There's this? — Michael
But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15.
He's talking about the wounds caused, not the ability to kill many persons quickly, which was the criterion we were discussing. — Thorongil
The Orlando shooter killed far more people with a handgun than the Florida shooter with a rifle. — Thorongil
Not in all circumstances, right. — Thorongil
I just gave a list of factors that make handguns preferable — Thorongil
Your position directly entails the abolition of all guns. — Thorongil
I've been trying to get you to drop your pretensions of having proposed any compromise. — Thorongil
I possess the natural right to defend my life. — Thorongil
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
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
That's a slippery slope fallacy. — Michael
You've been trying to argue against Agustino's claim (which I'm defending) that rifles are more dangerous than handguns. — Michael
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
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
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
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
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
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
If I have to use a gun to defend my life, then I have a right to kill you? — tim wood
No it isn't. I haven't derived any ludicrous consequence. — Thorongil
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
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. — Thorongil
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
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
Claiming that a ban on semi-automatic rifles "directly entails the abolition all guns" does this. — Michael
In Austria, and as far as I can see only used in Austria at that time. — Michael
13 years after the Second Amendment was written. — Michael
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
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
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
As military-style weapons, that's their purpose, to kill outright, or functionally. — tim wood
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
Your agreement with me concerned the time, not the place. — Thorongil
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.
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
that doing so wouldn't violate the Second Amendment (which you oddly appear to assume the legitimacy of) — Thorongil
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?
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
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
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.