Here's the entirety of the 'rebuttal':

Jim, first makes fun of us for being prepared with a readily accessible gun. Then he makes fun of us for safely securing that firearm in a safe. I wonder if Jim realizes that there are quite a few options out there other than a vintage turning combination safe? — Gun lobbyists web-site

Quite a few options - but none worth mentioning apparently.

You must have a very poor imagination.

Back to the playground then. OK.

Yes, you seem intent on staying there.

Are you able to tell us what any of these immediately-available yet securely locked away gun storage options are that are beyond my imagination?

You asked if the people being shot all of the time are not part of the oppressed and vulnerable. I pointed out that it is the police--the ones those aforementioned liberals/progressives are fine with possessing guns while they say that the rest of us have no business possessing guns--who are shooting those unarmed, vulnerable, oppressed people. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No, I actually said, "Groups of people", referring to mass shootings. The government gets to have and do a lot of things your average citizen doesn't. Police and military having weapons while others do not is not frightening to me. The military has Tomahawk missiles, but I'm not bummed I can't have one. Also, police brutality is a separate topic.

"Yet the current rate of firearm violence is still far lower than in 1993, when the rate was 6.21 such deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 3.4 in 2016." — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Do we need to be at an all time high to call for changes to regulations? Just because things were once worse doesn't mean they couldn't be better than they are currently.

I actually think that a smaller guerrilla force with less powerful weaponry can hold its own and even defeat stronger militaries, for the outcome of a war has as much if not more to do with the morale on either side as it does with advanced firepower. The U.S. has learned this the hard way in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. — Thorongil

Whether it would be minimally useful or not doesn't matter. Using your syllogism I could justify having one. What I'm trying to figure out is where you draw the line. Do you think owning a functional tank is something citizens should be able to do? What about fully-automatic weapons? Grenades?

Then you need to look up the statistics. There are conservatively tens of thousands more defensive gun uses each year than homicides due to guns. They clearly serve their intended purpose the majority of the time. — Thorongil

If you have any links on hand I'd be interested. However it makes me wonder how they gather this info, and even if every single one was reported accurately, how many of these situations could have been resolved without? How do people in the UK resolve their problems? How bout in Australia?

The government gets to have and do a lot of things your average citizen doesn't. Police and military having weapons while others do not is not frightening to me. The military has Tomahawk missiles, but I'm not bummed I can't have one. Also, police brutality is a separate topic. — ProbablyTrue

Your subjective feelings are irrelevant. The question is: is owning a gun for one's personal protection a right?

Do we need to be at an all time high to call for changes to regulations? Just because things were once worse doesn't mean they couldn't be better than they are currently. — ProbablyTrue

This thread is about individuals' right to own a gun for their personal protection.

This thread is about taking away or denying rights.

If something is an inalienable right of individual's that means that the statistics about things like crime are irrelevant.

The point is that while liberals/progressives have increasingly conflated guns with homicide the overall rate of gun-related deaths in the U.S. has declined.

Your subjective feelings are irrelevant. The question is: is owning a gun for one's personal protection a right? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If this thread is only intended to discuss what is, then it's clear the answer is yes in some countries and no in others. The US courts have upheld that it is an individual right despite the possibility that the original intent was for that right to be contingent upon being part of a well-regulated militia.

I thought we had already established this and we were discussing whether it should be a right or how large the scope of "bear arms" really is or should be.

On page one, I mentioned a drawer and a purse. That was a general statement, though, and wasn't meant to respond to your specific scenario of children finding a gun. Strong boxes and security cases exist, which can be hand activated, that are secure and enable quick access if needed. I don't even know why you keep pressing this, though, as there's something called Google which you're perfectly free to use.

Yet, not only do I hear those same people implying or directly stating that a right in the original Bill of Rights should be removed from the Constitution, I hear them saying that it is not even a human right and never was a right of any kind in the first place. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's a legal right here in God's favorite country, nothing more, nothing less. Like other legal rights, it may be limited, modified and even repealed. Getting rid of it would mean amending the Constitution, which is particularly difficult, but may be done. We've amended it before, most foolishly to prohibit the production, sale and transport of intoxicating liquor through the 18th Amendment. We got rid of that amendment some 13 years after we were stupid enough to adopt it.

Strong boxes and security cases exist, which can be hand activated, that are secure and enable quick access if needed. — Thorongil

Your failure to provide a single detail makes that seem a very doubtful claim. But if you consider the argument 'There's a robust defence of my claim, that I can't produce but is somewhere out there on Google, so go and look for it' convincing then there's really nothing to discuss.

That a group of liberals seem to have been caught applying a double standard has no bearing on me or my stance that the U.S. Bill of Rights ought to be altered for improvement, which is what actually matters. Choosing to focus on the former is just a distraction.

In the other gun thread, the argument I gave in favor of retaining the constitutional right to bear arms is that this right is grounded in the natural right to self-defense. Put in a syllogism, it looks like this:

I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
Therefore, I have a right to own firearms.

This was the chief principled argument I gave, but apparently, it's easier to endlessly compose infantile, sarcastic quips than engage with such arguments, judging by the responses. — Thorongil

It's a poor argument because it says nothing of excessive force or risk of harm. You should not have a right to use excessive force or pose a risk to society.

The question is: is owning a gun for one's personal protection a right? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A more important question is whether it should be.

You seem to be assuming that using a gun for self-defense is a form of excessive force. Why do you think that?

Your comments demonstrate that not only do you have precious little knowledge of firearms, you have little to no interest in learning more about them. If Jim Jeffries is your authority on the matter, who summarizes my side as saying "fuck off, I like guns," then you appear as the mirror opposite: "fuck off, I don't like guns." I keep waiting for a substantive reply from you, but none has been forthcoming. If you live in the U.S., I suggest you visit a gun shop or gun range or get in touch with one of those scary gun owners if you really want to know the ins and outs of gun storage. I suspect you don't really care, though. I myself may purchase a gun someday if circumstances seem to make doing so prudent, but I can tell you that I don't own one now and don't have a strong interest in them. I just think that the right to bear them is pretty unassailable. I'm open to being proven wrong, of course, but I don't think you'll be the one to do it, so this may be my last post to you.

You seem to be assuming that using a gun for self-defense is a form of excessive force. Why do you think that? — Thorongil

It's excessive force to shoot someone that you could have disabled in a less dangerous way. There's practically no situation where a gun, rather than some other form of self-defence, would be necessary.

And even if you point out that a gun can be used as a deterrent without shooting anyone, it still poses a risk, which was my other point.

It's excessive force to shoot someone that you could have disabled in a less dangerous way. — Sapientia

Could? How do you know that? Do you have experience warding off would-be murderers, thieves, and rapists by other means? What are those means? What if the intruder to your home is armed, for example? Are these means still the most effective in that case? If so, how do you know?

Could? How do you know that? Do you have experience warding off would-be murderers, thieves, and rapists by other means? What are those means? What if the intruder to your home is armed, for example? Are these means still the most effective? — Thorongil

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

If you need to ask me what those other means are, then "you must have a very poor imagination".

There are more important things than what's most effective. Perhaps planting mines around my house would be most effective, so let's all go ahead and do that, and see where that gets us. I have the inalienable right to plant mines, and it's the most effective method of keeping trespassers away. That matters more to me than people being blown up.

Yeah, but what if the Brits decide to invade? You clearly won't be able to defend yourself with anything short of heavy artillery. Therefore, it is an inalienable natural right to own heavy artillery.

The (obvious, might I add) solution is to move to a place where home invasions are so uncommon that they do not register as valid reasons to alter your behavior. And if you still fell unsafe, because you're a big soft softy, then you should get a dog.

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

I heard you the first time.

If you need to ask me what those other means are, then "you must have a very poor imagination". — Sapientia

Oh I can imagine them, but that still doesn't make them as effective as a gun. You still haven't shown that. You've merely repeated the claim.

Perhaps planting mines around my house would be most effective, so let's all go ahead and do that, and see where that gets us. — Sapientia

Perhaps? How so? I think you're just pulling these things out of your rear end.

Scroll up, I've already addressed your objection.

I heard you the first time. — Thorongil

Then "you composed a silly response".

Oh I can imagine them, but that still doesn't make them as effective as a gun. — Thorongil

Beside the point.

You still haven't shown that. — Thorongil

That they're as effective as a gun? Don't need to, don't intend to.

You've merely repeated the claim. — Thorongil

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

Perhaps? How so? — Thorongil

Again, use your imagination. Would you risk getting yourself blown up to rob my house? 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.

I have the natural right to defend my life and property. — Thorongil

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.

Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property. — Thorongil

So is nerve gas, phosphore grenades and impaling the heads of your enemies on spikes in front of your driveway. In fact, one could argue that there is little better than a little terrorism in order to guarantee one's safety.

I just think that the right to bear [guns] is pretty unassailable. I'm open to being proven wrong...

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.

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

Yes, he's entitled to the wrong opinion, but I wouldn't recommend it.

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.

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.

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. — Thorongil

You have to be willing to kill. Otherwise you just bought a gun that someone might steal and use against you. A gun is useless if it's not backed by the willingness to fire.

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

Proof of what? That fear is an effective tool of dissuasion? Bloddy hell, that's what your argument rests upon too!