Guns used for lawful self defense

[Blind groper]

I care deeply about other people being hurt and dying at the hands of criminals and despots, because they have been deliberately disarmed by their own government at the behest of paranoid hoplophobes.

As I have pointed out before, this is based on a fallacy. Of the 24 richest countries, only the USA permits widespread distribution of hand guns, and the USA has 80% of firearm homicides of all 24 nations put together. That is a very high price to pay for such a policy.

So does that policy work? If it does, we would see the USA as a free country and the rest enslaved. That needs a definition. In the absence of a universally accepted definition of 'free country', I will define it as a nation which lives up to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

So what is the result?
The result is 24 free countries. 24 countries, with or without gun possession, who all have citizens who enjoy all the freedoms of the United Nations Declaration of Human rights.

In other words, Seth's view that owning hand guns is needed to preserve freedoms is proven false by the real world.


The rest of Seth's post is irrational and emotional garbage.

[Blind groper]

"One thing I realised a long time back is that loving guns has nothing to do with rational thought. "
What the hell is this supposed to mean anyway? How is it any more or less rational than my love for musical instruments?

The love of guns is the love of power.
Even though gun lovers are in denial, (like religious nutters) they are working to a piece of emotional logic.

The way this emotional logic works is :

- When I hold a gun I feel powerful.
- Therefore I love guns.
- Therefore guns are good.
- Therefore those who oppose gun possession are bad.

If you look at my signature, you will see the other factor at work. If someone does not want to face the truth - that they are driven by emotion - they rationalise their way around it.

[Kristie]

^That was not the image I was looking for..

Sadly, if it's the select-fire version of the Glock, under the NFA, this configuration is illegal for civilian ownership because it was not in the NFA registry prior to the 1987 ban on the manufacture of machine guns for civilian use.

If it's the semi-auto only version however, it is possible to register it as a short-barreled rifle and legally possess it.

Pord isn't American.

[Jason]

Nope, and I can get any firearm I wish.

[Jason]

Though technically I am American as I live in the Americas. It's like someone from Germany is European just as someone from Poland is European. For some reason 'American' has come to mean someone from the USA, rather than Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, Columbia, Venezuela, Chile, etc.

[Kristie]

Though technically I am American as I live in the Americas. It's like someone from Germany is European just as someone from Poland is European. For some reason 'American' has come to mean someone from the USA, rather than Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, Columbia, Venezuela, Chile, etc.

Don't let the non-US Americans hear you say you're American. They will start making fun of you.....even more.

[Seth]

I care deeply about other people being hurt and dying at the hands of criminals and despots, because they have been deliberately disarmed by their own government at the behest of paranoid hoplophobes.

As I have pointed out before, this is based on a fallacy.

Except it's not.

Of the 24 richest countries, only the USA permits widespread distribution of hand guns, and the USA has 80% of firearm homicides of all 24 nations put together. That is a very high price to pay for such a policy.

Nice strawman argument. But, you see, it doesn't matter what weapon the criminal uses, from a machine gun to a rock, the victim STILL has an unalienable right to effective self-defense, and must therefore be better-armed than his assailant. You love to trot out this strawman argument in which you compare apples to oranges quite regularly and you deliberately avoid the actual moral and ethical arguments involved by limiting your claim to "firearms homicides" while ignoring all other causes of homicide as well as the much stronger argument against demeaning the individual to the status of a statistic in derogation of his individual right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are protected by the fundamental and unalienable right to effective self-defense against criminality;.

So does that policy work? If it does, we would see the USA as a free country and the rest enslaved.
The result is 24 free countries. 24 countries, with or without gun possession, who all have citizens who enjoy all the freedoms of the United Nations Declaration of Human rights.

Twenty four countries where murder and crime victims are rendered helpless and reduced to the status of a statistic. They aren't free, they are slaves of their government whose lives and safety can be derogated and infringed because of bullshit arguments like the one you make.

In other words, Seth's view that owning hand guns is needed to preserve freedoms is proven false by the real world.

Not really. The greatest genocides on earth have occurred AFTER, and as a function of disarming the public. You ignore this fact all the time, but it still exists.

You admit that the right to armed self defense exists, and you allow for the use of rifles and shotguns to do so, but you derogate handguns because you are afraid of them. Unfortunately for you, they are an effective tool of self-defense that each and every individual has a right to secure.

The rest of Seth's post is irrational and emotional garbage.

ALL of your posts are irrational and emotional garbage.

[Cormac]

I care deeply about other people being hurt and dying at the hands of criminals and despots, because they have been deliberately disarmed by their own government at the behest of paranoid hoplophobes.

As I have pointed out before, this is based on a fallacy. Of the 24 richest countries, only the USA permits widespread distribution of hand guns, and the USA has 80% of firearm homicides of all 24 nations put together. That is a very high price to pay for such a policy.

So does that policy work? If it does, we would see the USA as a free country and the rest enslaved. That needs a definition. In the absence of a universally accepted definition of 'free country', I will define it as a nation which lives up to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

So what is the result?
The result is 24 free countries. 24 countries, with or without gun possession, who all have citizens who enjoy all the freedoms of the United Nations Declaration of Human rights.

In other words, Seth's view that owning hand guns is needed to preserve freedoms is proven false by the real world.


The rest of Seth's post is irrational and emotional garbage.

I don't think he is wrong.

But being armed ALONE is not sufficient, to keep the government wary of the power and force of an armed populace.

The missing ingredient is a proper education. Given that public education in the USA was founded and designed by a few Industrialists with the deliberate aim of creating a cowed and biddable workforce, education has gone down a poor route in the USA.

And, as the rest of the Western world assumes that the USA does things right in many many things, the educational establishments elsewhere have followed suit.

But - imagine a well informed, well drilled, and well armed populace.Well, the Koch brothers wouldn't be so quick to subborn the electoral process if they thought they'd get shot the next time they stepped outside the door.

The problem then, of course, becomes one of "who will watch the watchers"

[Cormac]

"One thing I realised a long time back is that loving guns has nothing to do with rational thought. "
What the hell is this supposed to mean anyway? How is it any more or less rational than my love for musical instruments?

The love of guns is the love of power.
Even though gun lovers are in denial, (like religious nutters) they are working to a piece of emotional logic.

The way this emotional logic works is :

- When I hold a gun I feel powerful.
- Therefore I love guns.
- Therefore guns are good.
- Therefore those who oppose gun possession are bad.

If you look at my signature, you will see the other factor at work. If someone does not want to face the truth - that they are driven by emotion - they rationalise their way around it.

In fact, the decision process in human beings is 100% emotion. Any rationalisation that occurs is after the fact.

We know this, because people who have sustained brain damage, such that they no longer feel emotions, are incapable of making decisions. They become paralysed in a maelstrom of attributes, unable to assign a relative value to each - because they have no emotional attachment to any particular attribute.

So, you have reached your opposition to gun ownership in the same way.

[Blind groper]

You admit that the right to armed self defense exists, and you allow for the use of rifles and shotguns to do so, but you derogate handguns because you are afraid of them. Unfortunately for you, they are an effective tool of self-defense that each and every individual has a right to secure.

Actually, the reason I accept rifles and do not accept hand guns is purely pragmatic, based on my belief that human life matters.

Hand guns are responsible for half of all homicides in the USA and 60% of all successful suicides. Rifles, shotguns, and military weapons are responsible for a tiny number by comparison. So, in order to save lives, it makes sense to restrict hand guns.

[Pappa]

You admit that the right to armed self defense exists, and you allow for the use of rifles and shotguns to do so, but you derogate handguns because you are afraid of them. Unfortunately for you, they are an effective tool of self-defense that each and every individual has a right to secure.

Actually, the reason I accept rifles and do not accept hand guns is purely pragmatic, based on my belief that human life matters.

Hand guns are responsible for half of all homicides in the USA and 60% of all successful suicides. Rifles, shotguns, and military weapons are responsible for a tiny number by comparison. So, in order to save lives, it makes sense to restrict hand guns.

If people didn't have handguns but had rifles, surely they'd just kill themselves with rifles instead?

[Blind groper]

To Pappa

That is a fair point, but it does not fall in line with observed data. Having a hand gun in the home increases the chances of a suicide by 400%. Having a rifle in the home, but no hand gun, increases suicide risk by a lot less.

Here is a Harvard University item on how high gun possession means high rate of death by suicide.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matte ... index.html

[Cormac]

To Pappa

That is a fair point, but it does not fall in line with observed data. Having a hand gun in the home increases the chances of a suicide by 400%. Having a rifle in the home, but no hand gun, increases suicide risk by a lot less.

Here is a Harvard University item on how high gun possession means high rate of death by suicide.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matte ... index.html

This seems odd, when a nice high dose of paracetamol will do it more effectively. As would hanging.

Also - 400% more likely is not a very revealing statistic. If your chances of suicide are, let's say, .01%, you would now have a chance of .04%. These calculations need to be included too before a bald statement like 400% more likely makes any sense.

[Jason]

But 400% is so much more dramatic!

Do these households that have hand guns also have rifles or just hand guns? Do households that have only hand guns have a significantly higher rate of suicide than those that have only rifles? What is the causation between hand gun ownership and suicide rates? Do hand guns make people more suicidal or would these people be just as suicidal without them? If there were no hand guns in the house, would they attempt other methods (pills, slashing wrists, etc.)? These other methods, being less reliable, would there be more permanently disabled people who attempted suicide and, if so, being that they would become a burden on their families and society in general is this a good thing considering they desperately wanted to terminate their existence anyway? If people are so desperate to commit suicide, who are we to tell them no they can't? Why is the issue of the morality of suicide and the possession of hand guns being compounded?

I'm not expecting answers, and I don't care to hear them from Groper. It's just an example of why I think he's an idiot not worth arguing with.

[Svartalf]

The causation is pretty obvious : convenience and ease make acting out on suicidal pulsion more frequent... though they are more a facilitation factor than actually causative.