I think Bob Blaylock has somehow confused the Constitution and it’s amendments with The Ten Commandments.
Nobody has a right to be safe from the mortal danger he thereby presents? You sure you want to stick with that one?
Let’s try this another way. What right is violated by **Lumpy **lawfully carrying a firearm? I contend the answer is none. You can disprove this by citing a single one.
No ducking!
Already discussed in detail, whether you accept it or not. He is a human (one presumes), and therefore has human weaknesses, including a susceptibility to fear, anger, confusion, sensory impairment, even forgetfulness. If he also has control of an object whose purpose is to kill, then he represents a mortal danger. I have a right not to be subjected to mortal danger without my consent, which I do not grant. So do you.
Is the only recourse either of us has to make ourselves as dangerous to him, or more so as a futile deterrent? :dubious:
No you do not. Cite?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
What good does that do me when you get angry, or scared, or confused, and take a shot that hits me? I can’t count on the police to protect my life from you, no, I need a gun so I can shoot you first.
[/QUOTE]
The same good it does you if I get angry, scared or confused and kill you with any number of other tools. You can’t count on the police to protect you from THOSE, either…and many of them are much more probable to kill you than a guy legally carrying a gun. Your argument is ridiculous.
I don’t need to denounce strawman horseshit…just mock it.
And as YOU know there are regulations in place to restrict the ability to carry guns by the public as well as laws on the books to prevent them from being used illegally (i.e. to shoot you like a dog in the street, much as that might appeal to some). The bottom line of course is that regulations and laws only go so far, and your ‘right’ to be protected from any and all danger is simply a fantasy in your own head. They only deter actions, not prevent. So, we’d need to look at probability instead. You are much more likely (orders of magnitude is my WAG) to be killed by someone drinking and driving than to be shot, accidentally or otherwise, by someone legally carrying a fire arm.
They are comparable because both are examples of someone breaking the law of course. And underscoring the point I was addressing in YOUR post which you’ve ignored in a sad attempt to shift the goal posts and confuse the discussion. That point being that your ‘right’ to safety is illusion if someone is willing to break the law, regardless of which tool they use to do you in with.
So, that would be a ‘yes’ then…that’s all you got. Gotcha.
Such as what? What else can you name that is deadlier, yet uncontrolled and unregulated?
Then refute it with facts, not invective. Yes, I know how hard that is for you, based on the evidence in this thread to date.
Not effective ones, and every single one that exists has been strenuously *fought *by people like you. Don’t turn around and try to take credit for them.
Nope, the “any and all” part is your own invention. I said “reasonable”. Speaking of “denouncing strawmen” … 
If only there were some actual data one could look at for comparison … 
You say that is if the victims aren’t as dead.
You’re still missing the part about the human with a weapon designed to kill being more likely to actually kill than the one without. Why that is a mystery to you is not something anyone else can explain; you’ll have to do it yourself.
At least you’re not claiming that I’m safe from **Lumpy **because he’s a Good Guy instead of a Bad Guy, a Law-Abiding Citizen, unlike all those other killers who were just that as well until they suddenly weren’t anymore. And that I can tell because, how, because he always wears a white hat?
Constitutionally: The General Welfare clause, substantive due process under the 14th amendment, all the laws passed accordingly including the whole field of torts and the whole field of product liability. Numerous state constitutions make it clearer.
Morally: You shouldn’t need to ask.
You should be able to easily find a statue or caselaw that affirms your right to not be placed in mortal danger without your consent then, no? And it should be just as easy to demonstrate how Lumpy lawfully carrying a firearm places you in mortal danger. I wait with baited breath. No ducking now.
I missed this part too:
No. Unless you are using the nonsensical construction in the same way that life represents a mortal danger. If that’s how you’re using the term, then that makes sense. It’s a pathetically absurd argument, but hey at least it’s an ethos.
What part of “You’re wrong” are you having trouble grasping?
Already have. Go back and read more slowly.
You’re still having trouble with the deadly-weapon part of the discussion too, aren’t you? Go back and read *that *more slowly, too.
Its absurdity should be easy to demonstrate, if that assessment is in fact honest. Go ahead, give it a try.
Did I forget to write “no ducking?” Is that why you’re ducking? No, I wrote it, it’s there. Just in case you missed it, no ducking!
You’ve failed to cite what authority grants or recognizes your fictitious right to not be placed in mortal danger, and how Lumpy’s lawfully carried firearm violates this right. Feel free to try again.
Right now your claim is on par with my claim* that I have a right to know what the next Powerball winning numbers are. Hey - it’s part of the general welfare clause!
*I’m not making this claim.
Did I forget to write “Go back and read more slowly”? :rolleyes:
If there really were a “right to be safe from mortal danger”, why would it only apply to items that you claim were “designed” to kill, and not all the numerous other items that could kill me just as dead? If I have a right to be safe from mortal danger, why can’t we ban all vehicle owners from entering bars, or everyone who purchases alcohol from owning a vehicle? When vehicles and alcohol are mixed, it presents a mortal danger to me.
If, as you seem to think, it only applies to items which you claim were “designed to kill”, then it’s really not a “right to be safe from mortal danger”, is it? It’s more of a “right to be safe from mortal danger if the thing being blamed for the danger was designed to kill a person”, right?
It doesn’t. Yet me agree on the danger, and go to extremes to mitigate it, for items that aren’t designed or intended to kill. Some of us *fight *any such measures for items that *are *so intended.
It does indeed, and we continue to look for and implement ways to keep it from happening. Now draw the comparison.
Nobody said “only” except you. Cut the strawmanning, please.
I’ve already given a number of examples of how we do, in fact, try to mitigate and eliminate unreasonable danger from other items with real, practical uses.
Given its design function, and lack of other practical and useful ones, there is no reason to permit such a thing to exist at all then, is there?
Your logic.
Perhaps because he, unlike you, sees this right as something that needs to be negotiated to reflect reality, not an inviolate sign from above written in stone and held above all other regulations?
Yes, and thanks.
Odd, isn’t it, how the only Constitutional right that the Founding Fathers (cue heavenly choir music) gave an explicit purpose statement, and whose scope they explicitly *limited, *is taken by so many to be absolute in extent, inviolable, and supreme above all others. It’s a completely visceral, emotional, unhealthy position, not a reasoned or factual or morally-derived or legally-derived one, and that makes it hard to overcome. *Exposing *it as such is easy, of course, as far as that goes.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Such as what? What else can you name that is deadlier, yet uncontrolled and unregulated?
[/QUOTE]
Why would I want to play the apples to aardvarks analogy game with you? Guns aren’t uncontrolled or unregulated, so why would I make my comparison to something that is?
I’ll start that as soon as you do. What do you base your right to safety assertion on? Going to be hard for me to factually refute your fantasy.
I haven’t fought sane regulation of firearms. Sorry, you have me mixed up with your own strawman. But let’s consider…which regulation set is more effective? The regulation set that protects you from drunk drivers or the ones that protects you from people with legal documentation to carry firearms? Feel free to use factual data in your response. Or, handwave it away as you’ve tried repeatedly so far in this and other threads.
Sure it is, kimosabe.
Oh, you mean like comparing this to this? Looks to me as if we are looking at over 10,000 deaths due to drunk driving verse less than a 1000 accidental shooting deaths. Sorry, can’t parse that unintentional death figure (815 in 2011) to those who were carrying concealed and who might have shot you with their gun, but we can use that as a top figure.
What do you have?
And yet the probability of you being killed by one is far, far less than of you being killed by something designed to merely get drunk with, using alcohol as an example. And, getting back to the point you’ve tried to muddy, your expectation of a ‘right’ to safety is merely illusion. Some teenager talking on their cell phone and driving next to you in traffic can as easily void your ‘right’ as myriad other things…the least of which is one of those scary guns carried by someone with the legal paperwork to do so. As to why you can’t grasp that, I’ll be more generous than you…people, including you, are really really bad at risk assessment. It’s not your fault that you’ve had your fears played on by groups to heighten that fear and blow it out of proportion. Look at the anti-nuclear movement for a good example of how this works.
You are as safe from him as from any law abiding citizen…which is to say, you aren’t safe, and you have no ‘right’ to be safe.
You say these words, and they are written in English - but they make no sense. When asked for a cite, you say to go back and read. I thought you said no ducking? Protip: smiley faces aren’t a cite. Maybe you’re confused.
Still no cite eh? Thought so.
Because we do. We make laws that people can’t drink and drive. We make laws that people have to drive under a certain speed limit. Why? Aren’t most people responsible? No, it’s because certain behaviors put other people under mortal risk.
I swear, if there were a baby buggy that killed as many children accidentally as guns do, we’d be screaming to get it off the market. And almost everyone would willingly acquiesce.
Two points:
- we also have a lot of gun laws.
- guns accidentally kill very few children. Compared to something like water, your child would be much safer with a pool filled with guns: Cite (I understand this chart might confuse some. “Unintentional firearm” only shows up once, in 10th place for 10-14 year-olds)