out a fire. For some, it's easier to think that guns are the cause of problems instead of realizing that they're used by men to inflict pain on others. And that these men would use other weapons for this purpose even if guns were completely outlawed. But none of these things get us very far in terms of objective reasoning..

Has anyone read this case for gun control? These stats are old so I'm not sure if they're still relevant, but they make an interesting case: 1) "Research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder" 2) "Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one" 3) "FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals....If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally."

Edited by Michele Degges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean that an individual has to choose between the two. Under gun control, if we accept that you are statistically more likely to be raped but less likely to be murdered, this is preferable. Since being murderered is worse than being raped.

You are still making a choice for others that you have no business making.

a) You would rather be raped than murdered.

b ) I want neither for myself

c) You would rather I be raped than you be murdered

d) I would rather you be murdered than me be raped.

The question is- why does your desire trump mine?

Edited by SapereAude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle, while I don't think those statistics are a good reason for UK style gun control, I think they still apply today for a few reasons. As a former worker in retail gun sales, I heard more people than I would've liked tell me that they were buying a new gun because their old gun was stolen. More than once I heard about a gun stolen from a locked or unlocked (and unattended) vehicle. People need to take responsibility for securing their weapons when they aren't near them. Perhaps it makes sense to hold gun owners liable for not adequately securing their firearms in some cases. A case from WI comes to mind, but the particulars are less important than a generalized explanation of such liability, which I am not prepared to give. If you have a gun safe, you should chain down or bolt down that safe.

As far as home death/murder risk, that makes sense. You are most likely to be killed by someone you know fairly well; I think it is easy to forget this when seeing that, "43 times more likely," statistic. Besides, when intruders enter the home most residents are not dead-set on killing them, but the gun still helps the resident scare them away. When someone has resolved to kill a member of the home, they are going to use the best tool possible and they may still carry out the murder if a gun isn't available.

Edited by brian0918
remove content referencing deleted post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard more people than I would've liked tell me that they were buying a new gun because their old gun was stolen. More than once I heard about a gun stolen from a locked or unlocked (and unattended) vehicle. People need to take responsibility for securing their weapons when they aren't near them. Perhaps it makes sense to hold gun owners liable for not adequately securing their firearms in some cases.

But if someone's gun was stolen a crime was committed against them. It would seem you are advocating for punishing a person for having a crime committed against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Would you say that a child who pulled a loaded gun from underneath daddy's pillow is a thief? I probably wouldn't. Would you say that someone who left a firearm on his front lawn overnight wasn't negligent in securing it from criminals? I probably would, but like I said I'm not prepared to give a broad generalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still making a choice for others that you have no business making.

a) You would rather be raped than murdered.

b ) I want neither for myself

c) You would rather I be raped than you be murdered

d) I would rather you be murdered than me be raped.

The question is- why does your desire trump mine?

She also wants the cop mentioned in this article to be gunned down:

http://www.brownwoodtx.com/news/local/article_851fd04a-db90-11e1-8237-0019bb2963f4.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still making a choice for others that you have no business making.

Well, the death is a worst case example, and why murder ought to be dealt with more severely than assault. Practical scenarios matter - you can receive some amount of justice if you're assaulted, but not at all if you're dead. I think the point is that the purpose of a gun is to kill a person. Handguns aren't really built for sport or various legitimate purposes that other weapons are used for. If you buy a gun, you have the power and even willingness to kill a person. At the very least, someone needs to be able to prove that they understand what self-defense means. A lot of the time arguments in favor of absolute gun rights (i.e. it's my life, so you can't tell me not to use a gun!) borders on arguments for anarchy (it's my home, so you can't tell me to not let people use guns for me!). Talking about guns is talking about an instrument of force that can't be left up to personal preference. I'm not sure what principle to use to draw the line between gun rights and preventing people from using instruments of force.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Would you say that a child who pulled a loaded gun from underneath daddy's pillow is a thief? I probably wouldn't. Would you say that someone who left a firearm on his front lawn overnight wasn't negligent in securing it from criminals? I probably would, but like I said I'm not prepared to give a broad generalization.

I was directly addressing the scenarios you put forth in the post I responded to- those scenarios were of guns being stolen from automobiles and from homes (I generally assume one's gunsafe is in one's home).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was directly addressing the scenarios you put forth in the post I responded to

I see. I wouldn't think someone should be held liable for the poor decision of keeping a locked but unchained gun safe, or even for keeping a gun in a locked car. Those particular things are just that; poor decisions. I was just trying to express that I am open to hearing arguments about "safe containment" laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...