There's this? — Michael

He's talking about the wounds caused, not the ability to kill many persons quickly, which was the criterion we were discussing. I just gave a list of factors that make handguns preferable, though they don't apply in all circumstances. The Orlando shooter killed far more people with a handgun than the Florida shooter with a rifle. The Vegas shooter would not have been able to pull off what he did with a handgun.

But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15.

Not in all circumstances, right.

This conversation is far too lost in the weeds to be productive, so I might bow out for now.

Where have you set out your argument that the right to self-defence is a argument in favour of the right to own guns? Please point it out if I'm not reading carefully enough.

He's talking about the wounds caused, not the ability to kill many persons quickly, which was the criterion we were discussing. — Thorongil

That was also mentioned in the first article: "so many mass shootings become mass shootings 'because the AR-15 was used'".

The Orlando shooter killed far more people with a handgun than the Florida shooter with a rifle. — Thorongil

I looked into that but I couldn't find a breakdown of how many were killed with the Glock and how many were killed with the SIG MCX. Do you have a source? And it isn't a very good comparison, as there are rifle shooters who killed more than the Orlando shooter and hand gun shooters who killed fewer than the Florida shooter. Taking an average of all cases might be a better measure than comparing one particular case to another.

Not in all circumstances, right. — Thorongil

Of course not in all. A 9mm in the head is going to be more deadly than a 5.56mm in the foot. But all other things being equal, being shot with an AR-15 is worse than being shot with a Glock. Just as being shot with a Glock is likely worse than be stabbed with a penknife or hit with a baseball bat.

I just gave a list of factors that make handguns preferable — Thorongil

I don't think those factors support the claim that hand guns are more conducive to a higher kill count. At least one of them is wrong (according to the article I linked to); the AR-15 has less recoil than a hand gun. That's supported by this article from the NRA blog. The blog also seems to say that using a hand gun well requires more skill than using a rifle well, contradicting another of your factors.

I think the fact that rifles are more powerful, have longer range, have less recoil, and have a larger magazine is better evidence that it can kill more people than the advantages you offered of a hand gun (more concealable, lighter, better at close range, less opportunity to malfunction).

And this all gives rise to the simple question: if a handgun is more effective than a rifle, why oppose a rifle ban? If your concern is self-defence, and if handguns are effective for self-defence, then you don't need a rifle. So a rifle ban is a fair compromise between those who push for stricter gun control (who think, rightly or wrongly, that rifles are more dangerous) and those who don't.

I'll just recapitulate it:

I possess the natural right to defend my life.
The use of adequate, effective, and reasonable means is sometimes required to do so.
Firearms are one such adequate, effective, and reasonable means.
Therefore, I possess the right to defend myself by means of firearms.

Your concern seems to be about mass shootings and the fact that rifles are typically used in them, which is true. The logic, then, is that if we want to reduce mass shootings, we should ban the guns that are most typically used in them. But handguns have also been used in mass shootings, so that if you ban rifles, but not handguns, then mass shooters will simply use handguns. And then, by the same logic that caused you to ban rifles, you would have to ban handguns as well, so that in the end, you will have banned all guns. I've been trying to get you to drop your pretensions of having proposed any compromise. Your position directly entails the abolition of all guns.

Your position directly entails the abolition of all guns. — Thorongil

That's a slippery slope fallacy. Besides, you already have a ban on automatic weapons. I don't see why one can't add to the ban without adding everything.

I've been trying to get you to drop your pretensions of having proposed any compromise. — Thorongil

You've been trying to argue against Agustino's claim (which I'm defending) that rifles are more dangerous than handguns.

I possess the natural right to defend my life. — Thorongil

There is no natural right to defend your life. That's irrational nonsense, because it is natural that you must die. We all must surrender our lives, that's the reality of living, and to claim a right against impending death is not natural. To claim the right to extend your own life at any cost to others, is selfish nonsense.

This is what the "gun debate" looks like in the USA.
https://thinkprogress.org/parkland-shooting-survivor-forced-off-facebook-6fc397ab2b9f/

Let's go back to early in the discussion.

So not allowing civilians to buy grenades and fully-automatic machine guns infringes on an inalienable right? — Michael

Banning such weapons doesn't infringe on said right, correct. — Thorongil

But banning semi-automatics and handguns would? — Michael

Yes. — Thorongil

Why the difference? — Michael

Well, when interpreting the second amendment, one has to bear in mind the historical context in which it was written. The only guns that existed at the time were single shot pistols and rifles, so the second amendment is meant to apply to weapons of that sort, which would exclude things like the examples you gave. In other words, the right to self-defense entails the right to the appropriate means of self-defense, but such weapons are clearly inappropriate. — Thorongil

OK, so only guns that were available at the time the Second Amendment was written should be allowed. — Michael

Or their rough equivalents that are appropriate means of self-defense. — Thorongil

So I believe this excludes semi-automatics, given that semi-automatics are not "rough equivalents" of the single shot pistols and rifles which existed at the time the Second Amendment was written. Banning semi-automatics is no less an infringement and no less arbitrary than banning automatics.

I possess the natural right to defend my life.
The use of adequate, effective, and reasonable means is sometimes required to do so.
Firearms are one such adequate, effective, and reasonable means.
Therefore, I possess the right to defend myself by means of firearms. — Thorongil

I'll reiterate then again as you don't seem to understand the right to self defense: the right of self defense does not concern itself with which instruments are acceptable but with whether the level of force used is acceptable (necessity and proportionality). In a society that prohibits guns any force exercised with guns is prima facie unlawful. If guns are allowed it depends on the circumstances.

That's a slippery slope fallacy. — Michael

No it isn't. I haven't derived any ludicrous consequence.

You've been trying to argue against Agustino's claim (which I'm defending) that rifles are more dangerous than handguns. — Michael

Yes, I have done so. My position is that handguns can be as, if not more, effective than rifles under certain circumstances. I've not been presented with any evidence to be dissuaded of that.

So I believe this excludes semi-automatics, given that semi-automatics are not "rough equivalents" of the single shot pistols and rifles which existed at the time the Second Amendment was written. — Michael

I wasn't entirely accurate. There were guns like the Girandoni air rifle, made in 1779, that would be rough equivalents to the semi-automatic rifles of today. This gun was used by Lewis and Clark on their expedition, for example. The first revolver was invented not long after that, which is not technically classified as semi-automatic but does have a high rate of fire.

Regardless, a semi-automatic is clearly a more effective means of self-defense than a single shot weapon. It's also still more reasonable than a bazooka or a tank, being of similar dimensions and portability as single shot rifles and handguns, which means the slippery slope you and Agustino have raised against my position doesn't go through.

We all must surrender our lives, that's the reality of living, and to claim a right against impending death is not natural. To claim the right to extend your own life at any cost to others, is selfish nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

These aren't the claims I'm making, but strawmen.

I'll just recapitulate it:

1) I possess the natural right to defend my life.
2) The use of adequate, effective, and reasonable means is sometimes required to do so.
3) Firearms are one such adequate, effective, and reasonable means.
4) Therefore, I possess the right to defend myself by means of firearms. — Thorongil

Excellent! (And thank you!)This is something to work with! Let's see how it all stands.

1) Granted. Note: I understand rights as being claims against other persons, some persons, sometimes but not necessarily all persons; and sometimes but not necessarily all the time. A natural right I understand as being a claim against all persons all the time. For example, Socrates had a natural right to defend his life, in his case by accepting the offer of friends to escape. According to Plato's Crito, Socrates chose to be governed by notions of civil rights and civil obligations, arguably rights as claims against him by others. That is (in my understanding), there are natural rights and non-natural rights. Among the non-natural rights are civil rights (civil claims against others) and civil obligations (claims by others against you). I accept Socrates's example as proof that natural rights do not trump civil rights and obligations. And any civil servant whose job description includes the possibility of the loss of his or her own life, is understood to have recognized and decided that sometimes natural right yields to civil right and obligation.

2) Granted, with the qualification that as written the meaning is obscure. The words "sometimes" and "required" add considerations that can only confuse our thinking. Would you accept as replacement for 2), 2a): Pursuant to my possession of a natural right to defend my life, I have a derived, secondary right to adequate means to defend my life.

Small point: defend and protect do not mean the same thing. I take this arguement to be about defending one's life.

3) Granted, but again with a qualification. What's lacking is degree. It is a general legal/civil principle that force used in defense should not materially exceed the force used in the attack, else serious legal consequences for the defender. If a belligerent drunk pokes you in the chest, you don't have any right to shoot him. Would you accept as substitute for 3), 3a) Firearms are a reasonable form of defense if they are demonstrably minimal in terms of the force needed to defend against the attack. E.g., no gun against a baseball bat if you can retreat; but a gun is ok against a baseball bat attack if cornered.

4) Nope. Not proved. At best, 4a) I have a derivative and provisional right to the use of a gun for defense of my life if a) I am attacked, and b) the gun is necessary to accomplish that defense.

Do you agree to these changes and the conclusion?

the right of self defense does not concern itself with which instruments are acceptable but with whether the level of force used is acceptable — Benkei

Correct, this is why the second premise in my argument is there. I don't say the right to self-defense gives me the right to bear arms, but that bearing arms is one way to reasonably ensure that one's life is defended. I can exercise my right to self-defense by means of firearms. The defense of my life is put into effect by my employment of firearms to that effect.

4) Nope. Not proved. At best, 4a) I have a derivative and provisional right to the use of a gun for defense of my life if a) I am attacked, and b) the gun is necessary to accomplish that defense.

Do you agree to these changes and the conclusion? — tim wood

Yes. That's was precisely my intent.

4) Nope. Not proved. At best, 4a) I have a derivative and provisional right to the use of a gun for defense of my life if a) I am attacked, and b) the gun is necessary to accomplish that defense.

Do you agree to these changes and the conclusion?
— tim wood

Yes. That's was precisely my intent. — Thorongil

Would you accept/agree with this proposition: If I have to use a gun to defend my life, then I have a right to kill you? That is, a right, not merely that as a consequence of your attack you might get killed.

If I have to use a gun to defend my life, then I have a right to kill you? — tim wood

I disagree.

I might add here that very few cases of defensive gun use involve the firearm being discharged, or if it is, it'sdischarged as a warning shot. In other words, the gun is used to deter a potential crime from taking place. If something like this happens, for example, there is no legitimate appeal to self-defense. The gun owner has committed wrongdoing.

No it isn't. I haven't derived any ludicrous consequence. — Thorongil

It doesn't need to be ludicrous. A slippery slope is when "a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect." Claiming that a ban on semi-automatic rifles "directly entails the abolition all guns" does this.

I wasn't entirely accurate. There were guns like the Girandoni air rifle, made in 1779, that would be rough equivalents to the semi-automatic rifles of today. — Thorongil

In Austria, and as far as I can see only used in Austria at that time.

This gun was used by Lewis and Clark on their expedition, for example.

15 years after the Second Amendment was written.

The first revolver was invented not long after that, which is not technically classified as semi-automatic but does have a high rate of fire. — Thorongil

So also after the Second Amendment was written.

It seems to me that you're really stretching it to suggest that the Second Amendment defends the right to use semi-automatic weapons.

It seems to me that you're really stretching it to suggest that the Second Amendment defends the right to use semi-automatic weapons. — Michael

And for what it's worth, it seems the courts agree that it doesn't.

I disagree.

I might add here that very few cases of defensive gun use involve the firearm being discharged, or if it is, it's used as a warning shot. In other words, the gun is used to deter a potential crime from taking place. If something like this happens, for example, there is no legitimate appeal to self-defense. The gun owner has committed wrongdoing. — Thorongil

Then we agree. But a question arises, along these lines. "Firearms" and "guns" are understood to have at least two meanings. First, that they encompass all guns whatever, and second, that they (the words) reference only machines that share, broadly, certain characteristics, whether of operation and function, purpose - whatever - but not others. And while the words have never quite been univocal in respect of any single characteristic (especially given the history of the development of guns), still, though, the words do in the second sense convey/imply a machine with a level of harm and lethality something short of being inevitably fatal or catastrophically damaging. Implicit in this second sense (I argue) is the likelihood of survival and recovery from a gunshot wound.

AR-15s (not only AR-15s) don't fit the second usage. In brief, these weapons kill, or do horrific damage. As military-style weapons, that's their purpose, to kill outright, or functionally.

We agree (I think) that while in a defense situation where use of a gun is justified, an attacker might get killed, but that in no sense is there implied a right to kill.

In the case of an AR-15, I argue that the use of such a weapon amounts to an implied right to kill. That means that in at least some sense, either it is not (just) a gun, or we are obliged to add qualifications to what "gun" exactly means. In short, that controls as to AR-15-like weapons might well be much more stringent than on, say, shotguns, .22s, or the like.

Would you agree, then, that AR-15s and similar weapons should be subject to controls that take into account their greater firepower and lethality?

No, not necessarily. I agree with Heller that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Protection from government tyranny, both foreign and domestic, may have been one reason for the Amendment, but self-protection was another and in fact underlies the former. — Thorongil

You changed your position. Originally you claimed the right to self defence (self protection above) underlies protection from government tyranny and therefore implies a right to own guns. See, I was reading carefully.

So we are now in agreement that the right to self defence says nothing about the right to keep guns. Thank you for gracefully admitting that point by pretending you never said the opposite.

Claiming that a ban on semi-automatic rifles "directly entails the abolition all guns" does this. — Michael

I have explained how your reason for banning semi-automatic weapons would apply equally as much to handguns, and any gun for that matter, that constituted the most commonly used firearm in a mass shooting. Banning semi-automatic weapons wouldn't be a "small" step either. They comprise most of the guns in circulation.

In Austria, and as far as I can see only used in Austria at that time. — Michael

Your agreement with me concerned the time, not the place.

13 years after the Second Amendment was written. — Michael

But it was developed at the time of the founding. I just gave this as an example to show that it was used by Americans in the manner in which modern semi-automatics are.

It seems to me that you're really stretching it to suggest that the Second Amendment defends the right to use semi-automatic weapons. — Michael

Please notice that this is different from claiming that we should ban semi-automatic weapons because they are most often used in mass shootings. You're on much firmer and more convincing ground by pressing the claim I quote of you above, which seems to be, if you'll allow me to fill it in, that we ought to ban semi-automatic weapons on the grounds that 1) they are more dangerous than their single-shot counterparts and 2) that doing so wouldn't violate the Second Amendment (which you oddly appear to assume the legitimacy of) and the individual right to bear arms that it confers. Is that right?

But I can't go along with this for the follow reason, which you didn't address:

"Regardless, a semi-automatic is clearly a more effective means of self-defense than a single shot weapon. It's also still more reasonable than a bazooka or a tank, being of similar dimensions and portability as single shot rifles and handguns, which means the slippery slope you and Agustino have raised against my position doesn't go through."

It is true that Heller did not rule on whether semi-automatics can be made illegal, but neither did it rule that they can't be legal. If you can successfully show why the reason I have provided above for why they ought to remain legal isn't good enough, then I will side with you and no longer object to a ban on semi-automatic weapons. In other words, you need to show that single-shot weapons can be just as effective as semi-automatic weapons in the majority of cases in which the latter are used defensively.

You changed your position. Originally you claimed the right to self defence (self protection above) underlies protection from government tyranny and therefore implies a right to own guns. See, I was reading carefully. — Benkei

No, I didn't change my position. Here you're using "protection from government tyranny" as the premise that leads to the conclusion "there is a right to bear arms." That isn't the premise I used in the argument I provided you. You're attacking what you interpreted as an argument, but which in fact wasn't.

So we are now in agreement that the right to self defence says nothing about the right to keep guns. Thank you for gracefully admitting that point by pretending you never said the opposite. — Benkei

If this is your way of saying that you agree with this post, then yes, we agree. But the content of that post had already been admitted by me, which leads me to think that, no, you don't read, Benkei, despite your protestations to the contrary. The following exchange occurred on page 29:

tim wood: "But a natural right to a gun for that purpose? That's a different right, and by no means a natural one."

Me: "Right, it's a different right, but grounded in the natural right to self-defense."

If the word "grounded" caused the confusion, then refer to my linked post to understand what I mean by that.

As military-style weapons, that's their purpose, to kill outright, or functionally. — tim wood

You've delineated one purpose, which isn't the only one. As a means of target practice, its purpose is to hit a target. As a hunting rifle, its purpose is to kill game. As a means of self-defense, its purpose is to deter a potential crime (which, as I say, needn't and typically doesn't involve firing a bullet).

Would you agree, then, that AR-15s and similar weapons should be subject to controls that take into account their greater firepower and lethality? — tim wood

Of course.

Your agreement with me concerned the time, not the place. — Thorongil

I took the place for granted. I didn't think you were suggesting that the Second Amendment protected the right of Americans to own weapons that weren't even in use in America at the time.

But it was developed at the time of the founding. I just gave this as an example to show that it was used by Americans in the manner in which modern semi-automatics are.

Developed at the time but used by Americans much later.

I have explained how your reason for banning semi-automatic weapons would apply equally as much to handguns, and any gun for that matter, that constituted the most commonly used firearm in a mass shooting. Banning semi-automatic weapons wouldn't be a "small" step either. They comprise most of the guns in circulation. — Thorongil

The reasoning is that they're more dangerous than handguns (given their power, range, usability, etc.) and so an excessive means of self-defence given the availability of less dangerous but sufficient alternatives. That handguns in certain (fewer?) occasions might allow for killing a greater number of people doesn't deny this. There are likely occasions when a blade would be more efficient (quieter, no ammo limitation), but it's still the case that guns are more dangerous.

that doing so wouldn't violate the Second Amendment (which you oddly appear to assume the legitimacy of) — Thorongil

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Second Amendment is a real amendment of the Constitution and is legally binding, so it's only right of me to accept it. Or do you mean something else by "legitimate"?

You're on much firmer and more convincing ground by pressing the claim I quote of you above, which seems to be, if you'll allow me to fill it in, that we ought to ban semi-automatic weapons on the grounds that 1) they are more dangerous than their single-shot counterparts and 2) that doing so wouldn't violate the Second Amendment (which you oddly appear to assume the legitimacy of) and the individual right to bear arms that it confers. Is that right?

I wasn't trying to argue that we ought to ban them; just that banning them doesn't infringe the right to self defense. Therefore, the right to self defence cannot be used to oppose such an example of gun control.

A little light relief: Apparently President Trump's idea that to solve gun crime all you have to do is arm everybody else is not new. This clip is from the seventies:

In other words, you need to show that single-shot weapons can be just as effective as semi-automatic weapons in the majority of cases in which the latter are used defensively. — Thorongil

The right to self-defence is the right to use reasonable force, not necessarily the right to use the most effective means of force, so I don't see why I would need to do this.

But would you accept the above logic in the case of comparing handguns and rifles? If I can show that handguns can be just as effective as rifles then will you accept a ban on rifles? Because you've already made that case for me.

Would you agree, then, that AR-15s and similar weapons should be subject to controls that take into account their greater firepower and lethality?
— tim wood

Of course. — Thorongil

As a first control, would you agree that such weapons should be numbered at manufacture (likely all guns are), and sales recorded and reported, to the point that the weapon should at all times have an owner (unless reported lost, stolen, or destroyed, evidence of which provided) who would be responsible for it at all times, whether or not in his or her possession. By responsible I mean subject to possibly severe criminal and civil penalties for any use of the gun.

As a second control, would you agree that any owner of such a weapon would only be released from his responsibilities as an owner if he complies with all laws concerning transfer of ownership, and not otherwise.

Third, that prospective owners be required to meet certain criteria to become owners. (This could include age, competency, waiting, training, etc.)

Fourth, that possession or use of such a weapon without being the owner, or being authorized (by the owner), be a crime; and that the owner, depending on the circumstances, also be subject to prosecution.

All of which are included in the requirements and obligations of owning a motor vehicle, at least where I live.