I think you know what you’re being told.
Belief in a specific God, or even the concept of God is not necessary to believe in natural law or human rights.
Are you making an argument that self defense is not a human right? If that’s what you’re saying, please just say it and defend your assertion.
What kind of a question is that? Of course you have just as much of a right to self defense as I do.
Let’s go slower. Do I have a God-given right to prevent you from being able to kill me? Does society have a God-given right to prevent threats from you and the likes of you? Or does God require me to have a gun too, in order to be able to protect my life from you after you’ve already violated my liberty and pursuit of happiness?
You are working from a basic assumption that you’re the Good Guy by definition. That assumption is not shared, and is not consistent with the evidence.
That question does not make any sense. Nearly any human past the age of 8 or 9 is able to kill any other human if they are evil and cunning enough. You can’t prevent human nature or prevent human ability without opening up a massive can of philosophical worms. But, you absolutely do have a right to prevent the act of someone killing you.
“The likes of me” also includes you, since we are both human individuals; and the answer is yes.
I don’t believe in requiring anyone to have a gun. You should be free to do whatever you think is most prudent and reasonable to protect yourself, your family, and your property from whatever threats you deem likely.
American society presumes that everyone is a “good guy”. That’s why the 4th Amendment exists and is why our legal system is based on presumption of innocence. Are you advocating abolishing the 4th amendment and altering our judicial system?
Let’s go even slower, then: Do I have a God-given right to prevent you from possessing the means to kill me?
Since you just acknowledged the futility of changing human nature, which includes a willingness to attempt that act, do my God-given rights extend to preventing you from having the *means *to succeed?
I’m asking you where you think God draws the line, between preventing you from doing it and making it my responsibility to defend against you once you do it anyway.
I said that in a moral sense, not a legal one. They’re not the same. Your presumption is that you are a Good Guy, who would *never *be a threat to anyone but a Bad Guy (however God sees that) despite collecting the means to do so, and further that God is on your side. That presumption is not supported.
Clearly not, since that would require a massive violation of my rights including removing my brain and my hands and not allowing me access to anything sharp or potentially toxic.
Again, clearly not since that would be a massive violation of my rights.
You would abdicate the responsibility to defend yourself if your life were threatened?
Why isn’t that presumption supported? I have never physically harmed anyone and I don’t intend to.
Would you prefer to live in a society where the state presumes every individual to be an aspiring killer who would definitely kill if only they were provided the means to do so?
Let’s take Eng/wales and Australia as they have good numbers that we can use, with Australia being the current favorite with the restrict guns fans.
England started restricting gun starting with the firearms act of 1968, amended the act in 1988 and again in 1997, so let’s look at the murder rate.
In the 1950’s the murder rate varied from .58 to .91
In the 1960’s .68 to 1.65 (the murder rate 1966 to 1969 was between 1.35 to 1.65 if you exclude those years the pre-restriction rate 1960 – 1965 was between .68 to 1.12)
In the 1970’s .69 to 1.10
In the 1980’s .97 to 1.12
In the 1990’s 1.09 to 1.45
in the 2000’s UK 1.26 to 2.1
2010’s England wales .72 to 1.22
From that we can see a slight trend upward which continued after the new gun laws were passed. Of course, if you look at the data from 2000 onward, you’ll see a downward trend. But since the restriction of guns started in the 1960’s it’s fair to look at the murder rate starting before the restrictions took place.
Australia murder rate
1976-1979 1.8 to 2.0
1980’s 1.9 to 2.4
1990’s 1.52 to 2.2 (1990 to 1996 1.7 to 2.0, 1996 to 1999 1.52 to 1.81)
2000’s 1.34 to 1.89
With the downward trend continuing to today with a murder rate of about 1.0
Australia was already on a downward trend before the ban and it continued on that trend (yes I know there was a blip upward right after the ban, but the rate quickly fell back into the trend)
You’ll notice that Switzerland allows the free purchase of semi-automatic firearms (with concealed carrying permits being issued sparingly) and a gun ownership rate of 27.6 guns per 100 residents and yet their murder rate is much lower than England or Australia despite their gun restrictions.
The murder rates seem to follow the same trend as before the gun restrictions, I didn’t include Canada in the data but they also followed the same trends before and after their gun restriction. The only real difference was how people were killed. While it’s true murder by firearms went down, people went to other methods to kill each other. So, the ban really didn’t have any effect on the overall murder rate.
You’ll notice people pushing to restrict or ban guns don’t bring up the murder rates, only gun murders. I can only conclude that they A, only care about people who were murdered with a gun, and not by other means, or B, they really don’t care about the murder rate and only want to get rid of guns.
Does God permit me to defend myself by means short of that, then - do I have the right to defend myself from you pre-emptively, or only reactively? Does God want me to let you shoot me first, or does He let me prevent you from shooting me first?
Whose rights are paramount, then? Is your right (found nowhere but in a contested reading of one amendment) to possess a gun superior to my right to life (which you admit is God-given)? That’s your claim.
I would rather prevent you from threatening it, like you do now.
That’s what every gun owner says, right up until it happens, isn’t it? What makes you an exception?
Look at the casualty rate and tell us that isn’t the case right now. Some of us want to fix that, others of us want to wallow in it.
Pre-emptively? What have I done that makes you fear for your life?
I don’t care about a gun per se. It’s just a tool invented by humans. I care about self defense. Someone possessing a gun and your right to life are not mutually exclusive. The right to self defense is a subset of the preeminent right to life.
I am not threatening your life. Even if I did, it would not be a credible threat since I don’t even know who you are.
Cite?
This statement is nothing but hysterics, bordering on delusion.
Already stated. You have equipped yourself with the means to do so. You also admit being human.
Your possession of a gun is inherently a threat to someone’s life, whether mine or not. That’s why you bought it, right?
Already answered.
Evasion.
Yes, my being human in and of itself renders me capable of taking human life, even without the use of tools.
Ahh, we are not distinguishing between active and passive threats. Yes my possession of a gun would be a passive threat on someone’s life. It is not in and of itself an active threat. Similarly, my biology as a male and my stronger than average build are passive threats against those who would seek to do violence to me.
But much more so with tools that are designed and intended and optimized for that function, and have no other function for which that is true, wouldn’t you agree?
And why should we, except to point out that a threat to me that has not yet been acted upon presents less of an infringement of my right to life? You have decided to make yourself a threat to the lives of others. You do *not *have a right to do so, God-given or otherwise.
If only we could magic away all the weapons, I’m sure the world would be a better place. But, this is the real world where guns exist.
The right to self defense is a fundamental human right.
Since people in the real world actually do use guns to inflict violence on others – in order for me to have a reasonable ability to defending myself and others from violence, I must have access to tools that put me on at minimum an equal footing.
You’re speaking completely irrationally. Every passive threat to your life is an infringement of your right to life?
You would lobotomize and dismember every human being on earth?
You would remove all sharp objects and toxic substances from the face of the earth?
You would de-fang all venomous snakes and otherwise incapacitate all dangerous animals?
You would outlaw automobile, air, rail, and sea travel?
You would flatten the surface of the earth and all structures so that you could not fall to your death?
I can’t believe you aren’t smart enough to know that:
(1) The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is not the source of our legal rights, whether you call them natural or otherwise. The Constitution makes no reference to the Declaration of Independence.
(2) The Declaration of Independence does not include a right to bear arms in its list of god-given rights.
Strawman.
The right to life is even more fundamental - that entails the right to reduce threats to it.
Funny how you don’t see *yourself *as a threat, only *other *people with guns. How’s that work?
We already established that it’s fundamental, didn’t we?
Be careful who you’re accusing of irrationality, friend.
(1)Nobody claimed it was a legal document. Nor is it, of itself, a source of rights, nor does it claim to be. It is, in part, a declaration of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers as to where rights come from.
(2) The DoI is not an exhaustive list of rights, nor does it claim to be.
According to the FF, the Constitution is not the source of human rights, nor is the Declaration of Independence. Nor is the Bible, nor the Quran.
Human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain rights. Governments are set up to protect those rights. That’s what it says.
The rights come first, the government second. The idea that the government grants or withholds rights gets it exactly backward.
Regards,
Shodan
There is nothing special or magical about the AR-15. It is not “military grade” except that it looks kind of like the ones the military use. It does not push the bullet faster than any other gun.
And the AR-15 is actually less likelyto penetratewalls than even shotguns and pistols. It’s a bit counterintuitive. But your typical 9mm round is more than 2x as heavy as a 5.56mm rifle round. The latter is more damaging, but it’s simple physics, not a special property.
Criminals typically do not get guns from a gun shop, or if they do it is because another person illegally purchased it for them. Some can be done in education about signs of a straw purchase (but gun dealers are not and should not be mental health professionals!). There should also be more done with prosecution of illegal purchase, these rarely go to trial.
Every single one started as a legal weapon that got into illegal hands one way or another. Aside from perhaps a few basement-shop tinkerers, there is *no *illegal gun manufacturing industry. Any assertions that one would somehow crop up if the legal market were to shrink are fanciful.
The inalienable ones, the ones that needed emphasis, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. *Not *gun ownership. Glad to clear that up for ya.
As I already said, I have. And as for life and liberty, gun owners believe that gun ownership helps support those first two rights. But since you apparently believe that safety and freedom come about magically by thinking good thoughts, I don’t see any common ground for discussion.
ETA: let me ask you this- do you believe that the War of Independence was wrong?