Unless all the desirable anthropomorphic attributes are also somehow proved — 0rff

That's the next step. God's existence is usually demonstrated prior to his simplicity, which demonstrates why he has the attributes he does.

What does matter is that the so-called right to own a gun comes with qualifications. — tim wood

Your post is all over the place, but if this is your beef, then I've never denied that certain restrictions on gun ownership are prudent, lawful, and necessary.

If you're a democrat, then you realize that the democratic process is just that, a process. It takes time to implement policies. If the rich see that their wealth might be confiscated in the near future, they will simply move it elsewhere before the law is passed.

Dictatorships don't have to wait, however.

Authorities do those things under the current system. — Sapientia

No, they don't do what you're apparently suggesting, which is wealth confiscation across the board. Perhaps you only want to steal from Sri and Gopi Hinduja, though, I don't know.

Yes, it's very easy for totalitarian regimes to do what they want.

So you're just objecting to the phrase. Okay.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you rejecting the claim I advanced on which I thought we might find common ground?

the redistribution should be forced — Sapientia

A rather ominous declaration. What if they resist? Are you simply going to murder them? Stalin tried that with the kulaks, and after piling up their corpses, the result of the redistribution was mass famine.

Wealth and services which workers produced. Executives do not produce. They are there to insure profitability for stockholders. — Bitter Crank

This falsely assumes the rich are not themselves workers or producers.

However, an olive branch: the notion of a legal obligation to make profit is a morally abhorrent notion. But I see nothing wrong with people making lots of money because people voluntarily give it to them.

Property is theft. — Bitter Crank

Settle down, Proudhon.

Highly paid executives, receiving perhaps $40 to 100+ million dollars in compensation, are way way way more fucking thieves than the average workers — Bitter Crank

What have they stolen?

The rich should not get way way way fucking richer. That is not right. — Sapientia

Why? What if the rich become rich because lots of people give them money? Who's to blame for the wealth inequality in that case?

See, the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer! Everyone gets richer, just the richer get way way way fucking richer. — Wosret

This.

Sapientia views these facts through a frame of theft, which isn't true.

Tell me what I don't apparently see.

I see facts but not how they show the claim in question to be wrong.

Go read the Heller decision if you want to know the details. Simply put, the founders who wrote the amendment considered firearms to be included under the notion of arms.

Yes, I think they have turned their backs on such values. It's interesting to note that the majority of figures I listed earlier who provide arguments very similar to the one I gave are classical liberals and Enlightenment thinkers. Strange to say, defending classical liberalism and the moderate Enlightenment is to be a conservative now.

Michael documented some of the changes in my thinking on guns, but in general my thoughts on politics haven't changed so much as they have been reclassified as conservative according to the political Overton window shifting dramatically to the left in the last decade.

Whatever it is, you won't find it on an Internet forum.

Just to make it crystal clear, a right to life without natural rights is one dependent upon laws. Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life. — Buxtebuddha

Well said.

What happened? — Michael

I'm glad you found those quotes, as I think and hope it speaks positively of my character. I'm not an ideologue unwilling to change his opinion when confronted with alternative evidence and arguments. I seek the latter out regularly on a range of issues and am often torn by what I should believe, not to mention irritated about not having the proper time and means to research problems to my satisfaction.

What happened is that I dipped into reading about and listening to some of the arguments on the other side, found out about some of the history behind the second amendment, and read the opinions of Scalia and others about the Heller case and the purpose of the Supreme Court. I also came more firmly to realize that there are such things as natural rights, contrary to what Bentham and others think, which is that they're just made up. Finally, I have come to appreciate the fact that there are only trade-offs in life, not perfect solutions. Solving or at least alleviating one problem inevitably involves exacerbating or creating another, perhaps unforeseen, problem or problems. Different values come into conflict in real life, and it's hard trying to adjudicate which of them ought to be emphasized.

So, again, it really comes down to the fact that I have bothered to acquaint myself with the arguments of those hitherto on the other side of the debate, found that they were more cogent and convincing than anticipated, and saw that they fit with other philosophical positions and axioms I accept.

Yeah, it's certainly true that every argument must be published in some journal so that it can be read by nobody — Buxtebuddha

It only shows the complete ignorance of my interlocutors. My argument is not new. Maybe my particular wording of it is, and perhaps it could be better worded, for which I take full responsibility (I wouldn't want a good argument presented or defended badly, which is also partly why I've bowed out of the fray here), but versions of it and arguments that form the basis of it have been made by people like Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Blackstone, Locke, Beccaria, Montesquieu, the American founders, and yes, even Schopenhauer. One can also find journal articles defending versions of my argument from self-defense if that's really so important.

No one listens in this thread. This will be my last post. I leave it to neutral observers to judge whether I have been fair, clear, and consistent, as I have no further interest in the Sisyphean task of repeating the same points over and over and over again, to be met with people ignoring half of them, incredulity, and strawmen of my positions. No more after this. It's not productive.

What I am required to defend is my own criterion, which is that there are means of self-defence other than guns which are effective enough (though not necessarily as effective as guns) as a means of self-defence. — Sapientia

You have repeated this for the umpteenth time, yet still manage to fail in demonstrating it. Fine. You don't want to, and I can't force you. The only example thus far extracted from you of means "effective enough" in stopping precisely all the same crimes guns can and do stop are "arms and feet." If that's what you believe, that's what you believe.

It's more important to consider those who have had their lives destroyed, or are at risk, as a result of gun ownership. So you still haven't got your priorities straight. — Sapientia

By gun ownership, I assume you mean lawful gun owners, in which case I would refer you back to the statistic I gave earlier, which you ignored: most gun violence is perpetrated by individuals who own guns illegally. The people who lawfully own guns are not the ones responsible for gun violence.

It would be like punishing little kids for playing with sharp knives. Some might well be more responsible than others. Some might not end up hurting themselves or others. But still, little kids shouldn't be allowed to play with sharp knives. — Sapientia

This is a complete disanalogy, for it would mean cops, whom you do allow to carry firearms, are somehow super adults, enabling them to carry such weapons which the rest of us immature pseudo-adults couldn't possibly handle responsibly. This is not born out by the facts, however (see above).

There's no such thing as a natural right. — Sapientia

You say this now, but it would have been much more helpful to have said it earlier and provided an argument in favor of it.

Even the fact that cops across the pond tend to bring a gun with them does not mean that that's necessary. It just means that that's considered good practice over there. — Sapientia

This gets you closer to being consistent, but you still allow the police to carry firearms for certain situations. You haven't shown why private citizens can't do the same.

You've changed your argument. — andrewk

It's a new argument demonstrating premise two, which is the conclusion of it, as you'll notice.

But it doesn't do anything to justify owning a gun — andrewk

Correct, that's because that's a different premise in the original argument! You asked for me to demonstrate premise two, and I did. Again, no one listens in this thread.

It also justifies everybody being provided with a personal, ex-SAS bodyguard — andrewk

More extreme examples. I've already shown that if you really thought them relevant, you would be in favor of banning the right to own cars and household materials that go into making bombs. Literally anything that could be used as a murder weapon would have to banned if one accepts the premises on which you think banning guns are justified. Ergo, I can safely dismiss these and other examples as insincere appeals to extremes.

The proliferation of weapons in the States is the only variable that explains why you suffer so many more gun rampages than any other country in the world. — Akanthinos

It is a statistical fact that gun violence has decreased at the same time as the number of guns in circulation has increased. You can make like an ostrich all you like and ignore this fact, but it doesn't cease to be a fact, which makes your accusation of "blindness" on my part all the more ironic.

These are not rare by any fucking definition of the word. They happen every other fucking week. And if you check, the States are miles ahead of any other country in terms of mass shootings per capita. — Akanthinos

Yes, we all know that adding curse words to your sentences enhances the truth of them. I see you've gotten pretty angry when presented with facts that don't conform to the gun narrative you're drunk on, but that's not my problem. Anyway, you're wrong: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ A few more f-bombs ought to refute that, though, I reckon.

How can you both lose your life and protect it? Is this some sort of hypothetical counterfactual? The 'then' is an unsubstantiated claim, and the rhetoric leaves me cold. — andrewk

This tells me you don't understand my point. As for your feeling cold, I don't care. Perhaps you should put on a coat before debating me. The idea is that:

I desire to protect my life and property.
I possess the natural right to protect my life and property.
My life and property can be successfully protected or not depending on the means I employ to do so.
Successful protection of my life and property depends upon adequate and effective means.
Therefore, I have the right to adequate and effective means by which to protect my life and property.

Because the corollary to allowing guns to spread in the manner they have in the USA is the epidemic of gun rampages that plagues you, and might I add, only you. — Akanthinos

Those are rare, and it hasn't prevented mass killings in countries that have stricter gun control, unless you believe death by a gun is somehow worse than death by other means.

. The corollary to you claiming that the current state-of-affairs in the States is acceptable — Akanthinos

I never said this. I think there are many policies that can be implemented and/or changed to help reduce gun violence. I've mentioned several of them in this thread already, if you've been paying attention. But apparently not, since you have the gall to compose such strawmen of my views.

that you find it acceptable that kids get shot every other week because that is also founded in that same inalienable right. — Akanthinos

A complete non-sequitur, in addition to a rather uncharitable strawman. First, I don't find it acceptable that people get shot. Second, as I have already pointed out, the gun violence is not perpetrated by those who are lawfully making use of their right to bear firearms, so in no way does it follow that the mere right to legally purchase them means greater gun homicides. In the same way, to support the right to purchase and consume alcohol doesn't mean that one supports the alcohol related homicide rate or that said right leads to greater homicides. The data is inconclusive on whether prohibition greatly affected the number of alcohol related deaths one way or another. Regardless, there are more deaths due to alcohol than guns every year, so one might expect you to be a staunch prohibitionist, in addition to an anti-gun lobbyist, but I doubt that you are thus consistent, since neither you nor Sapientia have been able to prove that less guns equals less gun violence. To the contrary, gun violence has steadily decreased as more firearms have gone into circulation.

That's what a karambit, a dog, a mace or a black belt is for. It's not a reason to start carrying a gun to the grocery store. — Akanthinos

These are once again poor examples. Some situations can only be resolved with a gun, not a knife. A dog cannot be taken everywhere. Not everyone has the time to become an expert martial artist.

Mae govannen, I am the Eagle of the Star, and I try not to hate, but I do find many of the moderators on this forum to be rather insufferable and hypocritical at times, not to mention immoderately prone to bitter sarcasm.

I much prefer the bitterness of Bierce and other philosophical and/or religious pessimists, like Schopenhauer, whose philosophy informs my thinking about most things. I spend most of my time here to kill it, though the success rate of this endeavor is not entirely clear to me. I also like to think being here sharpens my thinking on various topics and hones my verbal jousting ability, which I console myself in thinking might come in handy some day.

I do understand, and I have defended them.

as you have worded it — Sapientia

Ah, so this is the point at which we enter into a semantics battle. I'm not interested in that. If 1) you are concerned with preventing crime and 2) there are means besides guns that are as effective as guns in all cases in preventing crime, then you need to show me what those means are and how, statistically, they are just as effective.

If we go to the claim you've repeated ad nauseam, one finds that you've provided yourself an escape from having to show this by means of a certain word, but at the cost of still failing to prove your thesis:

There's practically no situation where a gun, rather than some other form of self-defence, would be necessary. — Sapientia

The use of the word "practically" here suggests that you do admit that there are situations in which only a gun can prevent a crime. I suspect there are more such situations than you would be willing to admit, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they're very rare. The question thus becomes: why should that mean abolishing the right to own firearms? Why assume that most defensive gun uses whereby the assailant is shot or killed are not the kinds of situations that require a gun? Most gun owners, believe it or not, believe that using and firing a gun should only be the last resort undertaken under the gravest of circumstances. So you still haven't successfully challenged my argument.

that a person has a right to own any object that can be used to protect themself — andrewk

You're not even characterizing my argument correctly, seeing as you've left out the part where I said that one has the right to proper, i.e. adequate and effective, means of self-defense, which excludes the absurd examples you and Akanthinos have been wracking your brains coming up with. My argument is valid and sound, unless and until you have show one of the premises is false, which you haven't done. The second premise really isn't that difficult to understand. If I lose my life or property defending them by one means of self-defense but protect them by another means, then I require the latter to maintain my natural right to life and property.

Please don't, because I have explained why that's a stupid request. — Sapientia

No you haven't. You've tried passing the baton back to me to prove that there aren't other means as effective as guns in every scenario. Sorry, Sappy, that will not do. You made the claim. It's up to you to defend it.

I provided the statistics and further details elsewhere in another discussion on gun control that we both participated in. Neither you nor anyone else in that discussion showed any interest in them whatsoever. — Sapientia

I can only take your word for it. But it remains the case that your statement was not obviously true unless qualified, which you have now done. Good job.

I have yet to see your statistics. If you've linked to them here or elsewhere, I'll have to check them out. — Sapientia

They're principally from the CDC. I don't have a link on hand, but I do welcome you to check them out.

it is still not a very good argument, as I can just cite statistics on gun crime here in the U.K. - where it is very rare to own or carry a gun, let alone use it - which are significantly lower than those in the U.S. — Sapientia

Sure, but then I would like you to explain to me why the U.S. has seen a massive decline in gun violence over the last several decades, despite the number of guns sold increasing. Do note that the people buying these guns aren't committing the gun violence, as the vast majority of gun violence is committed with illegally acquired weapons. Britain, moreover, has always had low amounts of gun violence compared to the U.S., even before it implemented its effective ban, so your statistics don't actually prove the claim you need them to, namely, that a reduction in or outright ban on firearms leads to a reduction in gun violence.

The U.S. also has a different social history than Britain. Most of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs in highly concentrated geographical areas of certain urban centers and among a very specific demographic: young males from minority backgrounds. Such violence is heavily linked to gang related activity and the drug trade. The lawful gun owning NRA member in small town middle America is not the one committing this crime, and yet he, with his pro-second amendment stance, is the one blamed for it, as if he forced some gangbanger in South Chicago to do a drive-by shooting on his rivals by means of an illegally acquired firearm. Gun violence can and has been reduced by tougher penalties, greater policing, and clamping down on straw buyers. To simply ban guns would be to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

It's about whether one should have the right, not whether one does. — Sapientia

Then you fail to understand the first premise. Positive or legal rights can be added and subtracted, this is true. But natural rights don't ever go away, even if one passes laws that remove their positive legal status.

I challenge you to come up with a scenario where a gun would be necessary, meaning there could be no other means available for self-defence. — Sapientia

You can't be serious. Just for starters, what is it do you think cops bring with them most of the time when responding to reports of violent crime?

That's how logic works. — andrewk

No it doesn't. My argument is proven to be unsound if one or all of my premises are false. Your objection to premise two is fallacious, so my argument stands.

blocked if they could not demonstrate a need for it related to their livelihood — andrewk

Why does one need to demonstrate a need for something to be related to one's livelihood in order to own it? That's a bizarre claim.

Granting this, however, the ownership of a gun would be demonstrated to be related to one's livelihood. For one's livelihood, or means of acquiring the necessities of life, itself depends on one's life being adequately protected. A gun is an adequate and in many cases the most effective means of protecting one's life, which then enables one to pursue one's livelihood.

Except that's a provable claim. Hostpital admittance for stab wounds show that you are about 60-80% likely to survive a stab wound, depending where you are stabbed, while the offshot is about 40% survival chances for bullet wounds. — Akanthinos

Yes, I was looking up similar statistics when composing my reply to Sapientia. My point still stands that the claim he made, without qualification, isn't obviously true. I have no problem granting such statistics either, as I said, for they don't refute my argument.

No, I don't own anything that has anything like the lethal potential of a gun. If that's the point of the argument, then it doesn't work. — andrewk

I bet if I looked in your kitchen cabinets, I could find ingredients to make a bomb. If you own a vehicle, then as you should well know, it can be used to exact a rather hideous death toll. There are lots of other items I could probably find that you own that could be used to commit murder. Even if you own none of these things and live a sparse, ascetic lifestyle like me, most people own items and materials that if used inappropriately can be lethal, things which you do not object to the rightful ownership of.

No. I've pointed out that most people would not accept your premise — andrewk

You said most people in unspecified countries that are not the U.S. reject it (without proof, I might add), not most people per se. Regardless, this is just an argumentum ad populum.

Fortunately for me, opinion is generally against that premise. — andrewk

It must be nice determining the truth of a claim by referring to what the majority thinks. Nevertheless, I value logic.

there are other ways which can be effective enough without carrying the same level of risk that you get with a gun — Sapientia

I said earlier that you still haven't proven that there are other means as effective as a gun for every given scenario. That remains true. Please don't make me ask for it again.

Because guns carry a greater risk. You're more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a stab wound, for example. — Sapientia

This is way too simplistic. Do you assert it as a statistical claim? If so, what does it count as stab wounds? Stepping on a tack, cutting your finger with a kitchen knife, hemophiliacs accidentally wounding themselves? Those would affect the fairness of the comparison. What, moreover, are the circumstances of the wound's infliction? If I stabbed you in a major artery, then you are more likely to die than from a gunshot wound to a non-major artery. The caliber of bullet also factors into the damage dealt. If I stabbed you, incapacitating you, and you were left to bleed out without receiving any medical assistance, you are more likely to die than from receiving a gunshot wound and being immediately rushed to the hospital or being treated by a doctor on the scene. The fact is that your assertion isn't true without qualification.

Second, even if in some sense your claim is true, it ignores the statistical reality that I have consistently cited, which is that there are more defensive gun uses than gun deaths each year, meaning that a greater number of crimes are prevented by guns than committed by them. There is, therefore, a risk one takes in not owning a gun, just as there is in owning one. No one on my side ever said that gun ownership doesn't come with responsibility.

you're more likely to be shot by someone with a gun than by someone without one — Sapientia

This is a tautology and irrelevant to whether one has the right to own firearms. Just as you can't be shot without the perpetrator owning a gun with which to shoot you, so you can't be run over without the perpetrator owning a car or truck with which to run you over. Neither fact shows that one doesn't have the right to own the item in question.

Furthermore, shooting an intruder is almost always constitutes excessive force because of that line I repeated twice already. — Sapientia

You have consistently failed to prove any of these adverbs you keep using. Almost always? Well, once again, that depends on the circumstances of the shooting.

as it does not prevent you from owning things that create significant dangers to others. — andrewk

That's my point. You own things that can be used in significantly dangerous ways that you and no one else objects to the rightful ownership of.

Other than that, you've merely provided an undemonstrated appeal to the majority in countries outside the U.S., which is irrelevant to my argument.

Not sure you'd even want to survive a heavy phosphorus burn. — Akanthinos

Right, so you admit you weren't being serious, given this tongue-in-cheek sentence.

Prevention of crime within reason is in my view. That's the distinction between my position and yours. — Sapientia

Why is the prevention of crime with the private use of guns unreasonable? You still haven't explained why.

What does 'proper means' mean? — andrewk

Adequate and effective.

What is the significance of 'the' in 'the proper means'? — andrewk

Any proper means.

as owning some of those means could create an unacceptable hazard for the rest of the community - which is the case with many guns. — andrewk

This appears to be your key objection. I don't think it affects my argument, as there are plenty of things one owns that could create unacceptable hazards for the rest of the community (I assume you mean the public or society, otherwise your use of the definite article makes it somewhat unclear what you're referring to) that it would be ridiculous to prohibit the rightful use of.

You have to be willing to kill. — Akanthinos

Naturally.

Proof of what? That fear is an effective tool of dissuasion? — Akanthinos

Your examples are ridiculous. None of them make any sense as effective means of self-defense.

Then "you composed a silly response". — Sapientia

That might be true if I based my position with respect to the right to bear arms on the jokes of a comedian.

Don't need to, don't intend to. — Sapientia

Why not? Why are you even respond to me, then? Are you bored, trolling, something else?

It didn't seem to sink in the first time. — Sapientia

Repeating the same claim doesn't make it so. You know that, so, again, I'm beginning to suspect you're just trying to get a rise out of me at this point.

It might not actually be the most effective at keeping potential intruders at bay, but it doesn't need to be. It was an attempt to help you get your head around the fact that there are more important things than what's most effective. — Sapientia

You've still given me no reason for believing that means other than a gun are just as effective as a gun in all cases. If prevention of crime is in view, then this is the claim you need to defend, otherwise, there is no reason to oppose the use of firearms in self-defense.

Since you have not provided any evidence of that unassailability, there is nothing to prove wrong. It's just an opinion, and one you're entitled to. — andrewk

Wrong. I gave an argument which you have consistently failed to engage.

No, you do not have a natural right to defend your property. Or at least, that natural right is not recognized in the vast majority of modern legislature, where killing someone attempting to rob you is going to land you very quickly in jail. — Akanthinos

I never said one needed to kill someone with a gun to prevent a robbery. It's irritating having to repeat myself so often, but as I have said several times, defensive gun uses often don't involve firing a shot.

So is nerve gas, phosphore grenades and impaling the heads of your enemies on spikes in front of your driveway. — Akanthinos

You have no proof of that. This is just an appeal to extremes.