Guns used for lawful self defense

[FBM]

Yeah, I know. But it's pretty close to 300 million who want to decide for themselves rather than let the gummit or foreigners do it for them.

[Blind groper]

To FBM

I think your post crossed my edit. Can you re-read, please.

[FBM]

Have you got a plan to change the minds of some 300 million people?

According to Wiki, the gun supporters in the USA are between 40% and 50% of the population. So 300 million may not be the correct number.

Let me bring this discussion back down to Earth.

To FBM.

Unlike Seth, I get the impression that you are somewhat realistic in your attitudes. You know, and I know, that this is just a discussion. It is certainly not something to get emotional about. I do not have the power even to influence anything my own government does, and I certainly cannot influence any change in the USA.

Bearing this in mind, would you at least make the following concessions?

1. The USA has a problem. That problem is the very large numbers of people being killed or maimed by firearms.
2. The biggest contributor to that problem is hand guns.
3. It would be a very good thing to get most of those hand guns out of the hands of non police.

Yeah, I missed that edit.

1. Yes, the US has a bunch of problems. The firearm-related violence is one of many, and far from the most serious one. If that weren't the case, the headlines would be devoted to this topic every day. Obviously, Americans think things like the economy, health care, politics and nipple slips rate higher, judging from the papers.

2. Hand guns just sit there until someone picks them up. The mind of the person with the firearm is the problem.

3. It would be a very good thing to get all those handguns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

[Seth]

Well then, FBM, perhaps you might like to suggest a solution.

And please don't say 'education'. Education does not stop murderers from being murderers.

Education! Sorry. Had to do that.

My suggestion is for the US, allegedly a democracy, to follow the will of the masses while respecting the rights of the minorities. If the majority want gun ownership to be legal, so be it. I do NOT suggest that a totalitarian goverment decide for us what we can and can't do. If we wind up killing each other more often than if we'd made a different decision, so be it. We voted, we pay the price. I'd rather live in a democracy where the people choose than under a dictatorial regime. Have you got a plan to change the minds of some 300 million people?

Problem is, FBM, the United States is NOT A DEMOCRACY!

It never has been a democracy, and must never become a democracy. The closer it comes to democracy (and we're perilously close to it right now) the more certain is it's downfall and dissolution.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic that uses LIMITED democratic processes as part of its political system.

It's important for people to understand the difference between a democracy, which is at its core nothing more than mob rule, and a Constitutional Republic in which everyone, most especially including the government, is obligated to respect the rights of individuals even when the exercise of those rights goes against popular opinion.

The only way to change that is to repeal the Constitution entirely and start again. That's certainly possible, but would immediately result in dissolution of the Republic and the Union, and the nation would fracture into several independent nations each having their own Constitution.

Sorry, but my RKBA is NOT subject to a popular vote. Even if such a vote is overwhelmingly to ban handguns, I will not obey or respect such a vote and will take up arms against any attempt to seize my weapons. This is because neither the people nor the government have any authority to disarm me because my RKBA is not granted by either the people or the government, it pre-exists and exists completely independent of any political decision as a function of my existence as a living organism.

Therefor, any such attempt violates my unalienable natural rights and I will of course actively resist any such efforts and be fully justified in doing so.

[Gallstones]

Pord

None of that explains why the USA has 4 times the murder rate of any of the other richest 23 nations. In fact, it has 80% of all the gun murders of all 23 nations combined. That does not sound to me like your theory works. In fact, any rational person would conclude that the ridiculous theory that more guns, educated or not, makes fewer gun deaths is a load of nonsense.

It is like saying : "Tobacco kills people. Let us solve the problem by selling more tobacco." Duh!

Just so I understand, is it your belief that if there were no handguns in the US, there would be fewer murders?

[Blind groper]

Gallstones

Every one of the 23 wealthiest nations (excluding the USA) has very few hand guns in the possession of civilians. They have relatively a lot fewer murders than the USA. In most cases, the murder rate is a quarter. Since half of all murders in the USA are done with hand guns, it follows that, if there were no hand guns in the USA, there would be fewer murders.

[Blind groper]

, any such attempt violates my unalienable natural rights and I will of course actively resist any such efforts and be fully justified in doing so.

As I have said before, there are no inalienable natural rights. There are only privileges granted by government. Seth is living in a fantasy.

Even the right to self defense is not guaranteed. In fact, through most of history, for most people, there was no right to self defense. Defending yourself was permitted only if the powers that be agreed to let you (like in war time, if you were a soldier), or if you were a person of higher status defending yourself against a person of lower status.

Even your much vaunted George Washington followed this limited rule. If he, or his supervisor, struck one of his black slaves, and the slave defended himself by hitting the striker back, the slave would be punished - possibly killed. The "father of liberty" did not grant the right of self defense to his slaves.

In Europe, serfs and laborers did not have the right to defend themselves against the aristocrats, even when the aristocrats instigated evil actions against those serfs. Any serf who had the temerity to defend himself, or defend others (like a daughter against rape), would likely be killed.

The concept of self defense as a right is very recent. Modern governments, mostly but not always, permit people to defend themselves. It is a special privilege given by those in power. There is nothing inalienable about it.

[Blind groper]

1. Yes, the US has a bunch of problems. The firearm-related violence is one of many, and far from the most serious one. If that weren't the case, the headlines would be devoted to this topic every day. Obviously, Americans think things like the economy, health care, politics and nipple slips rate higher, judging from the papers.

2. Hand guns just sit there until someone picks them up. The mind of the person with the firearm is the problem.

3. It would be a very good thing to get all those handguns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

Thank you for the reply.

Point 1 is good. I agree that firearm related violence is not the most serious problem. After all, that was not what this thread was about. Your agreement, though, that it is a real problem, shows that you are thinking rationally.

Point 2 is a partial fallacy. It has a small amount of truth, but is not completely true. One of the characteristics of both murders and suicides is that they are a result (mostly) of a temporary impulse. If the tool to murder or suicide is readily available, the result is a death. If such a tool is not, then there is no death and the impulse passes. That is why a hand gun in the home increases the probability of a spouse on spouse murder by 400%. For this reason, ensuring that there are no hand guns available will reduce both murders and suicides. It is not just the mind of the person with the firearm. It is also the simple fact the firearm is available.

Point 3 cannot be argued with. I see no way to achieve it without also taking hand guns out of the hands of other people. If normal civilians can get hand guns, so can criminals.

[Seth]

Gallstones

Every one of the 23 wealthiest nations (excluding the USA) has very few hand guns in the possession of civilians. They have relatively a lot fewer murders than the USA. In most cases, the murder rate is a quarter. Since half of all murders in the USA are done with hand guns, it follows that, if there were no hand guns in the USA, there would be fewer murders.

And yet as the tables I recently posted show, your thesis does not hold true even in Europe, where the more stringent the gun laws and the lower the percentage of citizens who posses them, the higher the murder and crime rates are, much less the US where it's perfectly clear that where concealed carry is lawful, violent crime decreases markedly.

So no, it does not follow...at all.

[Seth]

, any such attempt violates my unalienable natural rights and I will of course actively resist any such efforts and be fully justified in doing so.

As I have said before, there are no inalienable natural rights. There are only privileges granted by government.

For you, this is absolutely true. But then you're a well-indoctrinated sheeple who doesn't and in fact is incapable of understanding even the simple precepts that the United States was founded upon, which are exactly the opposite of what you suffer under.

Seth is living in a fantasy.

Wrong.

Even the right to self defense is not guaranteed.

It's guaranteed by my willingness and ability to exercise it.

In fact, through most of history, for most people, there was no right to self defense. Defending yourself was permitted only if the powers that be agreed to let you (like in war time, if you were a soldier), or if you were a person of higher status defending yourself against a person of lower status.

But not here in the US. That's why we're different and we are not sheeple. We refuse to bend our knee to anyone and allow them to take away our rights and breed us into servitude where we think that our rights come from the state. Your ignorance of freedom does not make your arguments true.

Even your much vaunted George Washington followed this limited rule. If he, or his supervisor, struck one of his black slaves, and the slave defended himself by hitting the striker back, the slave would be punished - possibly killed. The "father of liberty" did not grant the right of self defense to his slaves.

That was then, this is now.

In Europe, serfs and laborers did not have the right to defend themselves against the aristocrats, even when the aristocrats instigated evil actions against those serfs. Any serf who had the temerity to defend himself, or defend others (like a daughter against rape), would likely be killed.

Only because they were whipped sheeple and refused to rise up against the tyrants who oppressed them. Their right to self defense always existed, it's just that they were too cowardly, or too weak to enforce that right. However, as the Russian aristocracy discovered, when the people are armed, they will not long submit to such abuse. Instead they will rise up and smite their oppressors and free themselves. This has been repeated time and again throughout human history. That lesson is in fact why tyrants, as their most important act, always try to disarm the populace, so that they can be controlled by their minions.

The concept of self defense as a right is very recent. Modern governments, mostly but not always, permit people to defend themselves. It is a special privilege given by those in power. There is nothing inalienable about it.

Nope. The instinct for self defense exists in every single living creature that exists on earth. It is that instinct for self preservation that creates the right to self defense. That right is comprised of nothing more than the desire and ability to resist intrusions on the organisms individual existence. The right of self defense is a universal right that accrues simply through the impetus to defend oneself and the ability to do so. And it's inalienable because every organism on earth seeks always to preserve their own life first and foremost, as one of the most basic functions of a living organism. To take away that right is to defy the genetic purpose of existence.

[Blind groper]

Seth

For most people, for most of history, exercising that 'self defense right' was simply a route to death.

[Pappa]

This is a general reminder to participants of this thread to please play nice and refrain from personal attacks.

[Seth]

Seth

For most people, for most of history, exercising that 'self defense right' was simply a route to death.

That does not vitiate the right, it merely reinforces the justification for arming the people. The reason it was historically a route to death is because they had no arms and only those in power did. Every time the citizenry has managed to arm itself adequately, it has been able to overthrow tyrants.

That's precisely what the Founders knew, and exactly why they said that the citizenry must NEVER be disarmed by the government, because that is a sure and certain path to despotism.

Take feudal Japan as an example. Samurai could quite literally chop a peasant in half at will just to test the edge on their blade with no legal repercussions at all. But when Westerners came to Japan and introduced...wait for it...firearms to the lower classes, samurai soon ceased to exist because the firearm is the Great Equalizer that makes the peon and peasant the equal of the armed soldier in combat.

The same argument applies to citizens and criminals.

[Blind groper]

That's precisely what the Founders knew, and exactly why they said that the citizenry must NEVER be disarmed by the government, because that is a sure and certain path to despotism.

The the 22 out of 23 richest (non USA) nations on this planet, that do not have hand guns available to the citizenry, but are still free, shows this hypothesis to be wrong.

[Jason]

This is a general reminder to participants of this thread to please play nice and refrain from personal attacks.

Yeah? Well fuck you and your amazingly gorgeous wife.

So there.