Pages

 

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

43 comments

1 iossarian  Thu, May 30, 2013 11:51:42am
For some even law abiding and reasonable gun owners really get the microscope.

That’s because people keep getting killed by law abiding and reasonable gun owners*.

* Right up to the moment they pull the trigger.

2 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:13:54pm

re: #1 iossarian

The bulk of gun deaths are gang and armed robbery, not two ordinary gun owners out to walk the family dog. Perhaps the bulk of the attention should shift accordingly

3 iossarian  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:18:28pm

re: #2 Political Atheist

The bulk of gun deaths are gang and armed robbery, not two ordinary gun owners out to walk the family dog. Perhaps the bulk of the attention should shift accordingly

Do you have a statistic for that?

My claim is that the vast majority of homicides* are committed by people who could legally own a gun if they wanted to at that point. I.e., they are law abiding and responsible gun owners up until the point that they use the gun to kill someone. Do you have a source to show that this is not the case?

* Note I am already sparing you the fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, a problem which probably needs to be addressed separately.

4 Locker  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:27:20pm

I’m not sure people look down on gun owners because of our choices so much as they they look down on the statements and reasoning used by some gun owners i.e. “More guns = less crime”.

I’m “looking down” or criticizing a specific statement or position, not the person.

An example of this which personally bothers me are statements like this:

“Gun laws are useless. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun.”

It sure seems like a lot of shootings are performed by people who weren’t criminals until they actually shot someone for breathing on their bagel… or whatever. A criminal using a unregistered gun with the serial number removed might be hard to catch using registration data but Joe Blow who shot his wife for sleeping with the golf pro is going to get busted pretty fast.

That’s why I believe in gun registration. I always use cars as an example. You need training, need to be licensed to drive, your car has to be registered and you need insurance. If you leave a car to your son, he still has to register it.

I see no reason at all why we can’t have the same system for guns…. including the insurance.

5 iossarian  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:36:10pm

Look, I get that some people are fearful and want to own a gun to make themselves feel better.

The fact is, though, that all the statistics indicate that having easy gun ownership makes the US a far less safe place to live than other similar countries. Now, obviously we can look at things like car deaths and healthcare which are arguably larger problems in terms of sheer numbers, but the fact remains that ceteris paribus banning guns would make us all safer, with no obvious social costs other than forcing people to change some of their hobbies.

It’s always possible to come up with some hyper-specific case in which owning a gun is useful, but in the aggregate, the numbers don’t lie. Having lots of people owning guns is a bad idea.

6 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:44:53pm

re: #3 iossarian

Tough to pull out. Comparing the average gun owner to the average gang member would imply it’s mostly gangs. There are far more gun owners than gang members. Plus I would say we add felony crimes from non gang members for good number.

I got this

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide
nij.gov
Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

Note the above compared only gang gun violence and arguments. I look at it like this. Thought experiment. Take all the guns from some average middle class neighborhood. Say 200 homes.

Take all the guns from 200 felons, gang members robbers, rapists.

The criminals are more likely than the average fellow to get violent.

Guns certainly facilitate “successful” suicide attempts, but history shows the very depressed go for whats available. When certain kinds of old style ovens phased out suicide deaths went down. It was the proverbial stick your head in the oven, and carbon monoxide was the killer, not heat. Tall bridges too draw the suicidal. But we agree that’s mental health more than guns.

7 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:49:08pm

re: #5 iossarian

It’s always possible to come up with some hyper-specific case in which owning a gun is useful, but in the aggregate, the numbers don’t lie. Having lots of people owning guns is a bad idea.

North of sixty thousand times a year. That’s not really hyper specific. It becomes a very large number of people over time. A small percentage but many in total.

8 iossarian  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:50:55pm

re: #6 Political Atheist

Well, guns make it easier to commit suicide, but I don’t think that’s really the issue over which you would necessarily ban guns, especially not when there are much more obvious reasons to do that.

The gang thing is a bit of a red herring, in that:

a) we don’t know what proportion of gang members could legally own a gun right now

b) in any case the gun lobby is against any kind of background checking

c) even if your statistic is true, you would still make people safer by banning guns

The last point is important. It may well be the case that most gun violence is carried out by “gang members”. On the other hand, that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of gun violence is still carried out by ordinary, law-abiding gun owners, and that banning guns would make most people, especially women, safer.

9 iossarian  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:53:01pm

re: #7 Political Atheist

North of sixty thousand times a year. That’s not really hyper specific. It becomes a very large number of people over time. A small percentage but many in total.

Yes, but no indication of whether the gun was in fact necessary or not. Again, the statistics are fairly clear that, for example, if you’re a woman, having a gun in the home makes you less safe from violence.

This is what I mean by hyper-specific. If you look at instances where a gun was successfully used to prevent a crime, then guess what! guns are useful in those cases.

This is what we call selecting on the dependent variable. It usually goes down poorly in peer review situations.

10 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 12:59:47pm

re: #9 iossarian

Whatever the numbers crunch down to we come back to my central question. These big stats are low resolution. They count jewelers and pawnbrokers and convenience store owners in aggregate to everyone. Those are not uncommon jobs or careers, and they certainly face an elevated risk.

But whatever the numbers are, we come back to a certain fact and my central question. The fact is we have the 2nd as an individual right. There is no repeal or amendment in sight.

My question-Shall we be slavish to the big broad stats or shall we look carefully and make a choice with more intelligence than reading charts?

11 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, May 30, 2013 1:04:07pm

As long as people still push the idea of gun ownership for people who don’t actually need the gun for protection, we’re going to have a problem with guns in this country.

We treat them as toys, as status symbols, and not like what they are: things to kill with.

The culture needs to change.

12 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 1:11:00pm

re: #11 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut
I agree we must change the violence in our culture. Even from non gun perspectives we are far too violent.

It’s not just about defense though is it? Sports, hunting….

13 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 1:13:39pm

re: #11 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

The culture needs to change.

As an additional change
Perhaps we should not call those third of a million people vigilantes just because a gun was at hand to stop a mad dog or violent felon.

14 iossarian  Thu, May 30, 2013 1:14:34pm

re: #10 Political Atheist

Whatever the numbers crunch down to we come back to my central question. These big stats are low resolution. They count jewelers and pawnbrokers and convenience store owners in aggregate to everyone. Those are not uncommon jobs or careers, and they certainly face an elevated risk.

I don’t think this is really true, since I’m not aware of shopkeepers in Western Europe facing an “elevated level of risk”. Obviously robberies happen, but again, banning guns makes people more safe from being killed by guns.

But whatever the numbers are, we come back to a certain fact and my central question. The fact is we have the 2nd as an individual right. There is no repeal or amendment in sight.

Whenever we have this argument you go back to this. If this is your sole defensible rationale for gun ownership (and I suspect it is) I can’t argue with you because it’s essentially “this is the way things are”. The point of having a discussion is to determine whether it’s a sensible state of affairs or not. Bringing up the constitution is an appeal to authority; it’s not convincing to me beyond the superficial appeal of “this is what a few white, wealthy, slave-owning men thought in the 18th century”.

As an aside, I note that the Wikipedia page on gun laws in the UK cites a “right to bear arms” provision from the 1600s that covered crossbows and the like. Things have moved on since then.

My question-Shall we be slavish to the big broad stats or shall we look carefully and make a choice with more intelligence than reading charts?

I would suggest banning all guns but making very narrow targeted exceptions for occupations in which there is a clearly demonstrated need to own a firearm, and making it illegal to keep the gun at home, thus targeting domestic violence. This is basically what the UK went to after the Dunblane massacre.

By the way, there’s nothing “slavish” about looking at statistics. Ultimately they tell you what your risk is of something happening. You may like to think that it won’t happen to you, but unfortunately that’s not the way it works.

15 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, May 30, 2013 1:15:48pm

re: #12 Political Atheist

I agree we must change the violence in our culture. Even from non gun perspectives we are far too violent.

It’s not just about defense though is it? Sports, hunting….

Sure. I’m talking specifically about the myth of self-defense and the way that’s pushed on people, and the lack of regard that those same people have for the risks of gun ownership. People who advocate gun ownership withou acknowledging there are a lot of people, a lot of a lot of a lot of people who are not going to be able to own a gun responsibly, are perhaps bullshitting themselves but they are being very, very unethical.

16 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, May 30, 2013 1:16:26pm

re: #13 Political Atheist

As an additional change
Perhaps we should not call those third of a million people vigilantes just because a gun was at hand to stop a mad dog or violent felon.

I did not call a third of a million people vigilantes. At absolute most, I called something vigilantism that wasn’t. I didn’t call a third of a million people vigilantes.

You have to stop with this bullshit.

17 EPR-radar  Thu, May 30, 2013 1:24:02pm

re: #14 iossarian

In other words the statistics tell us, in aggregate, both the price paid and the measurable benefits provided by the current state of affairs re: guns in the US.

From that point of view, the argument for more restrictive US gun laws is pretty compelling.

18 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 3:01:55pm

re: #16 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I did not call a third of a million people vigilantes. At absolute most, I called something vigilantism that wasn’t. I didn’t call a third of a million people vigilantes.

You have to stop with this bullshit.

I’m going to address that and a number of points you made. A couple from Iossarian too.

Obdicut-At most? You did it. You tied the DC shooting to vigilantism by way of this comment.
So I wrote accordingly. Is that a retraction? I’m not the only person that got exactly that impression. I took offense at it and wrote it off to temper and as a thing that should be retracted.


Iossarian-Now on “slave to stats” you exaggerate what I said. Trying again- I tried to get a good source and be very clear this was not a pitch for guns but a better decision process. Was the following italics above not explicit enough?

If you lack those things do not buy a gun. If you do not want a gun because you don’t like them, do not buy a gun.

I think the number of instances that guns do successfully defend people is high enough to specifically add to the comparison stats as part of a decision process. The numbers are far from insignificant especially to the survivors of those incidents. They add up enough to really matter.

At heart I’m not as much a gun advocate as a defensive rights advocate. My personal choice for a weapon might not even be a gun on the street. But that choice is not available. There is no permit process for civilian carry of any weapon short of a gun. Which sucks. So I do lean on the defensive side for justification to own my guns. But once I got way into the fun sporting side of guns and serious competitive shooting I came to appreciate what the issue is not “need a gun” but “want and can deal with the responsibilities”. You know there are full time sponsored handgun competitors? Their ability to hit targets fast is their career.

Obdicut & Iossarian
I reject the “need” argument as an unfortunate red herring in the face of what we have here in the USA. Right here where the bill of rights in in full legal force with all the subsequent court readings since. SCOTUS Decisions that affirmed SYG at home, at your business and on your property. Decisions (often below SCOTUS) that upheld strict laws like what California has.

19 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, May 30, 2013 3:11:48pm

re: #18 Political Atheist

Obdicut-At most? You did it. You tied the DC shooting to vigilantism by way of this comment.
So I wrote accordingly. Is that a retraction? I’m not the only person that got exactly that impression. I took offense at it and wrote it off to temper and as a thing that should be retracted.

Glad you admit that. So why the fuck did you say I called a third of a million people vigilantes?

20 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 3:13:23pm

re: #14 iossarian

The second amendment as you may well know was recently affirmed as an individual right. To me banning guns will simply default the violent to another means. I’d hate to see ricin and IED’s become the triumphs of gun bans.

Reducing our propensity for violence here in the USA takes care of gun, knife, club, fist and trucks of weaponized fertilizer or dynamite violence. It’s the more sophisticated approach, much akin to cure or prevent the disease rather than treat symptoms. Of course we need both but in a measured legal way.

21 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 3:15:29pm

re: #19 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Glad you admit that. So why the fuck did you say I called a third of a million people vigilantes?

First things first. Was that a real retraction or not? The third of a million was by obvious clear extension of the concept as you laid it out. You tied that incident to vigilantism. Own it or pull it. If I sound terse, i’ll do that when getting cussed out.

22 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, May 30, 2013 3:47:09pm

re: #21 Political Atheist

First things first. Was that a real retraction or not? T

Sure. What he did wasn’t technically vigilantism. I have no idea why you’d need that first before you retract your bullshit, but there you go.

And I still think that it is bad to send the message to people who have unregistered guns that if they use those guns in some useful fashion that they will benefit from that. It’s not ‘vigilantism’ technically, but it could lead to it.

The third of a million was by obvious clear extension of the concept as you laid it out.

It is so much not an obvious clear fucking extension for the love of god stop this bullshit.

Seriously, man, take a look at this. You just said that because I referred to forgiving the fine on a guy who had shot a dog as ‘rewarding vigilantism’, that I was calling three million people vigilantes.

For fuck’s sake.

What is so depressing about this is that I really do believe you’re a moderate gun owner. The experiences in talking to you and others over the past year have more and more convinced me that moderate gun owners are not going to step up. This is another fucked up, broken area where nothing will improve. Eventually probably we’ll get another 5-4 supreme court decision that’ll reverse the previous one and then probably that intractability will work out terribly for gun owners. But who knows. Maybe stuff will just continue in the same broken way.

Anyay, I’m done with it. I’ve been burned too many times.

23 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 4:01:52pm

re: #22 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Fine. You lost your temper typed unwisely and you think you got burned. “Technically” my butt. I spoke no bullshit, if we disagree on something said that’s it. That happens ya know. No deceit involved.

Since you retract it I of course will respect that. Thank you. Speculate all you want on future events. My speculations are far less pessimistic.

About nobody stepping up-BTW this Page is stepping up. Advocating “don’t buy a gun if you can’t…” I can’t impact the NRA or Congress. All I can do is advocate as strongly as I know how with what I can gather.

That and help provide a safe outdoor shooting range that serves thousands of good people that shoot for fun every month. BOD of the Angeles Shooting Rsanges if you care to look. Backing and developing good solid tactical & legal training far beyond the law requirements of any state for handgun owners and CCW. ISI, IDPA, private classes.

If that is not stepping up Obdicut, you put the goal posts on the freaking moon.

Time for my commute. Out for a bit.

24 zorpman  Thu, May 30, 2013 4:07:39pm

Let’s see (per NIJ):

Japan’s suicide (homicide) rate (with essentially NO firearm ownership) is 26/100k
Japan’s murder rate is essentially zero
U.S. suicide rate is currently 12.4/100k (48% by firearms)
U.S. murder rate is 4/100k
U.S. homicide rate (suicide+murder) is 16.4/100k

Japan’s homicide rate (essentially without ANY firearms in the society) is @40% HIGHER than the U.S. homicide rate.

Hmmmm. Seems that gun ownership in a society is not THE cause of homicides.

Gun sales have over doubled the number of firearms in U.S. society over the last 10 years. The homicide rate in the U.S. has been reduced (per NIJ) since 1997. It is statistically clear that the number of firearms in the U.S. society (which has risen sharply over recent years) has nothing to do (no correlation) with the number of murders which have dropped sharply (over 1/2) since 1997. More guns does NOT equate with more murders; the opposite is true. As the number of firearms has gone radically UP in U.S. society the number of murders has gone down radically. Literally, more firearms correlates with fewer murders.

Despite the fact that nearly all states (IL is the sole exception) allow some type of concealed carry licensing by law abiding citizens (a recent phenomena) the murder rate since the massive increase of legal concealed carry has corresponded with a radical REDUCTION of the murder rate. If the mere presence of a firearm “causes” murders then the millions of concealed carry permits should have increased the murder rate. This “increase” has obviously (see above) not happened. The number of concealed carry license holders convicted of murder is statistically non-existent (not to say that it is zero; just so close to zero (even with a massive n number) as to be statistically within the “noise” range. The statistically reality (versus the liberal imagination) is that legal gun owners/concealed carry permit holders are NOT having gun battles over parking lot disputes.

Per NIJ the number of domestic murders by persons who do not have a previous criminal history of violence (which makes the legal (under federal law) ownership of a firearm by the perpetrator per se illegal) is VERY low.

Have fun.

25 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 5:26:03pm

re: #24 zorpman

Welcome to LGF hatchling. Thank you for stopping in.

26 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 6:22:14pm

25 comments and not one answer to the question.

When is the last time you had to show a need to use a civil right?
Anyone?

27 EPR-radar  Thu, May 30, 2013 6:36:40pm

re: #26 Political Atheist

25 comments and not one answer to the question.

When is the last time you had to show a need to use a civil right?
Anyone?

How is RKBA to be understood as a ‘civil right’? The 2nd amendment presently provides this legal right in the US, but like all laws, it is not self-justifying.

I.e., the existence of the 2nd amendment is not an explanation for why it should be in place.

For my part, I simply do not believe RKBA is on the same level as free speech, due process of law, freedom of religion, no compulsory testimony etc.

For example, it is pretty clear that a government that violates freedom of speech, freedom of religion, coerces testimony, or has no due process has a real problem with oppressing its people. The case that a gun ban is the same kind of oppression is pretty weak.

28 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 6:42:16pm

re: #27 EPR-radar

It is a part of the bill of rights and has the decision that it is an individual right. The law says so. That’s my case for it in some brevity.

Might you answer my question? Is the answer never?

29 zorpman  Thu, May 30, 2013 6:47:02pm

Hi Again,
BTW my calculations (I’m a lawyer and therefore cannot do math) indicate that there are more than 8,000,000 (eight million) concealed weapons permits currently issued by the States in the U.S.

See, legallyarmed.com

Have fun.

30 EPR-radar  Thu, May 30, 2013 7:06:41pm

re: #28 Political Atheist

It is a part of the bill of rights and has the decision that it is an individual right. The law says so. That’s my case for it in some brevity.

Might you answer my question? Is the answer never?

The answer pretty much has to be ‘never’, if civil rights and legal rights are taken to be the same.

However, there is value in making this distinction so that legal rights refer to the rights that are actually in place under a specific legal system, and civil rights are more idealistic and can differ from real laws. Such differences, once perceived, are often drivers for reform. For example, I think there is a short list of essential civil rights that legal systems should aspire to grant in practice.

For me, RKBA is not on this short list of essential civil rights.

31 EPR-radar  Thu, May 30, 2013 7:11:00pm

re: #30 EPR-radar

The answer pretty much has to be ‘never’, if civil rights and legal rights are taken to be the same.

However, there is value in making this distinction so that legal rights refer to the rights that are actually in place under a specific legal system, and civil rights are more idealistic and can differ from real laws. Such differences, once perceived, are often drivers for reform. For example, I think there is a short list of essential civil rights that legal systems should aspire to grant in practice.

For me, RKBA is not on this short list of essential civil rights.

I realize that this may sound like a good case of ‘I don’t care about other people rights’.

But realistically, suppose Canada had a carbon copy of the US constitution, except for a missing 2nd amendment, and had instituted a AU or UK type gun ban. How seriously would anyone in the US take claims of oppression by people in Canada who wanted to own and use guns?

32 Donna Ballard  Thu, May 30, 2013 7:13:19pm

…

33 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 7:16:05pm

Okay note to myself, make sure the wife logged out before I sit down and chime in, LOL.

re: #30 EPR-radar

Heh. Well put. I would argue that any system unable or unwilling to facilitate an innocent person defending themselves with something that will get the job done is a lessor system than one that includes that right among the others you point out quite correctly.

The defensive arts exist only to protect the innocent against the predators.

34 Political Atheist  Thu, May 30, 2013 7:20:19pm

re: #31 EPR-radar

I’m not at allre: #31 EPR-radar

I don’t know. Why are we as Americans so much more violent than Canadians? To me that’s more the point in that comparison.

35 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 30, 2013 9:04:54pm

I’m late to this discussion, but I actually used RWC’s argument recently when arguing against banning .50cal rifles. My answer to the question of need was “A need is not required. The only reason to ban a type of gun is because it is likely to be used to commit crimes. .50cal rifles are not used to commit crimes, as a virtual absolute they aren’t. Given that these are not ‘crime guns’, there is no reason to ban them. Unless you just don’t want people having access to that kind of weapon, in which case we’re going to have a very different discussion.”

36 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, May 31, 2013 5:07:26am

re: #30 EPR-radar

For me, RKBA is not on this short list of essential civil rights.

May I ask why you believe that the right to defend yourself is not an essential right?

37 kerFuFFler  Fri, May 31, 2013 7:48:38am

re: #18 Political Atheist

“Their ability to hit targets fast is their career.”

As someone already pointed out, the culture needs to change. That said, I also find it absurd that people earn big money racing cars and hitting a ball with a stick…. :)

38 Political Atheist  Fri, May 31, 2013 8:02:25am

re: #37 kerFuFFler

+1 for consistent. Me, heck I think of sport shooting as far more civilized and less damaging to the culture than $$ prize fighting which I abhor. Or football. That’s a severe contact sport.

Someone once pointed out our sports are a way point on our journey to less violence as a culture. Boxing is better than duels. Maybe tennis is better than boxing.

This video is of a world champion speed guy.

Youtube Video

If we had a culture that truly rejects violence those hunting and sporting guns would just not be much of an issue apart from accidents and limited thefts. Kinda like those nations that have guns and yet little gun culture. And almost no one would need CCW.

39 Romantic Heretic  Fri, May 31, 2013 8:30:10am

Shrugs.

I’m not for banning firearms outright. I am for keeping them out of the hands of people who will use them maliciously and/or irresponsibly. In order to own a firearm a person must know more about it than which end of it the bang comes out of.

I’ve been thinking recently, observing America from outside it, that to many people America is not a country. It’s a religion. It is simultaneously both a holy land and a god. The Constitution in this worldview is the holy writings, and its icons are the flag and firearms.

This, in my opinion, is why the believers essentially shrug off the massive number of gun deaths. This is the blood required to keep America pure and holy. Like the Aztecs human sacrifice is necessary to keep the universe running.

But firearms are not holy icons. They are practical tools with many uses. But at the heart of them they are tools of violence. Violence is the ultimate form of authority. But, as Heinlein pointed out, the converse of authority is responsibility.

This is where America falls short, so it seems to me, in many ways. There isn’t much responsibility attached to firearms. Perhaps in law but not in culture. In the Manichaean culture that many Americans inhabit firearms are only used on the enemy, and a person can’t be held responsible for harm done to an enemy.

So, ultimately, it is a culture change that will be required to lessen the amount of gun violence in America. Firearms are going to have to lose their holy status. America will have to become just a country. Violence is going to have be constrained by responsibility.

Disclaimer: I’ve never owned a firearm although I’ve fired them often on ranges and I’m a pretty fair shot. I’ve spent much of my life studying violence in all its forms. Personally, for self defence I’d prefer blunt or edged melee weapons, although flexible ones like manrikigusari can be useful. I’m fond of mixed weapons as well. But where I live, Canada, I really don’t need such things. Our culture doesn’t require or honour violence.

Which is why I find conversations like this one so weird and interesting. From my point of view it seems odd that a simple tool like firearms would engender what can only be categorized as a religious debate.

40 EPR-radar  Fri, May 31, 2013 10:49:01am

re: #36 William Barnett-Lewis

May I ask why you believe that the right to defend yourself is not an essential right?

One way to see the distinction I have in mind is to consider the following question regarding any policy X:

Is it ethically defensible to consider the costs and benefits of X vs. not X in a public policy debate?

If no, X is probably an essential civil right. If yes, X is probably an ordinary political issue on which opinions differ.

Some examples.

1) If X is voting rights for women, blacks etc., the answer to the question is clearly no. Equal voting rights are clearly an essential civil right.

2) If X is improved income/wealth distribution, the answer to the question is clearly yes. Cost/benefit of any income or wealth redistribution proposal is something that should be considered in evaluating the proposal. Although I personally favor doing much more along these lines than is politically possible in today’s US, I don’t regard any of my political preferences here as relating to any civil right to a living wage, or to full employment.

3) If X is RKBA, my answer to this question is yes. IMO, the costs and benefits of widespread gun ownership should be considered in the public policy dispute.

41 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, May 31, 2013 11:18:21am

Thank you for the answer, though I can see we will never agree.

I believe that defense of self and others (and most especially those who are unable to defend themselves) is a moral imperative that is even higher than, in your example, the right to vote. That being the case, the cost benefit analysis must be the same as for freedom of speech, religion, voting etc - all of which have some regulation but are seen as equally essential civil liberties. To be sure there are responsibilities that come with rights but the existence of those responsibilities and the potential costs of living within them does not make the right any the less essential.

42 Political Atheist  Fri, May 31, 2013 11:32:23am

re: #41 William Barnett-Lewis
Heck yes, the innocent need a way to fend off predators.
I would add the whole point of the bill of rights is these things are so important, so powerful and enabling in a democracy they are not subject to cost benefit analysis, they are largely immutable legal rights.

*Largely meaning the gov can and should must regulate guns, and of course we are familiar with the “fire” in a crowded theater limitation on free speech.

43 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 31, 2013 8:10:25pm

re: #42 Political Atheist

Heck yes, the innocent need a way to fend off predators.
I would add the whole point of the bill of rights is these things are so important, so powerful and enabling in a democracy they are not subject to cost benefit analysis, they are largely immutable legal rights.

*Largely meaning the gov can and should must regulate guns, and of course we are familiar with the “fire” in a crowded theater limitation on free speech.

QFT


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh