Originally posted by RobtardI'm sure the "right" itself isn't really the factor, Switzerland has twice as many guns per capita as NZ and Canada but half as many gun homicide. I would assume it's more the attitude towards guns that results in this discrepancy. The view held by some Americans of the 2nd amendment being sacrosanct is rather peculiar.
How about the right to not being stabbed or hit by a car?Guns are not illegal in NZ, right? Yet there are 7 times fewer guns deaths there than in the U.S. Seems it has more to do than just the right to own or not own a gun.
I don't consider gun ownership an inalienable "right" of the same level as freedom of speech, religion or association, civil rights, human rights, due process; nor the view that it needs to be enshrined in the same way. It's something that you can acquire if you meet certain requirements, like a knife or a car or a toaster or porn.
If you're not mentally retarded or imbalanced, are of a reasonable age and don't have homicidal tendencies, and you're not going to leave them lying around for the children, and have money to burn then sure buy as many guns as you like.
But I don't get the strange view that it needs to be protected as an individual right, there isn't an individual right to machetes or cars so I don't see the comparison. And the interpretation by the Supreme Court really isn't an accurate literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment imo.
Originally posted by backdoormanBecause you should not deny those able to defend themselves the right and chance to do so, and you certainly shouldn't monopolize protection to a big bully that already oppresses you beyond belief.
As long as those restrictions are in place to protect the first right, why not?
But if you are looking for the nihilist answer, here it is: "Meh".
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm sure the "right" itself isn't really the factor, Switzerland has twice as many guns per capita as NZ and Canada but half as many gun homicide. I would assume it's more the attitude towards guns that results in this discrepancy. The view held by some Americans of the 2nd amendment being sacrosanct is rather peculiar.
I was going to mention Switzerland. afaik, it is mandatory for all homes to have a gun with ammo, in case they need to be called to arms. I think, along these lines, military service is also mandatory for all Swiss citizens, which, as authoritarian of an idea as it may be, probably is very important in preventing gun violence.
Also, talking about the pecuiliarity of Americans and guns, I was in America a couple of months ago, and in the airport on the way home Lou Dobbs was on going ape shit crazy about a special ops guy who had just gotten in trouble for lending his automatic weapon to a guy who brought it to a range. Not that I even disagree with the right to own the guns, but just how intense it was, as if God himself were distributing the firearms to people and the satanic government was preventing military grade assault weapons from being used in public spaces.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because you should not deny those able to defend themselves the right and chance to do so, and you certainly shouldn't monopolize protection to a big bully that already oppresses you beyond belief.But if you are looking for the nihilist answer, here it is: "Meh".
Re: If all the world were...
Originally posted by demon-lllama
We should have houses made of stone and bullet-proof glass as windows.
Plate glass can stop a few shots from a handgun and frankly anyone determined to break into your house and kill you will have a way of getting past physical defenses. Which brings up another point, putting more guns in common circulation would almost certainly start to create an insane arms race in high crime areas.
Personally I agree with Chris Rock, bullets should be enormously expensive to the point that random killings aren't economically feasible. It's terribly unrealistic, sure, but would be much more effective at preventing deaths than the "You can't have guns." or "Here, go shoot people that break in." solutions.
Re: Re: If all the world were...
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThere's not really a set-back in having bullet-proof windows. The problem you address is that people don't live that way.
Plate glass can stop a few shots from a handgun and frankly anyone determined to break into your house and kill you will have a way of getting past physical defenses. Which brings up another point, putting more guns in common circulation would almost certainly start to create an insane arms race in high crime areas.Personally I agree with Chris Rock, bullets should be enormously expensive to the point that random killings aren't economically feasible. It's terribly unrealistic, sure, but would be much more effective at preventing deaths than the "You can't have guns." or "Here, go shoot people that break in." solutions.
Everyone knows that the gun rules are for the reason you can get killed in public. Not everyone knows you can have bullet-proof glass.
The stone houses is for the storms, I guess, hurricanes, though. It's just an option for the upper crust.
Originally posted by backdoorman
So, to what extent should the government then act to protect the right to not get shot?
Hello, anarchist.
If you want a minarchist perspective, I'd say to the extend that someone actually has the intention to kill someone else (which should obviously be provable)...which is what should be illegal. Taking away another, at most slightly related, freedom crosses the line in my opinion. This way you actually just stop the offender and don't infringe on everyone's freedoms even though they are totally unrelated.
Originally posted by backdoorman
The government infringes people's freedoms to protect certain ideals such as the right to not get shot, in doing so they are liable to 'monopolize' certain industries (for lack of a better word).
So? If you go this far why not also infringe on those freedoms, why not go further. Statistics show that blind people without hands commit the least gun crimes, why not poke everyone's eyes out and chop their hands off? Afterall you have the right not to be shot. Why is your line after buying a gun for whatever reason ever (guns do have more purposes than to premeditately kill people)?
Originally posted by backdoorman
Unless you support the dismantling of most (if not all) government institutions, I don't see how you can reasonably be against restrictions being imposed in gun sales and ownership.
I'd still say it is a step up from many other institutions, which should go later in the process to create an anarchis utopia.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd say to the extend that someone actually has the intention to kill someone else (which should obviously be provable)
Why would it have to be provable? Guns can misfire, hit the wrong target or any number of things.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Taking away another, at most slightly related, freedom crosses the line in my opinion. This way you actually just stop the offender and don't infringe on everyone's freedoms even though they are totally unrelated.
The law does not have a responsibility to let people walk around with lethal weapons. If man walks into a crowded room with a P-90 any law enforcement officers should protect the interests of the rest of the other people rather than waiting for the man to start shooting simply because it would be nice if he were allowed to carry that weapon.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So? If you go this far why not also infringe on those freedoms, why not go further. Statistics show that blind people without hands commit the least gun crimes, why not poke everyone's eyes out and chop their hands off? Afterall you have the right not to be shot. Why is your line after buying a gun for whatever reason ever (guns do have more purposes than to premeditately kill people)?
Guns are mainly used to kill people. Sniper rifles, handguns and assault weapons are only used to kill people.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd still say it is a step up from many other institutions, which should go later in the process to create an anarchis utopia.
Where people magically stop committing murder? Good luck with that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where people magically stop committing murder? Good luck with that.
people are going to commit murder no matter what means they have.
Canada and switzerland have tonnes of guns, but few gun murders. In Canada, we have more stabbing or other type murders than america.
If we are talking about rational anarchist societies, it isn't about making things perfect, but about a functional society, people can't have perfection. Clearly individual differences and chance will cause people to go crazy or be homicidal, but this happens in all societies regardless of guns or government.
An anarchist society would require rational gun ownership and mutual respect for other people. But, this isn't impossible. The law and the government aren't what prevent you from murdering other people, but the fact you are a good person. If one removes many of the social structures that lead to gun violence, there is no reason to believe that more guns would make a country more dangerous. Lol, sorry for the tangent, I haven't had a anarchist rant in a while.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would it have to be provable? Guns can misfire, hit the wrong target or any number of things.
...he was asking what I thought. And I find provability a pretty important part of any law, really.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The law does not have a responsibility to let people walk around with lethal weapons.
That certainly depends on the law, doesn't it?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If man walks into a crowded room with a P-90 any law enforcement officers should protect the interests of the rest of the other people rather than waiting for the man to start shooting simply because it would be nice if he were allowed to carry that weapon.
You think someone should be shot by an officer for carrying a gun? Even if it was legal to carry a gun?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Guns are mainly used to kill people. Sniper rifles, handguns and assault weapons are only used to kill people.
So Should read what I said again, mate.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosLook, ignorance and stupidity on your part doesn't make an idea any more or less reasonable. I get you people equate anarchism with chaos and constant murder, but that is just ****ing stupid...so, yeah.
Where people magically stop committing murder? Good luck with that.
You can kill people with piano wire, sperm (choke them with enough of it), cut them in the eye with a toenail severing an important vein, gravity, oxygen...
People like me just get creative so you are just wasting time. That argument is like assuming mass wars didn't not happen before guns existed. If anything, those wars were worse. I couldn't be one of the dudes in the front running full speed with just a damn sword.
Originally posted by BackFireExactly.
Yeah, equating anarchism with chaos is silly. Should equate it to gay sex and cock worship, much more accurate. The only reason Bardock likes it.
Originally posted by chithappensAlso, the whole fact about them criminals being criminals and probably not caring too much about gun laws...that's a big one, imo.
You can kill people with piano wire, sperm (choke them with enough of it), cut them in the eye with a toenail severing an important vein, gravity, oxygen...People like me just get creative so you are just wasting time. That argument is like assuming mass wars didn't not happen before guns existed. If anything, those wars were worse. I couldn't be one of the dudes in the front running full speed with just a damn sword.