Your ilk, smug left wingers who substitute sarcasm for reasoned debate, outnumbers everyone else by a large margin on this forum. You are typically blind to what is most evident. — Thorongil

Real mature and devoid of an argument again.

Well, I can only lead a donkey to water I can't make him drink.

I read a lot of weaseling and half an argument in most of your posts. Your position is different than Heller's as stated in later posts, so you did change your position. Whether it is contradictory or not is neither here nor there with respect to the original position that you agreed with Heller. As I've argued Heller gets this particular point wrong as did you, which you've only later admitted by pretending you never said it.

In this case, don't troll.

EDIT: errr... that was honest advice not accusing you of trolling.

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. — Thorongil

Ok, so you don't understand the Heller case which you said you agreed with? Heller invokes the right to bear arms as necessary in order to exercise the right to self-defense. From there, because the right of self-defence is a natural right, the bearing of arms is a natural right. So you disagree with Heller now?

To me the question whether something is a democracy or not or to what extent is the wrong question. Democracy in and off itself is not and should not be the goal; it's about a just and fair society. The political system should produce fair and just results, which can very much mean that, for instance, Singapore is a better society than the Netherlands.

The form, shape and size of government is arbitrary and as such we are free to mould it in any way we see fit. This is the power people have. That even the most repressive government depends on the acceptance or acquiescence of its constituency. Given the arbitrary nature of government, it should then be judged, not by the principles on which it is based, but on the consequences and social facts it creates.

Put differently, democratic principles are useless if they do not affect or sustain a just and fair society.

I think most Western democracies are morally bankrupt in that the economy has become a goal in itself instead of a means for a society to flourish and as a result money has become power (even more than it used to be).

I'm glad it got deleted for the trolling it was, notwithstanding the patient efforts of sane posters.

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.

That doesn't really answer my question but tells me about laws in your country.

Let's say you're 15, driving your bicycle down the road and you don't give right of way for a bugatti veyron causing 120.000 euros in repairs and paint job because you didn't see it coming. You don't have insurance, your parents aren't held liable : is it fair and equitable to have to pay (everything)?

Edit : to emphasise, I'm not asking about what the result would be in your law system, I'm asking about your personal, ethical position.

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.

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.

Is it a good rule to have debt hanging over children aged 15-18 for stupid mistakes?

You mustn't forget that even if these children are uninsured, the likelihood the person that suffered damages is insured against those damages himself in the Netherlands is huge. Every injury is covered by universal healthcare insurance, damages to cars are covered in instances where they were caused by others, etc. etc. We do like our insurances here. So the insurance company is generally left holding the bag since they cannot recoup the payment they made.

In fact, here's another nice one: if there's an accident between a car and biker, the car always has to pay for the damages because they have mandatory insurance even if it was the fault of the biker. Again, the insurance company is left holding the bag on that one too.

I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from. Aristotle talks mostly about what is now called "procedural" justice (Aristotle's "rectification"), not "distributive" justice in the modern "social justice" sense.

His use of "distribution" is mostly in the abstract, and only pertains to actual distribution (such as would be engaged in by a modern state) in a few cases (distribution of honors by the state, distribution of property held in common, e.g. by a partnership). — gurugeorge

Always funny to be told I'm talking nonsense by someone who's only just started googling on Aristotle's Ethics and doesn't know how that connects to his Politics. I said you should start with Ethics. You shouldn't stop there. The above is incomplete at best and you're again confusing social justice activism with the philosophical concept. Aristotle distinguishes between distributive (dianemetikos), rectificatory (diorthontikos) and reciprocal (antipeponthos) justice.

His distributive justice is about people getting their fair share; e.g. unequal shares for equal people and equal shares for unequal people are unjust. In other words, it's justice as equality. This goes well beyond reducing this to mere partnerships if only because a lot of enterprises (mining, grain trade) were communal back then.

But it extends into the political as well. From his Politics: justice to Aristotole is proportional and communally relative to the political status/merit of indviduals along the lines of the predominant culture and its institutions. Injustice violates this proportionality. Aristotle likens this form of justice to the manner of redistribution of the common funds found in an economic partnership.

The second form of justice, rectificatory/corrective justice concerns itself with equality as well, including redistribution resulting from injustice.

The third form of justice, reciprocal justice is about the natural fairness within economic exchange. This is where it gets really interesting as in his view both grace and friendship ought to be the ethical norms that ought to institutionalise economic exchange. Exchange is not to be based on market prices, profit, supply and demand, desires or utility. No, economics is simply a means to maintain the all-important solidarity for its common objective in its pursuit of happiness/flourishing.

In any case, whatever your views on what Aristotle meant exactly, we are firmly on the grounds of philosophical social justice, which illustrates that your original comment was nothing more than a silly emotional outburst.

Thanks for fixing that.

Ok, great, so now you're going to pretend you're clueless? Just because a term hasn't been used before, doesn't mean people didn't talk about it before the term was coined. We don't have a problem with describing Plato as an idealist (although up for debate; see Platonic realism). The word "idealist" didn't enter the English language until the 18th century.

Aristotle did talk about social justice and Aristotlean social justice was "the proper and proportionate distribution of common assets". Nothing oxymoronic or orwellian about it.

Take it up with Aristotle. Before you do so, I propose you read it first before jumping the gun with useless one-liners.

Well-poisoning, ad hominem twaddle. — gurugeorge

Know your fallacies; stating a book is clearly racist isn't an ad hominem or poisoning the well. If you would make a racist comment and I'd say "that's a racist comment" I'm not making an ad hominem attack or poisoning the well. In fact, the implied argument is still not a fallacy:

1. Racist people make racist comments and write racist books.
2. Charles Murray wrote a racist book.
3. Therefore, Charles Murray is a racist.

That's an entirely valid argument.

Now, an ad hominem looks like this:

1. Charles Murray argues that IQ score data shows that blacks have lower IQs.
2. He would say that because he's a racist.
3. Therefore IQ score data doesn't show that blacks have lower IQs.

Can you spot the differences?

On an entirely unrelated note (again), the Dutch laws don't care for the rationality of the child. Up to and including 13 years of age and with respect to civil law, parents are liable for everything a child does but not any failure to act on behalf of a child.

At ages 14 and 15, parents would be liable unless they can prove they met their duty of care. In that case, only the child would be independently liable but a judge's ability to mitigate damages would probably prevent awarding (the entirety) of damages. A child can now be liable for a failure to act as well.

From ages 16 and up, a child is liable on his own unless the parents failed to act or acted in such a way that was tortious as well. Again, mitigation probably prevents award of all damages where only the child would be held liable.

Finally, most everyone in the Netherlands has a liability insurance policy. If someone is insured for a certain act or failure to act, mitigation isn't possible. So on the basis of uninsured circumstances a person suffering damages caused by a child might have a problem recouping his losses but in reality this is mostly taken care of through insurance.

If we're going to count like that, I'd pretty much be a dictator. I'm all for it.

Guns exist today and they didn't in the past. I fail to see how this fact disables the right to own and carry them for self-defense. The natural right to self-defense wasn't invented by the Romans. It applies to human beings as such. A hunter gatherer who defends himself with a sharp rock against someone or something threatening his life is as justified in doing as the Roman who defends himself with a steel Gladius and the modern individual who defends himself with a gun. — Thorongil

Non sequitur.

You argued that self-defence is an argument for the right to have guns and this is simply false. I said, all the right to self-defence says is that it allows you to answer force with force. You cannot derive any right to hold any type of weapon from this principle and definitely not merely due to the existence of a weapon, which you seem to argue above except I need to extricate it myself as I don't really see any argument just an attempt to deflect from your silly comment before. If we accept your line of thinking then stopping at guns would be entirely arbitrary and we might as well include grenades and anti-personnel mines as those exist too.

The only thing we can conclude from the right of self-defence in relation to guns is that if they are legal to have it is probably acceptable to use them in self-defence, provided the force used isn't excessive.

Your comment about the Romans not inventing self-defense is not what I said, in any case irrelevant and incorrectly assumes the existence of natural rights.

Your suggestion that guns are necessary for any definition of force is silly beyond belief and demonstrates your apparent ideological investment in a certain outcome instead of rational deliberation. Self-defense is a Roman legal doctrine from the 6th century. Vim vi repellere licet. How many guns did they have back then? :rofl:

I asked a question. I agree that there are restrictions on the means of self-defense, but I don't think that extends to banning all guns. Why do you think it does, if indeed you think that? — Thorongil

I answered this several posts before. Self-defence merely says you may answer force with force and it won't be unlawful (within reasonable bounds). That principle says zero about gun rights.

Social justice is not a thing, it's pretty much an oxymoronic concept that means "injustice." Any analysis that uses the concept instantly marks itself as being of little account. — gurugeorge

Book 5 of Aristotles Ethics. Start there. Social justice is a subspecies of justice, e.g. the proper and proportionate distribution of common assets. Reasonable people can disagree on what people should be due because they hold different values but to think social justice means injustice and is oxymoronic doesn't make sense in light of the history of political philosophy.

The rest of your post confuses activism with the philosophical idea of social justice.

Educate yourself.

History of positive and negative liberty.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

On inequality:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

Anyway, you have not addressed Peterson's point regarding 'taking responsibility' (or 'growing up'). Which means, that if you have any moral responsibility at all, it is to improve yourself (whatever that may mean) and take charge of your own life and its direct surroundings -- hence his remark of 'cleaning thy room'. It is basically Aristotelian Viritue ethics in modern clothes. If you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. Reflect on your own characteristics. — Youseeff

I was quite clear I don't know Peterson's position. It just reminded me of an earlier article I wrote that I thought to share.

Finally, I haven't seen any argument from you what is incoherent about my post except the exclamation that it is. So before accusing me of that, maybe you should "clean your own post".

Thank you for your comments BC. I agree that the risk you highlight is very real. In a clear historic perspective and clarifying the personal effects I think support can be garnered up to a point. The whole enterprise also assumes a certain level of financial well-being and stability of a society at large before they can even attempt to right past wrongs, not because they must (legal enforcement) but because they want to (responsibility).

For example, the expropriation of Dutch bonds owned by Jews in WWII are still resolved by the Dutch State even though the statutory limitation for such a claim would be 5 years. We are now nearing the 75 year mark. That expropriation was performed by the Germans and nazi-symphatizers but now resolved by Dutch society at large as a matter of standing policy in the absence of a legal obligation to do so. I actually argued for a change of the policy as we had transferred a sum to a Jewish foundation that paid out on moral claims, which equalled the maximum amount that could've been attributed to expropriation. Unfortunately, due to bad recording of the grounds of that payment, it was very hard to prove this was the reason. At the same time it is currently still political suicide to repeal the policy.

You could and then be confronted with the fact you have to pay taxes and don't get to vote for quite some time.

Taxation without representation likely won't end well. — Sydasis

I've never understood this as to apply to current day situations in what appear to be Western societies (the thrust of this thread). In the context of when it was first voiced an entire group of people (US colonists) were taxed but could not elect members of parliament. It also opens up the spectre of an argument that those who pay more ought to have a bigger say or those who can't shouldn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/22/trump-proposal-teachers-guns-schools

Just. Wow.

But you also assume prudence on the part of criminals. We are also a country of serial killers over here. Some of them will eat your privates. (That's meant to be funny, but it's true.) — foo

Totally. We're not immune unfortunately. It does assume prudence on the majority of criminals. It comes down to statistics and the relevant issues seem to be:

1. how many people want to get guns even though they're prohibited?
2. how many of those are prepared to use them against other people for other reasons than self-defense?
3. how easy is it to get a gun illegally?

I have a lot of trust that no. 1 as a percentage of the total population is quite low and that 2.as a percentage of 1. is even lower. I suspect most US gun owners are not prepared to use guns against others. 3. is the backstop for where 1 and 2 fail.

The idea is that 1, 2 and 3 taken together leads to a lower risk than:

1. how many people get guns if they're legal?
2. how many of those are prepared to use them against other people?
3. how easy is to get a gun?

So 2 is the same in both instances. 3 suggests that any type of gun control lowers risk. 1 suggests a downright prohibition has the largest effect.

And I'm really not sure what's best politically, and I don't mind being not sure. I do have a instinctive distrust of those who are very sure. At what cost that certainty? How homogenized is their social circle? How accurate is their sense of the kinds of people involved? For me a theoretical and imperfect neutrality is a way to stay out of red bubbles and blue bubbles where everyone sings the one true song about the bad people on the other side. — foo

Isn't this informed by the assumption that all political debate is ideologically motivated or decided along partisan lines? How would that apply to Banno (Australian) or me (Dutch)? Even so, it doesn't have any bearing on whatever argument would be forwarded by either side or facts that can be checked.

Finally, at what cost is uncertainty where it concerns gun control?

On the other hand, I like knowing that I have some way of protecting my little family against an extreme situation. The anti-gun argument tends to ignore that criminals aren't going to obey gun laws. — foo

I think, coming from a European country, this fear is probably exaggerated. Currently, most every criminal is carrying a gun because it's legal. If it weren't legal, most criminals aren't murderers that need guns and rather not serve extra time for gun possession or be labeled a criminal merely for gun possession. Most burglars, street dealers, hustlers etc. will give up their guns as a result.

In the Netherlands it's mostly organised crime where it's certain individuals' business is to kill others. They have guns and chances of you meeting them are slim as the more professional ones tend to wait until the victim is alone, if only to limit witnesses.

In summary, most criminals would obey gun laws.

I happen to fear criminals more than the state, and I don't especially fear violent crime (I'm more likely to be smashed by some texting teenager's Toyota). Nevertheless, the idea of being threatened in my own home without recourse is sufficiently odious to me that I'd miss my 'nuclear option' if it were no longer there. — foo

I can understand this sentiment. Breaking in and entry is a high impact crime that has a lot of emotional effect on the victims. On the other hand, I doubt they are often committed with the intent to commit violence - usually it's cash, phones, computers and TVs. The insurance covers those. Why even risk killing someone? I would hope killing someone is still more traumatic than being robbed and should be avoided.

The argument from self defense is false. That merely states you are allowed to repel force with force. It has exactly zero to say about gun ownership. If a society allows guns, then guns can be used in self defense.

I haven't, I made an actual argument before.

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

It's pretty selective to agree with Heller in light of the history of supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It was pretty much stare decisis before Heller. Miller had been challenged 4 times before Heller overturned it and the interpretation had been reaffirmed by lower courts for decades until Heller. The Heller interpretation is not a very good one and definitely not unassailable.

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” — Karl Frederick, the President of the Freaking NRA, 1939

(lifted from cracked.com)

Indeed, it seems to me that from the language of the amendment, we could fairly judge it silent as to individual gun ownership. — tim wood

Well, to be honest if I read USA vs. Miller, the language of the 1st amendment and the dissenting opinion of Columbia vs. Heller I have to agree with this.

The first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's an unqualified prohibition on Congress to not pass certain laws. The idea that the 2nd amendment is also unqualified because the first part is merely a prefatory clause doesn't seem to be a natural interpretation of the amendments taken together. So basically I disagree with the decision in the Heller case but at the same time it's pretty clear what the Supreme Court will rule in its current make-up and that's a continuation of Heller.

So you might be right but you're not going to win that case.

ah... I thought an ar-15 is a fully automatic. Goes to show how much I know about guns. What's the difference exactly between fully and semi - automatic? Let's prohibit bump stocks too. By themselves they aren't even guns so that should be quite straightforward.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. — Supreme Court - Columbia vs. Heller

Based on the interpretation by the Supreme Court, let's get on with actual laws:

1. prohibition on concealed weapons;
2. felony and mental health checks, no sale on a positive;
3. registration of gun owners;
4. qualification - a gun test like a driver's license, failed? you don't get a gun;
5. a limit to the number of guns one person can own;
6. prohibition to carry guns in public places;
7. prohibition on dangerous guns to include fully automatic rifles.

Of these only number 5 is contentious based on the Supreme Court ruling. 7 would probably raise a discussion whether they're "dangerous" or not but I'd say the proof is in the pudding for that one. The rest appear constitutional. At the very least, politicians could get started with that.

But not all groups are capable to determine what is best for themselves. — Agustino

In particular social conservatists like you. Let's take away your ability to vote just to make you safe.

There are nations with strict gun laws that have a higher rate of gun violence than nations without. There are also nations with strict gun laws that have a lower rate of gun violence than nations without.

Logically, it can't be the control of guns that influences the rate of deaths by gun violence. That is what seems obvious to me, yet Banno seems to think it is okay to berate others for not noticing the "facts". — Harry Hindu

Research has been shared in this thread that an increase of 1% in guns results in an increase of .9% in gun related deaths. The number of guns has a clear effect. So I'm not sure which logic you're using or which facts.

You cite the NPR article where the researcher at IHME clearly states

If you compare us [the USA] to other well-off countries, we really stand out. — Ali Mokdad

but conclude the opposite. That's a bit weird when you don't get into why the context he provided is irrelevant. Why do you think a comparison between Iraq (for instance) and the USA is a sensible one?