The constitution still allows slavery and taxation. I do not look at it as any standard-bearer of rights, but nonetheless, the bill of rights says “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. We do retain the right of yahoos to keep and bear weapons.

Human nature has already taken its course and I’ve long resigned to my fate as someone’s serf. I can only hope that I pass before it self-immolates.

Since people make rules all the time, and since you’re a person, what rules have you made?

So be it. I suppose the one consolation is that history looks kindly on the just, while those who control us live on in a rogues gallery.

To argue that only those in power get to make rules is absurd. No man is good enough to be another’s master

I would.

Of course I oppose any monopoly on violence. Arms races and the control of resources by that monopoly is occurring right now.

And if all those restrictions disappeared tomorrow would you start driving through red lights and murdering your fellows?

I believe rights are naturally founded, derived from human nature, and not the edicts of those in power. I believe I and others have the right to defend our lives from those in power and those who would otherwise threaten it. Guns in particular are a great equalizer in this regard.

Maybe you can, but I cannot abide by controlling people’s lives and letting them control ours. The ease with which you advocate for it only hardens the heart and closes the mind on the matter.

I believe both, that no one’s rights should be restricted and that innocent people do not deserve to die. So any attempt to ameliorate the situation should be fit for both. You believe only one. So any restriction of the former is justified so long as it serves the latter.

Last I checked I’m a part of society. Restricting my rights does not benefit me. It benefits you personally.

A justice system requires that we punish the guilty and protect the innocent. But you would see them restrict my rights when I have done nothing to deserve it.

The same motives with the categories broadened. A compliant populace and safety from the unvirtuous inheres in both, I’m afraid.

So long as he abides by the rules you’ve set out for him. That you get to set the rules and I don’t only fuels the paranoia, because someone will take the same power, using the same mechanisms, and take them away almost entirely, like a vast majority of the nations in the world. The idea that this will never happen is far more ridiculous than believing it will.

The racist roots of American gun control extends even to today. Like segregated governments and their KKK enforcers, confiscation of weapons is above board, so long as it happens to those whom they deem not virtuous and civilized enough to have them. Meanwhile, they would prefer the right remains in the hands of the elected nobility and their enforces, while the rest of us should twiddle our thumbs when threats appear in our streets and neighborhoods. This kind of furtive boot-licking has somehow gained a moral flavor.

Collective defense and individual defense are one and the same. What you are speaking of is the monopoly on violence, which is hardly collective or individual. This sort of violence is exclusive to someone like you and me.

The pure anarchism of the world government permits that a nation can defend its own borders, but while the government class gets to claim this right and abuse it to all ends, they refuse to extend that right to their own citizens. Why do the chosen nobility and their armies get to defend their borders but a single man cannot? So much for collective defense. This is the defense of state interest and nothing more.

People with guns protect you. Is that so difficult to admit? I guess one can be proud of this privilege and sleep soundly while others defend you while you sleep, but in any case, call Uber Eats and the police and see who reaches you first.

The reason most countries can afford to disarm their populace and claim moral victory is because American weaponry protects them while they sleep. A country like Ukraine, on the other hand, who does not find itself under the umbrella of American protection in any legal sense, has to beg western countries for the weaponry to defend itself. They reversed on their gun control, of course, handing out guns to the public on the eve of war. Now all they need is an ID card in order to get a gun. I guess it’s never too late.

That’s the ironic part about your position and all this huff and bluster about disarming your fellow citizens. You can afford not to be paranoid because other people have guns, because others have the will to defend you wherever you yourself refuse to. Should they ever need your help, though, I have a good idea how helpful you will be.

I agree and would add that it is not just guns but a "gun culture" that promotes the idea that guns are the solution to two major threats, the government and criminals.

Both of whom have guns and other weapons. How would you defend yourself and your family from these threats?

And I cannot abide by the claim that you being able to own a gun is more important than a child being safer from gun violence.

I never made that claim, I'm afraid. But I wager that for anyone who would murder a child, with a gun or otherwise, such an injustice is worth the utilitarian benefit.

I'm only saying that I think Tzeentch was writing about school shootings in particular, if his initial post is any indication. If so, his claims aren't that misleading.

But that the shooter chose a softer target than one of higher security shows that she at least thought twice about it, I think.

I believe he was talking about school shooters in particular.

"Records show 70% of school shootings since 1999 have been carried out by people under 18: report"

https://www.insider.com/seven-ten-us-school-shooters-known-ages-children-under-18-2022-5

I don't think it's likely that someone would start shooting if he knew that everyone else would start shooting back.

I think it far more likely that the collateral damage might become great enough for you to rethink the whole thing. No one would be safe. You cannot protect against a hail of bullets coming from every direction with a gun.

Perhaps. But I doubt if everyone owned a gun people would start shooting each other.

So injustice is beneficial so long as it suits your concerns. I cannot abide by that, myself.

I doubt I could muster enough conceit to find any desire to control your's or anyone else's life.

Then why don’t you put everyone in prison? You’ll eliminate violence entirely.

I think murderers and criminals will think twice about harming others if they know everyone is packing. So I think the world I want to live in is a peaceful one.

That’s why utilitarianism is unjust. You’ll punish people for things they haven’t done.

That is what I am going through right now. After a mass shooting the state moved to restrict more guns. In this country I am no longer able to purchase a handgun, though I already own one. I don’t think any group of men should possess the absolute monopoly on violence; I believe I have a right to defend myself, with weapons if necessary; and am a responsible owner of guns. Yes it’s unjust to punish me and others for crimes none of us committed.

Yes I believe I ought to be able to defend myself with whatever I want.

If someone has the motive and desire to run people over they will do so. If they don’t, they won’t. The same is with guns or any other object that can be used as a weapon.

Is this a quiz? I am entitled to my guns because I own them. I have a basic human right to defend my life, liberty, and property, and owning weapons extends from this right.

It’s unjust because they are mine, I am entitled to them, and I have done nothing to justify taking them away.

Everyone should carry a weapon as soon as they are competent enough to do so, in my opinion.

It’s unjust to ban my weapons if I didn’t shoot anyone or do not intend to.

Why can I not own a firearm if I didn’t shoot anyone or do not intend to?

It’s meant to be faulty. Guns and cars don’t just go out and start killing people. It leaves out the motives and reasons why one would pick up a gun and shoot someone in the first place.

Utilitarian concerns don’t mean much to me wherever we are speaking about basic human rights. Banning cars would be unjust. Banning guns is unjust.

Sure it can. Before that it was car accidents. Maybe we should ban cars.

There should be armed guards at schools in the US, perhaps even teachers, in my opinion. The most recent shooter picked one target over the other due to lack of security.

I thought the shooter was a male. I was wrong. It was indeed a female. So it is uncharacteristic after all.