Then "you composed a silly response". — Sapientia
Don't need to, don't intend to. — Sapientia
It didn't seem to sink in the first time. — Sapientia
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 have to be willing to kill. — Akanthinos
Proof of what? That fear is an effective tool of dissuasion? — Akanthinos
It's impossibly woolly. What does 'proper means' mean? Does it exclude means that create a danger to the rest of the community, because they would be 'improper'? If so then 2 is acceptable but 3 is not. If not then 2 is unacceptable.1. I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
2. I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
3. Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
4. Therefore, I have a right to own firearms.
That might be true if I based my position with respect to the right to bear arms on the jokes of a comedian. — Thorongil
Why not? Why are you even respond to me, then? Are you bored, trolling, something else? — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
Your examples are ridiculous. None of them make any sense as effective means of self-defense. — Thorongil
What does 'proper means' mean? — andrewk
What is the significance of 'the' in 'the proper means'? — andrewk
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
Not sure you'd even want to survive a heavy phosphorus burn. — Akanthinos
That's what you think. I can assure you that a phosphorus grenade will be a shitload more effective in deterring anyone who knows what it can do than any form of firearm. You happen to have a chance of surviving getting shot. Not sure you'd even want to survive a heavy phosphorus burn. — Akanthinos
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
It affects it in that many people (most people, and certainly most lawmakers, at least outside the US) would not accept your premise 2, as it does not prevent you from owning things that create significant dangers to others.This appears to be your key objection. I don't think it affects my argument
Why is the prevention of crime with the private use of guns unreasonable? You still haven't explained why. — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
Because guns carry a greater risk. You're more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a stab wound, for example. — Sapientia
you're more likely to be shot by someone with a gun than by someone without one — Sapientia
Furthermore, shooting an intruder is almost always constitutes excessive force because of that line I repeated twice already. — Sapientia
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.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.
No. I've pointed out that most people would not accept your premise 2, so your argument, while you may find it personally convincing, is not unassailable.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.
there are other ways which can be effective enough without carrying the same level of risk that you get with a gun — Sapientia
This is way too simplistic. Do you assert it as a statistical claim? — Thorongil
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
No. I've pointed out that most people would not accept your premise — andrewk
Fortunately for me, opinion is generally against that premise. — andrewk
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
Logic stops at the premise. A premise, by definition, is a claim that is accepted without proof, or not, according to how it feels to the reader.It must be nice determining the truth of a claim by referring to what the majority thinks. Nevertheless, I value logic.
I don't own a car, and one of the reasons for that is that I agree with you that they are lethal, generally unnecessary, objects.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.
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. — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
This is a tautology and irrelevant to whether one has the right to own firearms. — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
That's how logic works. — andrewk
blocked if they could not demonstrate a need for it related to their livelihood — andrewk
Sure is. Lucky I didn't make it then isn't it?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.
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. — Thorongil
A gun is an adequate and in many cases the most effective means of protecting one's life — Thorongil
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. — Thorongil
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 have yet to see your statistics. If you've linked to them here or elsewhere, I'll have to check them out. — Sapientia
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
It's about whether one should have the right, not whether one does. — Sapientia
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
Please don't, because I have explained why that's a stupid request. — Sapientia
that a person has a right to own any object that can be used to protect themself — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.