No, what you're missing is the point that there are other ways to regulate conduct other than civil lawsuits. — Hanover

I never said, "Civil lawsuits are a way to regulate conduct", let alone the best way, only way, etc.

Your point is completely irrelevant.

If the Peoria PD decides it no longer wants to protect its citizens, — Hanover

Nobody has said anything about police protecting "citizens".

What has been pointed out is that courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the government has no legal obligation to protect individuals. The only exception, the courts have ruled, is when there is a special relationship between an individual and the government, such as when an individual is in witness protection.

And I was pointing out that individuals believe that they have the right to possess firearms for their personal protection and that it is a universal right.

...

The right to self-defense is useless if one does not have the right to the means necessary to effectively defend him/herself from a threat. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you misunderstand the nature of a "right". There are two ways to look at rights, either a right is something given, as a privilege, or a right is something inherent within human nature. Neither way justifies a right to weapons of self-defence.

If we are given particular human rights, these do not include the universal right to possess weapons, nor do they include the universal right to defend and preserve our own rights. The harsh reality would be that just like one's rights are given, they may also be taken away, and this denies the possibility of the universal right to defend or preserve one's own rights. So a universal right to weapons of self-defence would be irrational if rights are given because it would deny the possibility of removing any given privileges.

If universal rights are something inherent within human nature, then it is impossible that another can take away your rights, so the right to weapons for defence of your rights is again irrational. In other words, If rights are inherent within human nature, then they cannot be taken away, so there cannot be a right to defend your rights, as this would be inconsistent with the idea that one's rights cannot be taken away.

Either way, your insistence on a universal right to weapons for defence of your rights is simply irrational, and therefore cannot actually be a universal right of rational beings.

— Metaphysician Undercover

A right is a justified claim.

I am not aware of any conditions under which a claim to the possession of a firearm for one's personal protection would not be justified.

the police chief is called before the City Council and asked about it with hundreds of angry Peorians screaming about in the room. If the City Council decides to support the police chief despite his decision to not do his job, the next election won't go so well for the councilmen and the mayor. That's how it's done all the time, not through the filing of civil suits demanding damages. In fact, if there were a rebel police chief and city council, would they really care if the City of Peoria were required to pay its tax dollars to a damaged citizen? Would that really alter their behavior? It seems like in this example they don't really care about much.

And all this explains why the police do their job, which is the same reason that everyone does his job, which is that they don't want to get fired because ultimately everyone is accountable to someone. — Hanover

You can't hold anybody accountable if you are dead.

I never said, "Civil lawsuits are a way to regulate conduct", let alone the best way, only way, etc.

Your point is completely irrelevant. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No, you've missed the point. The case cited that has caused you such consternation holds only that a citizen is limited in his right to sue the police, not that the police are unobligated to serve and protect the public. You can't sue the police if they fail to act, but that doesn't mean there are no other repercussions due to their failure to act and there aren't other means to assure you'll be protected from crime. If you admit that civil suits against the police were never meant to assure you will be protected by the police, then your concern over the case you cited becomes irrelevant as to the question of whether you'll be adequately protected and in need of self protection.

Nobody has said anything about police protecting "citizens".

What has been pointed out is that courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the government has no legal obligation to protect individuals. The only exception, the courts have ruled, is when there is a special relationship between an individual and the government, such as when an individual is in witness protection. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is an odd post. You're distinguishing between "citizens" and "individuals" for some reason as if they weren't being used synonymously in the context we were both using them. I think it's clear that whatever duty the police have to protect an individual applies to citizens and non-citizens alike, meaning they can't decide to only protect citizens but instead watch all our visitors from foreign nations die on the street. Anyway, like I said, I don't follow what your post is intending to point out.

This is just one source showing that in the U.S. the police have no obligation to protect you. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you are confusing the police with the medical profession if you think they ought to do no harm.

I am not aware of any conditions under which a claim to the possession of a firearm for one's personal protection would not be justified. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Suppose someone kicks you in the head and you then punch him to get him off of you and he feels the need to protect himself from your retaliation. Would he be justified in using a firearm to fend you off?

You likely meant to say that you felt a firearm was always justified for self-defense purposes, not for being the instigator.

But wait, suppose I yell at you and you feel personally threatened, do you have the right to pull a weapon on me?

If we keep distilling this, the answer will be that you have the right to self-defense, but the force you use must be justified and proportionate. You don't get to shoot someone for shoving you in the arm. The idea behind gun regulation is that if you reduce the number of guns in society, your need to have a gun to respond to that gun will also be reduced..

I'm still not convinced by your case. — Bitter Crank

The more that I learn--and I have not stopped researching and thinking about this since the moment I created the thread--the more convinced I become.

Last night I was reading DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services very closely.

The way that I understand the ruling in that case, the state has no constitutional duty under the 14th Amendment to protect individuals from private harm that the state played no role in creating. The amendment limits what the state can do; it does not give the state an affirmative duty to act.

However, if the state limits the liberty of an individual, such as when the state incarcerates him/her, then the state does have an obligation to protect and, therefore, may be liable for any harm sustained.

"The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means." -- DeShaney v. Winnebago County

If that is the precedent then imagine the number of lawsuits there might be if the state takes away the right to possess a firearm. It would make governing impossible.

Even if the government could remove all liability by protecting every individual from harm at all times, the only way that could be done would be to give every individual his/her own personal bodyguard. That is, of course, politically, logistically, and financially impossible, and extremely impractical and awkward for everybody involved.

A right is a justified claim.

I am not aware of any conditions under which a claim to the possession of a firearm for one's personal protection would not be justified. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I just demonstrated to you why the right to a weapon for self-defence would be irrational. Do you have a counter-argument or just a hollow assertion? Anyone can claim that anything they want is "justified", but to actually justify it, you must demonstrate why it is right.

Go ahead and try, but you'll only run into the problems Hanover just pointed out, and get mired in particulars. Your claim though, is that the right to a weapon for self-defence is "universal", and that's why it's irrational.

No, you've missed the point. The case cited that has caused you such consternation — Hanover

I had not cited a case, let alone said that anything causes me any consternation.

I already knew that governments could not care less about me as an individual human being. I have encountered plenty of evidence that makes it difficult to think otherwise.

The creation of this thread should be enough evidence that I am not shocked or in any way stressed by any "case". I have made it known that I think that it is extremely ignorant, naive and foolish to believe that the police exist for one's personal safety. Yet, I have pointed out, such ignorance, naiveté and foolishness is a big part of the thinking of the individual-gun-rights-are-a-myth camp.

The only thing I had "cited" was a source. The quote that I repeated from that source cites a particular case, but that was not the point. I don't even know anything about that case. The point was that it was just one example of many that anybody could easily find with minimal effort.

I have, however, since then cited a particular case: DeShaney vs. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.

I just demonstrated to you why the right to a weapon for self-defence would be irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, a good start would be to respond to what people have actually said.

I did not say "weapon". I specifically said firearm.

I did not say "self-defense". I said one's personal protection.

I did not even say "own". I specifically said possess.

Whether you plan on firing or merely brandishing it; whether you own or the government is the owner and loans to you; etc. is all irrelevant. The point is that it is being asserted that firearms in the hands of people trained to use them are a must if anybody is going to be protected; that only the military and the police should possess firearms; and that the latter even protects individuals in moments of immediate danger.

No, the military and police, in spite of their exceptional training, will not protect individuals from immediate danger, no matter if they are the only ones in possession of firearms or it is the entire population. They did not protect me when I was robbed at gunpoint or when I was robbed at knifepoint. They showed up after fact.

If possession of a firearm is not needed for anybody to be protected, and if the job of the police and the military is to protect, then nobody needs firearms. Yet, the solution offered by the individual-gun-rights-are-a-myth camp is for the military and the police to possess firearms.

If, on the other hand, possession of a firearm is a must if one is to at all times have the maximum possible protection from immediate dangers, and if the state cannot guarantee such protection--and clearly it cannot (see the aforementioned times I was robbed)--then individual possession of a firearm is an important part of the safety of individuals and the public.

Anyone can claim that anything they want is "justified", but to actually justify it, you must demonstrate why it is right. — Metaphysician Undercover

A right is a justified claim, not a burden of proof.

Your claim though, is that the right to a weapon for self-defence is "universal", and that's why it's irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not recall ever saying that anything is "universal".

I do recall saying that possession of a firearm for one's personal protection is a human right. In other words, it depends not on being a citizen of a particular state, having a particular status (non-grandparents do not have grandparents' rights), etc. In other words, it is a right that one has simply by being born human.

Possession of a firearm cannot be a universally justified claim--firearms do not exist in all places or times.

imagine the number of lawsuits there might be if the state takes away the right to possess a firearm — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Bear in mind a point that was raised earlier: The State has sovereign immunity. It can be sued only if it is willing to be sued. Sovereign immunity applies to state/provincial and county governments as well. If the Second Amendment is repealed, it won't be by the Federal Government. "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and by 3/4th of the states (38) or a constitutional convention called by 3/4th of the states.

I don't believe most people need or benefit from possessing guns. I'm fine with hunting (assuming that the species hunted is nowhere close to extinction) and the bagged game is eaten by the hunter.

But it doesn't matter much what my opinion is on this. At least 100 million people in the US own at least one gun, and even if gun ownership is very stupid, the guns are not going to disappear tomorrow. We face several quite avoidable risks: auto accident, air pollution, disease, accidents in the home, drowning, and so on. Guns are one more avoidable risk. It's avoidable; that doesn't mean we will do anything about it.

Bear in mind a point that was raised earlier: The State has sovereign immunity. It can be sued only if it is willing to be sued. — Bitter Crank

It is my understanding that anybody can sue anybody for any reason. That must be good for business if you are in the legal profession.

The question is about liability, not sueability (is that a word?).

If the government could not be sued then there never would have been DeShaney v. Winnebago in the first place, let alone a ruling on it by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Second Amendment is repealed, it won't be by the Federal Government. "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and by 3/4th of the states (38) or a constitutional convention called by 3/4th of the states. — Bitter Crank

If the government wants to avoid liability, no such constitutional tinkering is needed. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm does not exist.

But if "you do not need to possess a gun, that's what the police are for" is going to be the spirit of reform, that is setting up the government for a lot of liability.

The anti-gun camp would be wise to discard such language. They should just be honest and say, "We don't like guns". Public opinion is trending in their favor, so foolish gibberish about police protection probably will not be needed for them to get their wish.

I do recall saying that possession of a firearm for one's personal protection is a human right. In other words, it depends not on being a citizen of a particular state, having a particular status (non-grandparents do not have grandparents' rights), etc. In other words, it is a right that one has simply by being born human. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Correct, I demonstrated why this claimed "right" is irrational. Can you either refute my argument, or provide a better one to justify your assertion that it is natural right to possess a firearm for personal protection?

A right is a justified claim, not a burden of proof. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No, "justified" means that the claim has been proven. Therefore there is a burden of proof, otherwise your claim is not justified, it is merely an assertion. Assertion doesn't make it right.

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, a good start would be to respond to what people have actually said.

I did not say "weapon". I specifically said firearm.

I did not say "self-defense". I said one's personal protection.

I did not even say "own". I specifically said possess. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is irrelevant to my argument.

I do recall saying that possession of a firearm for one's personal protection is a human right. In other words, it depends not on being a citizen of a particular state, having a particular status (non-grandparents do not have grandparents' rights), etc. In other words, it is a right that one has simply by being born human. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Should convicted violent criminals be able to acquire firearms for their personal protection? How about the mentally ill? How about minors?

Should I be able to acquire other weapons of war with no more restrictions than aquiring a handgun or rifle? In other words, if I find it necessary and can show that owning grenades could possibly save someone's life in defending themselves? Let's say that, if we never regulated hand grenades and allowed to public to buy them just like any sporting shotgun, one person per year since 1950 would be able to defend their life and their property that would not have been able to otherwise. However, as a result, the number of people who were killed by hand grenades since 1950 caused, on average, an additional 500 deaths per year. Is this grounds for heavily regulating hand grenades, even?

But if "you do not need to possess a gun, that's what the police are for" is going to be the spirit of reform, that is setting up the government for a lot of liability. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But that's not the thrust of the anti-gun stance. Yes, a part of some pro-gun control argument is that, given the public protections offered by police officers, having firearms is not as vital towards your safety as they might have been in the past. However, anyone whose sane realizes the police will not always be there to protect you. The actual argument is that the evidence indicates that the current proliferation and use of firearms is not positive or nuetral. When, statistically speaking, more people get shot, commit suicide, and face other social ills like domestic disputes than guns are used to defend themselves, there is a problem. When owning a firearm makes you supposedly three times more likely to be killed by a firearm, it becomes hard to see why owning a firearm is a justifiable means of self defense that the state is obligated to protect. Even if we doubt the statistics the pro-gun control crowd use, I find it disingenuous to pretend that their argument amounts to "we don't need guns because we have cops."

If the government could not be sued then there never would have been DeShaney v. Winnebago in the first place, let alone a ruling on it by the U.S. Supreme Court. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I didn't say the government couldn't be sued; I said it can't be sued WITHOUT its consent. When and where is this consent given? When suits are filed in Federal court they are either accepted or rejected. In many cases, the court accepts suits because they raise important issues, like Brown vs. The Board of Education, or Roe vs. Wade did. But if you file a suit because the FBI said you were a Moscow agent, and this ruined your business, you'll probably be told to take a walk.

But if you file a suit because the FBI said you were a Moscow agent, and this ruined your business, you'll probably be told to take a walk. — Bitter Crank

Which proves my point: it is foolish to depend on the government, especially with respect to things such as one's personal protection.

Well, if they suspect you of being a Moscow agent, I guess that would be true.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Moscow Agent, WISDOMfromPO-MO, and why did you quit?

Should convicted violent criminals be able to acquire firearms for their personal protection? — Chany

They forfeit their rights when they commit a felony.

That is their own choice.

How about the mentally ill? — Chany

Yes, they should.

The mentally ill are no more likely than members of the general population to kill somebody with a firearm.

They are, however, more likely to be victims of violent crime.

How about minors? — Chany

Their personal protection is the responsibility of their adult legal guardians.

Should I be able to acquire other weapons of war with no more restrictions than aquiring a handgun or rifle? In other words, if I find it necessary and can show that owning grenades could possibly save someone's life in defending themselves? Let's say that, if we never regulated hand grenades and allowed to public to buy them just like any sporting shotgun, one person per year since 1950 would be able to defend their life and their property that would not have been able to otherwise. However, as a result, the number of people who were killed by hand grenades since 1950 caused, on average, an additional 500 deaths per year. Is this grounds for heavily regulating hand grenades, even? — Chany

I can't think of any probable scenario where a hand grenade would be needed for one's personal protection.

The actual argument is that the evidence indicates that the current proliferation and use of firearms is not positive or nuetral. When, statistically speaking, more people get shot, commit suicide, and face other social ills like domestic disputes than guns are used to defend themselves, there is a problem. When owning a firearm makes you supposedly three times more likely to be killed by a firearm, it becomes hard to see why owning a firearm is a justifiable means of self defense that the state is obligated to protect. Even if we doubt the statistics the pro-gun control crowd use, I find it disingenuous to pretend that their argument amounts to "we don't need guns because we have cops." — Chany

No, I have seen people say that gun possession never was a right in the first place.

And I have seen people say that only the military and the police should possess firearms.

That combination is downright foolish. Using foolish is probably being generous. Asinine would probably be more accurate.

Probably none of this would be a problem if such people were accounting for and addressing the facts, such as the fact that in the U.S. a constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm does not exist.

That barely scratches the surface of the problems that the individual-gun-rights-are-a-myth position presents. Nation-states that have committed crimes such as the Holocaust, the removal of Native Americans, etc. can be trusted with guns, but a private citizen who has committed no crime and just wants a handgun in his nightstand next to his bed for his personal protection cannot?! Are they serious?!

There are probably some good ideas being generated in the debate over gun control. But, like any debate, some bad ideas are being generated as well. "You don't need a gun, that is what the police are for" is the worst that I have encountered.

They forfeit their rights when they commit a felony. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If it's a natural right, it cannot be forfeited. If you are talking about given rights, as privileges, then you cannot justify any so-called "right" which would enable one from preventing that right from being taken away when necessary. Therefore the so-called "right" to possess firearms, just like the so-called "right" to defend one's own rights, is irrational.

Nation-states that have committed crimes such as the Holocaust, the removal of Native Americans, etc. can be trusted with guns, but a private citizen who has committed no crime and just wants a handgun in his nightstand next to his bed for his personal protection cannot?!

Nation states are not trusted with guns. It is just a fact that they have them, and there is nothing we can do about it. A country could unilaterally disarm, but that would merely place it at the mercy of other countries that won't. So Nation states having armed militaries is simply an inevitable fact of life that nothing can be done about, and hence irrelevant to the discussion.

The concern about the gun in the nightstand is not that the owner will use it to kill somebody, so it has nothing to do with trusting the owner. The concern is that a toddler will find the gun, play with it and shoot themselves and/or somebody else, or that a disturbed teenage son will take the gun to his school and start shooting people.

A partial solution to those concerns is for the gun to be locked in a safe. But then it won't be any use against the much-imagined night-time intruder (which in turn makes me wonder why these people don't just buy security doors and window bars).