birth of liberty, 800 years ago in Britain.

[Seth]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/nove ... 11414.html

Stanford University does not agree with you, Seth. Their research shows that more right to carry permits lead to an increase in violent crime, and particularly aggravated assault, which increases 8%.

Even if Standford is correct, which they aren't, it's irrelevant because the right to effective self defense is not statistically apportioned, it's one-hundred percent complete and sovereign to each and every individual regardless of the effect their lawfully carrying a gun may have on crime statistics.

[Seth]

Nobody says that there is any culture on earth that does not suffer from criminal violence or where such criminals cannot arm themselves with deadly weapons.

And therefore it is immoral and unconscionable to disarm any or all potential victims of such violence, each and every one of whom has an absolute, unassailable and fundamental human right to effective self defense against such violence.

There are, however, one quarter to one fifth of the murders and homicides in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France and Germany with arms restrictions compared to the USA, and that extends to criminals too.

I'm sure that's of great comfort to the families of all the people who are in the group that gets killed everywhere on earth by criminal violence.

You have just demonstrated that you don't give a flying fuck about anybody else's personal survival by making a bogus statistical argument in favor of disarming potential victims while admitting that you are utterly unable to disarm violent criminals and prevent them from killing and hurting people.

That's morally reprehensible because you have no right (nor does your government) to interfere with the self-defense decisions and preparations of anyone else. The only one you can ban guns for is yourself. When you do it, or support doing it to anyone else, you become morally and ethically responsible for anything bad that happens to them that could have been avoided had they been armed.

Sleep well knowing that you bear responsibility for so many deaths and victimizations.

[Hermit]

There are, however, one quarter to one fifth of the murders and homicides in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France and Germany with arms restrictions compared to the USA, and that extends to criminals too.

I'm sure that's of great comfort to the families of all the people who are in the group that gets killed everywhere on earth by criminal violence.

You have just demonstrated that you don't give a flying fuck about anybody else's personal survival by making a bogus statistical argument in favor of disarming potential victims while admitting that you are utterly unable to disarm violent criminals and prevent them from killing and hurting people.

That's morally reprehensible because you have no right (nor does your government) to interfere with the self-defense decisions and preparations of anyone else. The only one you can ban guns for is yourself. When you do it, or support doing it to anyone else, you become morally and ethically responsible for anything bad that happens to them that could have been avoided had they been armed.

Sleep well knowing that you bear responsibility for so many deaths and victimizations.

We bear responsibility of the four and fivefold number of people whose lives are spared because of our setups. Statistics do matter. They are about human individuals. Alive ones in our cases, dead ones in yours.

"If I had a gun I would shoot you dead."



And yes, people do shoot each other dead because they just happen to have a gun on them. That is precisely what happened here when two men confronted each other in a car park after a traffic incident a little earlier. Both had valid concealed carry permits. They shot each other dead.

Yes, murders and homicides happen in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France and Germany with arms restrictions compared to the USA - at one quarter to one fifth of the rate compared to yours. I have no trouble sleeping well in light of that comparison.

[Seth]

We bear responsibility of the four and fivefold number of people whose lives are spared because of our setups. Statistics do matter. They are about human individuals. Alive ones in our cases, dead ones in yours.

You do nothing to protect those who are lucky enough not to be victimized or killed by criminals. Statistics do not matter when individual rights are involved. You have no authority to say to anyone, "Your right to self-defense is being restricted because it might protect someone else."

"If I had a gun I would shoot you dead."

And if I had a gun I'd prevent you from doing so.

And yes, people do shoot each other dead because they just happen to have a gun on them.

No they don't. The gun doesn't cause them to do anything. It's an inanimate object.

That is precisely what happened here when two men confronted each other in a car park after a traffic incident a little earlier. Both had valid concealed carry permits. They shot each other dead.

And both of them acted wrongfully and unlawfully and in violation of every principle of concealed carry. But so what? Two guys shoot one another while two million other people use their guns to prevent a crime, mostly without ever discharging it.

Yes, murders and homicides happen in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France and Germany with arms restrictions compared to the USA - at one quarter to one fifth of the rate compared to yours. I have no trouble sleeping well in light of that comparison.

As I said, that is of cold comfort to those who are killed because they are deliberately disarmed by their government, while at the same time their government is unable to disarm their killers.

[Hermit]

Statistics do not matter when individual rights are involved.

They do when they prove that fewer people lose the most precious right, the right to life, in our society than in yours.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You try to make out that having a gun is an inalienable human right. There is no such thing. All rights are variables. They exist when the powers that be think that this is what they should do, for whatever reason. Those same powers will remove those rights very quickly if that seems the advantageous thing to do.

Some rights are worth keeping, like the right to free speech. Others need to be dumped as quickly as possible. For example, through most of human history, men had the right to beat or rape their wives. Today, in many nations, parents have the right to thrash their children.

Some rights are wrong.

[JimC]

Seth

You try to make out that having a gun is an inalienable human right. There is no such thing. All rights are variables. They exist when the powers that be think that this is what they should do, for whatever reason. Those same powers will remove those rights very quickly if that seems the advantageous thing to do.

Some rights are worth keeping, like the right to free speech. Others need to be dumped as quickly as possible. For example, through most of human history, men had the right to beat or rape their wives. Today, in many nations, parents have the right to thrash their children.

Some rights are wrong.

Rights are, or should be, something more than merely what is allowed by the government of the day. I don't think of them as "natural" rights in the way Seth does, and I certainly don't include the right to bear arms, but at the very least, there needs to be a set of basic rights codified by law, and supported by the populace as a whole.

[pErvinalia]

Statistics do not matter when individual rights are involved.

They do when they prove that fewer people lose the most precious right, the right to life, in our society than in yours.

Seth's comment sums up the stupidity of ideological fervour. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[Seth]

Statistics do not matter when individual rights are involved.

They do when they prove that fewer people lose the most precious right, the right to life, in our society than in yours.

No they don't because such statistical arguments are premised on the immoral premise that the greater good demands the sacrifice of the individual and his rights. That's not how rights work. That's particularly not how they work when the controlling authority cannot prove that allowing the citizenry to exercise it's human right to effective self defense causes a statistical threat large enough to compel the abridgment of everyone's rights.

[Seth]

Seth

You try to make out that having a gun is an inalienable human right. There is no such thing.

You do not understand the meaning of the phrase "unalienable right."

All rights are variables.

No, all rights are regulable.

They exist when the powers that be think that this is what they should do, for whatever reason. Those same powers will remove those rights very quickly if that seems the advantageous thing to do.

No, that's despotic tyranny having nothing to do with rights. The entire concepts of "rights" presumes that they cannot be alienated and that infringement of them is presumptively a violation. Only when the "powers that be" can provide a compelling government need to infringe on a right, and when that infringement (regulation) can and does actually achieve the legitimate governmental purpose, and when it is the least restrictive means of achieving that legitimate governmental objective does the government have authority to so regulate.

Some rights are worth keeping, like the right to free speech. Others need to be dumped as quickly as possible.

And you get to decide which is which I suppose...

For example, through most of human history, men had the right to beat or rape their wives. Today, in many nations, parents have the right to thrash their children.

Some rights are wrong.

I deem your right to free speech is wrong and demand that the government sew your lips shut and amputate all your fingers.

[Seth]

Statistics do not matter when individual rights are involved.

They do when they prove that fewer people lose the most precious right, the right to life, in our society than in yours.

Seth's comment sums up the stupidity of ideological fervour. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

The problem of course with both these arguments is that the facts show that respecting law-abiding citizen's right to be armed for effective self defense does not increase the risks to society posed by armed individuals. Exactly the opposite is true.

[Hermit]

Statistics do not matter when individual rights are involved.

They do when they prove that fewer people lose the most precious right, the right to life, in our society than in yours.

No they don't because such statistical arguments are premised on the immoral premise that the greater good demands the sacrifice of the individual and his rights. That's not how rights work. That's particularly not how they work when the controlling authority cannot prove that allowing the citizenry to exercise it's human right to effective self defense causes a statistical threat large enough to compel the abridgment of everyone's rights.

Got to admire your weirdness. So it seems that the right to bear arms for one's protection causes more people to die, but that is all good because at least the right to protect one's life, though it has a net negative effect, is preserved. I guess it makes sense to you.

Also, I guess you'll roll out the tyrannous government argument next.

[Seth]

Statistics do not matter when individual rights are involved.

They do when they prove that fewer people lose the most precious right, the right to life, in our society than in yours.

No they don't because such statistical arguments are premised on the immoral premise that the greater good demands the sacrifice of the individual and his rights. That's not how rights work. That's particularly not how they work when the controlling authority cannot prove that allowing the citizenry to exercise it's human right to effective self defense causes a statistical threat large enough to compel the abridgment of everyone's rights.

Got to admire your weirdness. So it seems that the right to bear arms for one's protection causes more people to die, but that is all good because at least the right to protect one's life, though it has a net negative effect, is preserved. I guess it makes sense to you.

It makes perfect sense that my right to effectively defend myself not be apportioned out to me in dribs and drabs or denied to me entirely on the bogus statistical argument that denying me my right to keep and bear arms makes other people safer. I do not pose a risk to the rest of society to any greater degree than the existence of any individual poses certain unavoidable (and therefore acceptable) risks to others. Statistically speaking (to throw statistics back in your face) I pose LESS of a hazard of criminality than YOU do.

The presumption on which your argument is based says that I am somehow responsible for the criminal conduct of others merely because I choose to be armed for self defense. This is a vacuous argument at best and pure idiocy at worst, and it is in fact one of the manifestations of tyrannical government that is a huge danger sign to free individuals. Every tyrant in history has claimed the necessity to debar the citizenry the possession of arms on the specious argument that disarming the public will make it more safe for the citizenry. It never does, and it usually is merely the first step in facilitating despotic tyranny. One need look no further than Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Chairman Mao for proof absolute of that fact.

I am not and refuse to be made into "acceptable collateral damage" in some hoplophobic scheme to ban guns."

Also, I guess you'll roll out the tyrannous government argument next.

Betcherass I will.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I am not and refuse to be made into "acceptable collateral damage" in some hoplophobic scheme to ban guns."

Most in the debate here have already said that it's up to you yanks to sort out your gun issues; i.e. no one is trying to (or could) "ban your guns"

Mostly, we are simply asserting we, and an overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens in Oz, NZ and the UK prefer our gun culture to yours...

[Blind groper]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ZdK6n0ZHMI

Carrying a gun increases the risk of being murdered by 450%. There are two possible reasons.

1. The kind of people who carry guns move in more violent social circles.
2. Carrying a gun gives people an unreal feeling of power, and makes them react to threats inappropriately, leading them to get killed.

The truth is that it is probably a mixture of the two. But what it means is that guns are a negative influence if your desire is self defense. It makes your 'defense' less effective - not more.