Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[Seth]

You can't do that, so you're not free, slave-boy.

Actually, I can do that as well, with the same end result as when you do it, since "blowing things up" except under specifically legally permitted circumstances, is illegal in both our countries, resulting in arrest in both places.

Er, no, I can blow things up legally over here. Sometimes I don't even need a permit. Tannerite is lots of fun. If it's mine, and it's on property where I have permission, and it's safe to do so, I can blow up anything I like.

[Seth]

The Nordic countries do have, by almost any standard you wish to use, a materially higher standard of living than the USA. Simple fact. I didn't believe it either until I experienced it myself.

Perhaps you should try living there before you make ignorant or misinformed statements.

No thanks, they also have a materially higher tax rate...in fact some of the highest tax rates in the world...and you have to have the permission of the government to own a firearm.

Fourth, they have a demonstrably lower crime rate (not, as you say, my "perception of feeling "safer and less violent."

Problem is, there is A crime rate, of some magnitude, and the government over there, just as they do in the UK, functionally forbids people from carrying defensive weapons to prevent or thwart whatever crime DOES occur.

That's not freedom, that's the government putting a statistical value on your life and safety and telling you it's worth jack-shit to them because "protecting" the collective from even the POTENTIAL misuse of your defensive arms is far more important than allowing you to ACTUALLY protect yourself against criminal victimization.

Tyranny and despotism made manifest.

[Collector1337]

First, Collector, I'm an American by birth and citizenship, but I've lived in many places, including almost a decade in Scandinavia. So my statements are not ignorant nor are they misinformed. The Nordic countries do have, by almost any standard you wish to use, a materially higher standard of living than the USA. Simple fact. I didn't believe it either until I experienced it myself.

Perhaps you should try living there before you make ignorant or misinformed statements.

Second, I'm not confusing "freedom" with "free". And of course I understand that all those things I mentioned are paid for with taxes. But they've set up their society so that accessing them are things they can do that we in the States can't, which is what you asked for examples of. Third, public schools there are far better on the whole than they are in the States. Fourth, they have a demonstrably lower crime rate (not, as you say, my "perception of feeling "safer and less violent."

Yeah, you can argue all day about who's education is better, and who's health care, and who's standard of living, and that's nice and fine, but that's a different conversation than liberty.

You definitely seem to be mistaking freedom with getting free stuff from the government. That is not freedom. Freedom is not being taken care of. I'm taking about restrictions and prohibitionist laws that deem you a criminal for mere possession of an object. Individual liberty. The freedom to choose. Getting free stuff from the government is nice, but that doesn't mean you're free and you can do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

You have a very bizarre and inaccurate idea of what freedom is.

[orpheus]

First, Collector, I'm an American by birth and citizenship, but I've lived in many places, including almost a decade in Scandinavia. So my statements are not ignorant nor are they misinformed. The Nordic countries do have, by almost any standard you wish to use, a materially higher standard of living than the USA. Simple fact. I didn't believe it either until I experienced it myself.

Perhaps you should try living there before you make ignorant or misinformed statements.

Second, I'm not confusing "freedom" with "free". And of course I understand that all those things I mentioned are paid for with taxes. But they've set up their society so that accessing them are things they can do that we in the States can't, which is what you asked for examples of. Third, public schools there are far better on the whole than they are in the States. Fourth, they have a demonstrably lower crime rate (not, as you say, my "perception of feeling "safer and less violent."

Yeah, you can argue all day about who's education is better, and who's health care, and who's standard of living, and that's nice and fine, but that's a different conversation than liberty.

You definitely seem to be mistaking freedom with getting free stuff from the government. That is not freedom. Freedom is not being taken care of. I'm taking about restrictions and prohibitionist laws that deem you a criminal for mere possession of an object. Individual liberty. The freedom to choose. Getting free stuff from the government is nice, but that doesn't mean you're free and you can do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

You have a very bizarre and inaccurate idea of what freedom is.

I was free to do anything I wanted as long as it didn't hurt anyone else while I lived there. Maybe we just want different things.

And I see you ignored where I said I realized the health care system, etc. were not free, that we paid for them with taxes. You need to read more carefully. Incidentally, that's one of the things they teach really, really well there - the literacy rate is the highest in the world. And I mention those things because they are the keys to a free and good life. If you don't prioritize providing your kids with the best education, the best health care, and the safest society in which to grow, then... well... you have a very bizarre and inaccurate idea of what freedom means.

[Collector1337]

First, Collector, I'm an American by birth and citizenship, but I've lived in many places, including almost a decade in Scandinavia. So my statements are not ignorant nor are they misinformed. The Nordic countries do have, by almost any standard you wish to use, a materially higher standard of living than the USA. Simple fact. I didn't believe it either until I experienced it myself.

Perhaps you should try living there before you make ignorant or misinformed statements.

Second, I'm not confusing "freedom" with "free". And of course I understand that all those things I mentioned are paid for with taxes. But they've set up their society so that accessing them are things they can do that we in the States can't, which is what you asked for examples of. Third, public schools there are far better on the whole than they are in the States. Fourth, they have a demonstrably lower crime rate (not, as you say, my "perception of feeling "safer and less violent."

Yeah, you can argue all day about who's education is better, and who's health care, and who's standard of living, and that's nice and fine, but that's a different conversation than liberty.

You definitely seem to be mistaking freedom with getting free stuff from the government. That is not freedom. Freedom is not being taken care of. I'm taking about restrictions and prohibitionist laws that deem you a criminal for mere possession of an object. Individual liberty. The freedom to choose. Getting free stuff from the government is nice, but that doesn't mean you're free and you can do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

You have a very bizarre and inaccurate idea of what freedom is.

I was free to do anything I wanted as long as it didn't hurt anyone else while I lived there. Maybe we just want different things.

And I see you ignored where I said I realized the health care system, etc. were not free, that we paid for them with taxes. You need to read more carefully. Incidentally, that's one of the things they teach really, really well there - the literacy rate is the highest in the world. And I mention those things because they are the keys to a free and good life. If you don't prioritize providing your kids with the best education, the best health care, and the safest society in which to grow, then... well... you have a very bizarre and inaccurate idea of what freedom means.

Yeah, duh, it's paid with taxes, it's so obvious it's not even worth mentioning, which is why I didn't. Yet, you think I missed it or whatever, which then you subtly insult my reading ability, and try to claim your education is better, even though I missed nothing in the first place. Talk about fucking arrogance.

You are still completely dodging what I'm we're supposed to be talking about. Freedom is not being restricted by the government, not your tax/benefit ratio you get from the government.

When are you actually going to address individual liberty? Instead of just talking about government entitlement programs?

[orpheus]

First, Collector, I'm an American by birth and citizenship, but I've lived in many places, including almost a decade in Scandinavia. So my statements are not ignorant nor are they misinformed. The Nordic countries do have, by almost any standard you wish to use, a materially higher standard of living than the USA. Simple fact. I didn't believe it either until I experienced it myself.

Perhaps you should try living there before you make ignorant or misinformed statements.

Second, I'm not confusing "freedom" with "free". And of course I understand that all those things I mentioned are paid for with taxes. But they've set up their society so that accessing them are things they can do that we in the States can't, which is what you asked for examples of. Third, public schools there are far better on the whole than they are in the States. Fourth, they have a demonstrably lower crime rate (not, as you say, my "perception of feeling "safer and less violent."

Yeah, you can argue all day about who's education is better, and who's health care, and who's standard of living, and that's nice and fine, but that's a different conversation than liberty.

You definitely seem to be mistaking freedom with getting free stuff from the government. That is not freedom. Freedom is not being taken care of. I'm taking about restrictions and prohibitionist laws that deem you a criminal for mere possession of an object. Individual liberty. The freedom to choose. Getting free stuff from the government is nice, but that doesn't mean you're free and you can do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

You have a very bizarre and inaccurate idea of what freedom is.

I was free to do anything I wanted as long as it didn't hurt anyone else while I lived there. Maybe we just want different things.

And I see you ignored where I said I realized the health care system, etc. were not free, that we paid for them with taxes. You need to read more carefully. Incidentally, that's one of the things they teach really, really well there - the literacy rate is the highest in the world. And I mention those things because they are the keys to a free and good life. If you don't prioritize providing your kids with the best education, the best health care, and the safest society in which to grow, then... well... you have a very bizarre and inaccurate idea of what freedom means.

Yeah, duh, it's paid with taxes, it's so obvious it's not even worth mentioning, which is why I didn't. Yet, you think I missed it or whatever, which then you subtly insult my reading ability, and try to claim your education is better, even though I missed nothing in the first place. Talk about fucking arrogance.

You are still completely dodging what I'm we're supposed to be talking about. Freedom is not being restricted by the government, not your tax/benefit ratio you get from the government.

You've missed the point. The reason I listed those things is that those things position one to lead a life that really is free; one is healthy, well-educated, living in a safe environment, and able to make meaningful choices about what to do with one's life. They've set up a system where pretty much everyone can do this.

Now, contrast that with the USA, where we've set up the system so that huge numbers of people are ill-educated, at higher risk of becoming a victim of crime, unable to get adequate health care, and living near, at, or below the poverty level. They're poorly positioned to do anything with their lives except to possibly make them slightly less miserable. I fail to see how anyone growing up in such circumstances is actually living a life that is - in any meaningful sense of the word - free.

When are you actually going to address individual liberty? Instead of just talking about government entitlement programs?

Well, I did address it, right up top, where I said "I was free to do anything I wanted as long as it didn't hurt anyone else while I lived there."

Since you don't seem to like that, let's turn it around. What are you free to do here that I wasn't free to do in Scandinavia? (Gunz, I know, gunz. Aside from that.)

[Blind groper]

Freedom is doing whatever you choose as long as:
1. You do not hurt anyone.
2. You are not cruel to animals.
3. You do not harm the natural environment.

This set of principles is followed by all free countries. But please note. Owning and using firearms does cause harm, and great harm to people. So when a government chooses to limit such use, it is not betraying the principles of freedom.

[JimC]

Freedom is doing whatever you choose as long as:
1. You do not hurt anyone.
2. You are not cruel to animals.
3. You do not harm the natural environment.

This set of principles is followed by all free countries. But please note. Owning and using firearms does cause harm, and great harm to people. So when a government chooses to limit such use, it is not betraying the principles of freedom.

I generally agree, but there is a conundrum here, about guns. I agree that, in a statistical sense, wider gun ownership and laxer firearm laws lead to a net negative effect on society. As you know, I prefer the Oz/NZ/UK model to the US one...

However, consider an individual, perhaps in a rural environment, non-aggressive but with a real interest in firearms of all sorts, and his own rifle/pistol range. He doesn't buy into the "enter my property and I'll fill you full of lead " crap we hear from some contributors to this thread, and keeps his firearms safely locked up unless he is using them, in a very safe way.

Are restrictive firearm laws hampering his freedom for no good reason, or do we have to follow the greatest good argument absolutely?

[Jason]

Freedom is doing whatever you choose as long as:
1. You do not hurt anyone.
2. You are not cruel to animals.
3. You do not harm the natural environment.

This set of principles is followed by all free countries. But please note. Owning and using firearms does cause harm, and great harm to people. So when a government chooses to limit such use, it is not betraying the principles of freedom.

Well, number 1 anyhow. Numbers 2 and 3 are pretty loosely covered by law, at least in Canada. They're more policed by morals than law on an individual level. Even on a commercial level, cruelty to animals is pretty loosely defined - hence the protests by Green Peace and other animal rights activist groups.

[Rum]

Freedom is doing whatever you choose as long as:
1. You do not hurt anyone.
2. You are not cruel to animals.
3. You do not harm the natural environment.

This set of principles is followed by all free countries. But please note. Owning and using firearms does cause harm, and great harm to people. So when a government chooses to limit such use, it is not betraying the principles of freedom.

I generally agree, but there is a conundrum here, about guns. I agree that, in a statistical sense, wider gun ownership and laxer firearm laws lead to a net negative effect on society. As you know, I prefer the Oz/NZ/UK model to the US one...

However, consider an individual, perhaps in a rural environment, non-aggressive but with a real interest in firearms of all sorts, and his own rifle/pistol range. He doesn't buy into the "enter my property and I'll fill you full of lead " crap we hear from some contributors to this thread, and keeps his firearms safely locked up unless he is using them, in a very safe way.

Are restrictive firearm laws hampering his freedom for no good reason, or do we have to follow the greatest good argument absolutely?

A very reasonable point to make. Sadly that's irrelevant when it comes to this topic.

[Blind groper]

I have made the point many times that I am not opposing the use of firearms that have a legitimate purpose.

If a person plans to hunt for food, then owning a sports rifle is OK. But if a person wants to own a firearm that has no purpose except to shoot and kill other people, then it is appropriate for a government to restrict this. Hand guns have no function apart from murder or suicide. Hence, they should be restricted. It is such a simple principle!!

[MrJonno]

Freedom is doing whatever you choose as long as:
1. You do not hurt anyone.
2. You are not cruel to animals.
3. You do not harm the natural environment.

This set of principles is followed by all free countries. But please note. Owning and using firearms does cause harm, and great harm to people. So when a government chooses to limit such use, it is not betraying the principles of freedom.

Freedom from's are far more important than freedom of. You can worry about freedom to choose what you want on tv and what you wear only after you are no longer worry about freedom from hunger, freedom from violence, freedom for bad health, freedom from poverty in general.

A healthy prisoner with 3 meals a day is a hell of a lot better of than a 'free' man who is hungry and dying of cancer due to lack of healthcare

[Jason]

Well. The anti-gun nuts are rallying in Canada now. Apparently they want an outright ban on restricted firearms because you cannot hunt with them by law (guess who made it illegal to hunt with them?), they're talking about banning semi-automatic centerfire rifles and semi-automatic shotguns and limiting magazine capacity to 3 (We already have a legal limit of 5). They even want to ban semi-automatic rimfire rifles. All because of the hysteria over the shootings in the US. What a bunch of reactionary morons. We don't have the gun crime the US does, yet there is a push to disarm the population. Bollocks. Stupid fucking idiots. I might have to start voting conservative.

[Seth]

I have made the point many times that I am not opposing the use of firearms that have a legitimate purpose.

If a person plans to hunt for food, then owning a sports rifle is OK. But if a person wants to own a firearm that has no purpose except to shoot and kill other people, then it is appropriate for a government to restrict this.

Shooting someone who is attacking you and threatening your life is a legitimate purpose.

BTW, I'm fine with schlepping my M-4 SBR around in public in exchange for my H&K USP Compact, but it apparently frightens the hoplophobes, who can't stand the sight of firearms at all. Thus, CONCEALED carry. While it's perfectly legal for me to schlep my M-4 around in public anywhere in Colorado because we are an "open carry" state, doing so gets one harassed by the cops at every turn. Seems they don't understand the law and are annoyed by lawful display of firearms about as much as hoplophobes.

Hand guns have no function apart from murder or suicide. Hence, they should be restricted. It is such a simple principle!!

I'm sure the NZ Olympic Pistol Team will be most surprised to hear this...

[Seth]

Freedom is doing whatever you choose as long as:
1. You do not hurt anyone.
2. You are not cruel to animals.
3. You do not harm the natural environment.

This set of principles is followed by all free countries. But please note. Owning and using firearms does cause harm, and great harm to people. So when a government chooses to limit such use, it is not betraying the principles of freedom.

Freedom from's are far more important than freedom of. You can worry about freedom to choose what you want on tv and what you wear only after you are no longer worry about freedom from hunger, freedom from violence, freedom for bad health, freedom from poverty in general.

A healthy prisoner with 3 meals a day is a hell of a lot better of than a 'free' man who is hungry and dying of cancer due to lack of healthcare

To a slave mentality like yours I'm sure this is true.

To most of us we'd rather be dead than imprisoned against our will by arbitrary authority.

Frankly I prefer the "Coventry" method of incarceration. I think central Nevada, north of the Nellis Air Force base would be a good place to set up Coventry.