Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.

[Prestor John]

You might read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252Feurope%252Fcomments%252F36d3z8%252F
As for the issue of crime, more gun ownership does tend to reduce overall crime but not violent crime: http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html

So Sweden is either first or third in regards to rape. Big whoop. It's still bad.

I believe the study you shared to be misleading at best.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is possible that I misspoke or your interpreted what I said in a different manner than I meant, if so let me say that I have received training in how to detect a person that presents a danger to me or others. Of course this reasoning probably conflicts with what you consider a threat. So be it.

No - not "so be it". If you're preparing to deprive others of their rights - which killing a person certainly does - expect quite a bit of oversight. Expect to give a very good justification for your actions.

Those who would deprive others of their liberty need to justify themselves to the entire people, not just to themselves. That's how things work in a free society.

 

[esmith]

No - not "so be it". If you're preparing to deprive others of their rights - which killing a person certainly does - expect quite a bit of oversight. Expect to give a very good justification for your actions.

Guess it's time to really stir the pot. If a person voluntarily puts themselves in a position that threatens me or anyone else with bodily harm then they have lost their right to live. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Those who would deprive others of their liberty need to justify themselves to the entire people, not just to themselves. That's how things work in a free society.

No I only have to live with my decision. If the law finds me wrong then I will have to stand by my actions. Again I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[metis]

So Sweden is either first or third in regards to rape. Big whoop. It's still bad.

I believe the study you shared to be misleading at best.

Did you actually read what was causing the spike recently, plus why the stats can be misleading?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Guess it's time to really stir the pot. If a person voluntarily puts themselves in a position that threatens me or anyone else with bodily harm then they have lost their right to live.

No, they haven't. You and they both still have the right to live. It's only to the extent that your rights conflict with theirs that you're justified in depriving the other person of their rights. And even in these cases, the response has to be proportional to the threat - the threat of a black eye doesn't justify taking the life of the person who wants to punch you.

Interesting idea, though: that people's rights should be conditional on their behaviour. What behaviour do you think would justify depriving someone of their right to bear arms?

I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

IOW, you'll break the law when you fear for your safety? So much for the myth of the "law-abiding gun owner".

No I only have to live with my decision.

... plus the family of your victim. They would have to live with your decision, too.

If the law finds me wrong then I will have to stand by my actions. Again I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

If you really were a law-abiding gun owner, you would commit yourself to following the law.

 

[jeager106]

EVERYONE SHOULD NOT BE ARMED WITH A GUN!
THAT would be stupid and irresponsible and cause even MORE problems.
ONLY PEOPLE WELL TRAINED AND DISCIPLINED SHOULD GO ABOUT ARMED!
People like, well........................ME!
Retired L.E.O. and master marksman don'tcha'know?
I don't carry concealed any longer but you can bet your biscuits I have one handy
all the time.
Miami anyone?
No one knows where or when the radicals of the world will strike next.
Rumor has it I have a modern sporting rifle in the car where I can get to it if needed.
Modern sporting rifle = AR 15 and 3 loaded 30 round magazines.
NO not Vogue magazine but the device that feeds the thing.
Please understand I'm not paranoid. I've SEEN all those things that should never happen
to anyone, ever, that happened anyway.
NOT radical Islam but ALL dingbat radicals that kill for some cause and call murder
an act in the name of some righteous cause. Like any "god" promotes murder!?

 

[McBell]

No, they haven't. You and they both still have the right to live. It's only to the extent that your rights conflict with theirs that you're justified in depriving the other person of their rights. And even in these cases, the response has to be proportional to the threat - the threat of a black eye doesn't justify taking the life of the person who wants to punch you.

Interesting idea, though: that people's rights should be conditional on their behaviour. What behaviour do you think would justify depriving someone of their right to bear arms?


IOW, you'll break the law when you fear for your safety? So much for the myth of the "law-abiding gun owner".


... plus the family of your victim. They would have to live with your decision, too.


If you really were a law-abiding gun owner, you would commit yourself to following the law.

One wonders what issues you take with Castle Doctrine?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One wonders what issues you take with Castle Doctrine?

I think it's murderous insanity, frankly.

 

[McBell]

I think it's murderous insanity, frankly.

interesting that you think a legal action is illegal....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

interesting that you think a legal action is illegal....

I think you've misunderstood me.

 

[McBell]

I think you've misunderstood me.

The Castle Doctrine can very well allow an individual the legal right to kill.
You think the Castle Doctrine is "murderous insanity".

How did I misunderstand?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Castle Doctrine can very well allow an individual the right to kill.
You think the Castle Doctrine is "murderous insanity".

How did I misunderstand?

You misunderstand in the sense that you assumed what I meant by "murder". I meant "deliberate unjust killing", not necessarily "prosecutable breach of statute law".

 

[McBell]

You misunderstand in the sense that you assumed what I meant by "murder". I meant "deliberate unjust killing", not necessarily "prosecutable breach of statute law".

My apologies.
I am not a fan of the appeal to emotion definition of the word murder.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My apologies.
I am not a fan of the appeal to emotion definition of the word murder.

And I'm not a fan of Castle Doctrine.

If you agree to give up the thing that bugs me, I'll agree to give up the thing that bugs you.

Edit: BTW - it wasn't an appeal to emotion; it was an appeal to jurisprudence. You do agree that there's such a thing as an unjust law, don't you?

 

[McBell]

And I'm not a fan of Castle Doctrine.

If you agree to give up the thing that bugs me, I'll agree to give up the thing that bugs you.

You seem to misunderstand.
I was asking about your take on the Castle Doctrine in reply to your "So much for the myth of the "law-abiding gun owner"" jab.
You came back with an appeal to emotion.

Fail to see how the discussion will be fruitful.

 

[McBell]

You seem to misunderstand.
I was asking about your take on the Castle Doctrine in reply to your "So much for the myth of the "law-abiding gun owner"" jab.
You came back with an appeal to emotion.

Fail to see how the discussion will be fruitful.

Please note that I understand why you misunderstood.
I was not clear when I asked you about the Castle Doctrine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem to misunderstand.
I was asking about your take on the Castle Doctrine in reply to your "So much for the myth of the "law-abiding gun owner"" jab.
You came back with an appeal to emotion.

Fail to see how the discussion will be fruitful.

Ah - I took it as a somewhat-related non-sequitir.

I take that old line to mean "I'd rather commit an illegal - or at least potentially illegal - act than risk being killed." Tied up in that is the idea of violating the law. Violating the law is the opposite of being law-abiding.

 

[McBell]

Edit: BTW - it wasn't an appeal to emotion; it was an appeal to jurisprudence. You do agree that there's such a thing as an unjust law, don't you?

I understand that you were using the appeal to emotion definition of the word "murder" when you meant "unjust killing".
I have the exact same problem with people who make the appeal to emotion claim that all abortions are murder.

Yes, I do agree there are unjust laws.
However, until you explained how you were misusing the word "murder", I did not know that you really meant "unjust laws".

 

[McBell]

Ah - I took it as a somewhat-related non-sequitir.

I take that old line to mean "I'd rather commit an illegal - or at least potentially illegal - act than risk being killed." Tied up in that is the idea of violating the law. Violating the law is the opposite of being law-abiding.

I take that old line to mean that they will do whatever it takes, legal or not, to save their and or their loved ones, lives.
You do agree that there's such a thing as an unjust law, don't you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I take that old line to mean that they will do whatever it takes, legal or not, to save their and or their loved ones, lives.
You do agree that there's such a thing as an unjust law, don't you?

Of course. But I wouldn't call someone violating an unjust law as "law-abiding"... as in the phrase "law-abiding gun owners" that often gets thrown around.

The point I was alluding to with my remark to esmith was about inconsistency: when it suits the conversation, pro-gun people tend to portray themselves as "law-abiding" to distinguish themselves from criminals who use guns as if there's some unspannable gulf between these two categories. However, at other times, many of them admit that they would violate the law if they felt justified doing it.