.

[Z_Berenice]

I think it might be legitimate to disable the thief in this case. Not sure if the law would consider that self-defense, but I might.

@Range: If you're a non-violent person, then why do you want people to initiate force against people who purchase guns? Voluntary cooperation is peace. The defining characteristic of government is aggression.

In here you can shoot a fleeing thief, but it's either that or checking the person who just got robbed. Personally, I would just disable the thief, but I have no idea on the condition of whoever got robbed, so I would go with the later. Pulling a gun on someone's face is a go for full lethal anywhere.

[Omar]

Yeah, if I was Range and I had a gun I would have shot, provided it's safe for me and for innocents.

[Range_This11]

he was obviously raised on a different enviorement than mine, hell, it would be extremely idiotic of him to play the hero if he doesn't have a gun, or what's worse, if he had one but didn't know what to do if the robber turned back on him, as he said.

Actually, I was raised in a rural Wisconsin farm town where everyone has guns. I've been around guns my entire life. I also live in a city now that has a very high crime rate and I deliver food to all sorts of people.

 

The point I always make here is that it is not my right to take another human being's life, no matter how they have wronged me. It is also, I believe, no one's right to take another human life. I believe taking a human life is a lot easier and impersonal with a gun, and allows for those who may not be physically stronger than others to be equalized in the life-taking business.

[Z_Berenice]

he was obviously raised on a different enviorement than mine, hell, it would be extremely idiotic of him to play the hero if he doesn't have a gun, or what's worse, if he had one but didn't know what to do if the robber turned back on him, as he said.

Actually, I was raised in a rural Wisconsin farm town where everyone has guns. I've been around guns my entire life. I also live in a city now that has a very high crime rate and I deliver food to all sorts of people.

 

The point I always make here is that it is not my right to take another human being's life, no matter how they have wronged me. It is also, I believe, no one's right to take another human life. I believe taking a human life is a lot easier and impersonal with a gun, and allows for those who may not be physically stronger than others to be equalized in the life-taking business.

Aaaah, gotcha, gave me the wrong impression lol. That's alright and very noble actually. My family teached us all to shoot when we were very young, but they never told us "you must have a gun because -insert reason here-", my older sister is probably the best shooter out of all of us, but she decided to don't have guns. So in the end is a personal decition and whatever you choose must be respected, the thing is that you're free to choose yes or no, and not: no because my goverment doesn't allow it.

[Range_This11]

I think it might be legitimate to disable the thief in this case. Not sure if the law would consider that self-defense, but I might.

@Range: If you're a non-violent person, then why do you want people to initiate force against people who purchase guns? Voluntary cooperation is peace. The defining characteristic of government is aggression.

I would not be so fast and loose with the term "aggression" as it applies to the government. The government is a representation of the will of the people, after all.

[Ember]

.

[Range_This11]

The point I always make here is that it is not my right to take another human being's life, no matter how they have wronged me. It is also, I believe, no one's right to take another human life. I believe taking a human life is a lot easier and impersonal with a gun, and allows for those who may not be physically stronger than others to be equalized in the life-taking business.

I don't see the application of lethal force, if necessary in self-defense, as taking a life. Rather, the attacker forfeit his life in initiating a confrontation, and the defender is acting to preserve his.

 

Sure, firearms put the weak, the elderly, the small, and the invalid on better footing against a physically-superior assailant. How can we base a suggestion to restrict or prohibit the carry of firearms on this?

No it's not an argument for gun control, it was just a statement. And I agree with it. As I said earlier, I don't believe it is within anyone's rights to take another human being's life. I think we just disagree.

 

I think it might be legitimate to disable the thief in this case. Not sure if the law would consider that self-defense, but I might.

@Range: If you're a non-violent person, then why do you want people to initiate force against people who purchase guns? Voluntary cooperation is peace. The defining characteristic of government is aggression.

I would not be so fast and loose with the term "aggression" as it applies to the government. The government is a representation of the will of the people, after all.

Certainly not the will of all people, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You know as well as I do that 100% agreement is impossible. On every single issue, whether it is trivial (what color to paint the lines on the freeway) or constitutional (guns, discrimination, etc.), there are going to be naysayers. Let's not go down that road. The government is a representation of the will of the people. I didn't say "the government is a representation of all people." The "will of the people" implies that those who are motivated or compelled to vote in a certain way will have the power.

[Omar]

I think it might be legitimate to disable the thief in this case. Not sure if the law would consider that self-defense, but I might.

@Range: If you're a non-violent person, then why do you want people to initiate force against people who purchase guns? Voluntary cooperation is peace. The defining characteristic of government is aggression.

I would not be so fast and loose with the term "aggression" as it applies to the government. The government is a representation of the will of the people, after all.

No, like, literally, anything that is called government has to initiate force (threaten to jail, expropriate, or kill you) in order to qualify. The state is a monopoly on the use of force. This is true for a democracy as well.

 

When people talk about the will of the people, they allude to Rousseau's Social Contract, but they never realize that Rousseau was talking about the intersection of the wills of all people. Democracy doesn't pass that test; it's actually tyranny of the majority. If I go to your house with a bunch of my friends, say it's a democracy, and that we can expropriate you because we had a vote about it, the only real difference is the scale of aggression. Under Rousseau's definition, people willingly give up their rights, because they have a good incentive to--namely the set of rules that replaces their rights is superior by their judgement as well as everyone's, since it's the intersection of all wills. This is the reason why (or maybe the causation is reversed) voluntaryists stand by the non-aggression principle. Retaliation is fair game though, in proportion. In any case, government is aggression; either you call yourself non-violent because you believe in non-violence, or you call yourself a consequentialist because 100% agreement will never happen (it does all the time--I don't vote on the price of computers for example) and you don't believe in rights (since rights are universal moral rules).

 

Finally, you claim it's never right to take a human life, no matter what the crime.

a) if someone threatens to shoot you and you can kill them to save yourself, is it wrong?

b) why is it wrong to take a human life?

c) if someone ignores someone else's right, do they still have that right?

d) what are rights, where do they come from?

[Ember]

.

[Range_This11]

I said earlier that we shouldn't go down this road. You and I have read Rousseau, Locke, Kant, and a lot of other philosophers. People have been debating this for hundreds of years without a definite answer. I doubt we can come to any sort of revelation in a TIF discussion. The bottom line is that some people will be (or feel) oppressed no matter what type of government is in place. Oppression is inevitable. I stand by my non-violent principles. I'm not about to provide a 2-3 page analytical response to your essay prompts, Omar. I did that for four years during my undergraduate. :P Rights, government, society, morals--they're all just made up things anyways. It is people that give them worth and meaning. When the majority of people want something, eventually it will happen, and any social construct standing in their way will fall.

[Omar]

Well if you're just going to be a cynic about it, why are you debating here at all? You know every problem on this topic boils down to this.

[Range_This11]

I'm being a cynic so this debate doesn't derail the topic and so I can go drink beers with my friends in Minneapolis tonight. Also, because if I were to subscribe to a school of philosophy, which I don't, I would be and Existentialist and they are, or have been labeled as, cynics :)

[Omar]

If you don't want to argue, that's alright, but I don't think it's really derailing. We're discussing moral philosophy as it applies to gun control, not moral philosophy without applications.

[Z_Berenice]

Are you guys done with semantics? :lol: (for the love of God if someone replies to this I swear....)

 

Anyways, I think the problem with guns in the U.S. is mostly media based. Whenever someone brings up stadistics they are extremely rigged and don't really show anything, for example, when they use wholes, but then someone shows the real % and they realize the danger the media implies is ridiculously low... I remember this debate of pro-gun vs anti-gun, where the pro-gunners (well, it was only one guy against 15-20) showed up stadistics of pool deaths compared to gun deaths, turns out more kids died due to pool-related accidents than gun-related accidents, gotta admit that I laughed when the guy also countered with "you don't need a pool..."; my point is, people can always manipulate an incident to blame the tool while they turn the perpetrator into some sort of anti-hero (and then they wonder why more of these idiots keep showing up).

 

I've said this every single time a shooting happens anywhere in the world: You DO NOT bring up your point of view when a shooting happens, wether you are anti-gun, pro-gun, or the guy in-between, you don't put the picture of the shooter in the headlines, you don't dedicate a 12 hours media coverage about the story of the shooter, you do not post people's reaction in and out of the area where the incident happened, no... You stay shut and mourn the victims or in the very least show some respect. It really pissed me off how certain people took the chance to actually post their point of view via social media literally just hours after the shooting happened, I have no words to describe how disrespectful that behaviour is... The thing with U.S. media is that they tend to exalt and glorify whatever happens within U.S. soil, yet far more people are killed in, say, the drug war in Mexico every single day (on a country that already banned gun ownership) but you never hear about it... You can't change an untimately violent society, but you can at least reduce the number of [bleep]ed up people actualling doing things like this, by not glorifying the freaking shooter and what he did...

 

How many of you remember Timothy Mcveigh? It is kind of ironic how the most tragic domestic massacre that happened in U.S. soil, was done by someone who didn't even used guns... Let's say that somehow guns are banned and no civilan got one, it will be a matter of time before that already [bleep]ed up psychopath thinks "hey, I can kill as many people if I just run them over with my big ass hummer filled with barrels of gas that I plan to ignite since I'm going to die anyway....", just to say something out of the top of my head...

[Kaphias]

How many of you remember Timothy Mcveigh? It is kind of ironic how the most traggic domestic massacre that happened in U.S. soil, was done by someone who didn't even used guns...

I'd tend to look more at something like this if you're looking for a tragic domestic massacre on United States soil.

[Z_Berenice]

How many of you remember Timothy Mcveigh? It is kind of ironic how the most traggic domestic massacre that happened in U.S. soil, was done by someone who didn't even used guns...

I'd tend to look more at something like this if you're looking for a tragic domestic massacre on United States soil.

How is this related to a domestic terrorist? Here: http://en.wikipedia....Timothy_McVeigh

 

Edit: I guess it's my bad for not clarifying myself. I mean people that one day think "hey, I'm gonna go kill a bunch of people because....".

[Estonian dude]

And, as others have noted, US has no real federal laws about gun control like Panama has. I somewhat agree with your principles, Berenice, but in the US the problem is that obtaining a gun is way too easy.

[Z_Berenice]

And, as others have noted, US has no real federal laws about gun control like Panama has. I somewhat agree with your principles, Berenice, but in the US the problem is that obtaining a gun is way too easy.

The problem is not just how easy they are to obtain, the problem is that when someone tries to apply a method similar to what we do in Panama (which btw, most if not all gun owners in the U.S. agree with), they also start labeling guns, presenting prohibitions, magazine capacity, you name it... Like that old saying "give them the hand, they take the whole arm".

[Kaphias]

How many of you remember Timothy Mcveigh? It is kind of ironic how the most traggic domestic massacre that happened in U.S. soil, was done by someone who didn't even used guns...

I'd tend to look more at something like this if you're looking for a tragic domestic massacre on United States soil.

How is this related to a domestic terrorist? Here: http://en.wikipedia....Timothy_McVeigh

 

Edit: I guess it's my bad for not clarifying myself. I mean people that one day think "hey, I'm gonna go kill a bunch of people because....".

Yes, you never mentioned terrorist. Even then, I don't believe McVeigh was someone who, as you said, one day thought "hey, I'm gonna go kill a bunch of people because....". I'm pretty sure he was a planner, as were the shooters in most of the recent events in the U.S. (see: Adam Lanza, James Holmes). While these types of people are, of course, worrying, I don't think there's much we can do about them. They're too smart to leave trails, and whatever mental issues they may have are generally not serious enough to show up on a general screening. Gun regulations won't stop them. The incidents that concern me most are the impulse shootings, ones that I think could have been stopped if the person simply didn't have a gun. This may be the most relevant, recent example of such a case. I don't believe these people have any mental issues, but they got caught on a bad day, frustrated, maybe drunk, and armed with a gun. The gun is a weapon that makes it so easy to kill someone, just pull it out and shoot. And especially in younger generations influenced by video games, the action of shooting a gun at someone (virtual or not) comes so close to being a reflex, especially when under any conditions that affect judgement. Frankly I'd prefer to be confronted by an angry drunk with a big knife... they're a little easier to run from than a bullet.

 

Not sure how clear any of that is, it's the first time I've written my thoughts on the matter out.

[Z_Berenice]

I'm pretty sure he was a planner, as were the shooters in most of the recent events in the U.S. (see: Adam Lanza, James Holmes). While these types of people are, of course, worrying, I don't think there's much we can do about them.

Now we're on the same page. If you're considering the idea of planning a shooting or killing a bunch of people, you're not a sane person to start with... Reason we have no shootings in Panama is because you actually have to pass a psychiatric test before getting a gun, and even the slightest doubt is enough to forbid you from getting one. My mother for example, is bipolar so she can't have one, nevertheless, she lives with my father who has quite a collection: not a single accident in over 30 years of being married, of course, she doesn't know the comb for the lock and doesn't know where the key of the other safe is. I guess it also depends on the idiosyncrasy of the country to some extent.

[Kaphias]

I'm pretty sure he was a planner, as were the shooters in most of the recent events in the U.S. (see: Adam Lanza, James Holmes). While these types of people are, of course, worrying, I don't think there's much we can do about them.

Now we're on the same page. If you're considering the idea of planning a shooting or killing a bunch of people, you're not a sane person to start with... Reason we have no shootings in Panama is because you actually have to pass a psychiatric test before getting a gun, and even the slightest doubt is enough to forbid you from getting one.

Psychiatric tests would be a good start, sure. But lets look at Lanza and Holmes again- even if Lanza was banned from possessing guns, he still had access to them. The root cause of that incident was the lax gun culture that we have in the United States, where some people seem to have no concept of how dangerous guns are... in this case, his mother. As far as Holmes, I believe he was just too smart- there's not much you can do about people like him.

[sees_all1]

I subscribe to the view that the Founding Fathers had; when the state becomes tyrannical it's the people's responsibility to overthrow it and replace it with a new one, and the Second Amendment was the means with which the people had teeth.

 

I also believe that it's delusional to think that any and every time you might be in trouble that the police will always be there to help. Even in America, there are periods of anarchy where unarmed law abiding citizens are in danger of losing everything, and the only help available is what they can provide themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_LA_riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Cincinnati_Riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_katrina#Looting_and_violence

 

It's also understandable to think that eventually the state will be overthrown, either from forces inside or outside the country. In that instance, the people prepared with guns will be in the best place to secure their rights, and those without guns will be at the mercy of others.

[nine naked men]

But how would the people manage to overthrow the government if it's gotten to the point that it needed to be overthrown? I think that's the most delusional part.

 

And I dunno it looks like solving your police departments' issues with black people would do a lot more to preventing those periods of anarchy instead of simply arming everyone.

 

The third part also sounds pretty delusional, but okay I guess.

[obfuscator]

But how would the people manage to overthrow the government if it's gotten to the point that it needed to be overthrown? I think that's the most delusional part.

 

How is this delusional? People overthrow governments with some frequency (throughout history). It's never easy, but it's quite possible.

[sees_all1]

And I dunno it looks like solving your police departments' issues with black people would do a lot more to preventing those periods of anarchy instead of simply arming everyone.

To be honest, those were easy to remember examples of long periods (more than 3 days) of rioting or lawlessness. Riots are also semi-frequent around major sporting events. See Hockey in Canada, Basketball in America, Football or Rugby in the rest of the world.