Since the endless gun debates seem to be polarized by the innate beliefs of the posters, I thought I’d step back from specifics and poll the Dopers on their basic philosophical positions that are gun-relevant. The following poll is multiple-choice so you can pick the combination of answers that best fits your views.
Wait for it…,
I voted that persons have an individual right to self-defense, that killing someone can be the right thing to do, and that persons have the right to own deadly weapons.
And if there had been an option to mock those who disbelieve in the individual right to self-defense, I would have voted that way too.
I don’t think this poll really gets at the nuances of the gun debate. I am definitely on the anti-gun end of the spectrum, yet I voted for all three of the basically pro-gun positions in this poll (as did everyone else so far). I think it’s the degree to which they are applicable that causes the disagreements. Also, there’s a difference between saying that someone has a right to do something, and thinking that it’s actually a good idea.
I fall fairly squarely in the “pro-gun” camp, and even I have trouble imagining an anti-gun person who would actually answer no to any of those questions.
I did the same but would add “most” before “persons” on the last. Clearly there are some among us and society I would rather not see in possession of more-deadly (stuff advanced beyond the average steak knife as an example) weapons.
When you say “people” do you mean all people, without conditions? Because there are lots of people who should not have access to guns.
I vote that yes, people have an individual right to self defense. However, I actually believe that minimal lethality weapons that are just as effective as the lethal ones (or *almost *as effective) are technologically possible with 2015 tech. A long range, multishot taser that stops people about as well as a handgun of the same size is possible. A gun that shoots electric shock bullets that don’t mass enough to kill is possible. And so forth.
In such a world - if stopping a rampaging human is possible without killing them, in the same way that if you have a tranquilizer gun you can usually stop a wild animal - it would be a much better world, and I would outlaw the possession of lethal weapons by individuals for the purpose of self defense.
The most certain to always work nonlethal weapon, possible with 2015 tech but too expensive, is a remotely controlled police drone. It would be humanoid and controlled via telepresence. They would be used to patrol the streets (the officer controlling it would be visible as a face on a big screen on the front)
These drones would not be armed with lethal weaponry. Instead they would subdue attackers with electroshock pads on the side, physical force, tear gas launchers, etc. Since the drone itself, if shot, does not die (it’s just property damage), officers would have no justification for lethal force unless they reasonably believed that another civilian’s life were in danger. Every moment of action would be recorded in ultra-high resolution video from multiple cameras located on the drone, with high quality microphones. *That’s *the kind of tech you need to have responsible police who don’t kill people.
Right to self defense…check
Right to kill in other circumstances …check. The low hanging fruit being defending someone else under threat of deadly force.
Right to have weapons… check. A right without some means isn’t a right. That doesn’t mean every means necessarily. You can’t really regulate out all deadly means anyway. There’s a lot of big rocks and heavy sticks in the world that can increase lethality as soon as picked up.
Habeed = That might be an interesting thread. I skipped responding to some of your points because it felt like the start of a slippery slope to tangents away from Lumpy’s “step back” approach in the OP.
My rough thinking is that handguns for self protection is like cigarettes as an efficient method of nicotine delivery or x-rays to check shoe fitting.
All 3 methods work, but they are dangerous to humans, kill people, and there may be a high tech alternative.
You already have a few fewer total answers to the third set of alternatives, and a small number of additional negative responses to it, probably because at that point some people become hesitant about lack of nuance or a possible gotcha.
However a vast majority of people may answer in the affirmative, many will be doing so with the mental caveat that to them it means to be armed in a manner sufficient to be able to exercise the right posed in the first set of alternatives, in the case of compelling necessity posed by the second set – and not as something that’s per se inalienable.
I voted with everyone else but for every “right” there is an obligation, a responsibility. A well-intentioned poll but won’t tell us anything.
So who voted that there’s no individual right to self-defense? I only ask because I need to know whise house to rob.
No gotcha’s, I was genuinely interested in just how deep the philosophical divide goes. Given the militancy of some responses in gun threads, I was surprised that virtually everyone here agrees with the basics. The main quibbles I see so far are on the means rather than the end- who should have how lethal an instrument. Depending on further comments, I may see if I can create a followup thread with a poll focusing on deadly weapons.
I think your questions show that you fundamentally don’t understand the positions being put forward by gun control advocates.
My position is : if you’re being *menaced *by someone consistently (whether it be a single person or the community in a bad neighborhood), you shouldn’t have to live in fear, a helpless victim just waiting to be attacked. You should be able to arm yourself so you can do something if attacked.
On the other hand, I happen to know that arming yourself *statistically *has a greater chance in you ending up dead with a bullet hole in you. Most people are not helping themselves by buying a gun. Basically, for every person in a bad neighborhood who *needs *a gun, there’s probably 10 middle class families who have guns who don’t really need one (their statistical chance of being attacked is low since there are reasonably competent police guarding them and lots of neighbors who will call police immediately). The parents keep those guns in a nightstand drawer, in a closet, under the bed, whatever, fully loaded. Kid finds it, one parent threatens the other with it in a heated argument, someone loses their job and finds out their were cheated on the same day, etc, and a death happens. Totally predictable and statistically *more *common than “armed crazed rapist breaks in, wife gets the gun in time and shoots him full of lead”.
Whenever you try to explain this to pro guns, they say things like
a. Shall not be infringed (puts fingers in ears and stops listening)
b. I don’t treat my guns that way, so *everyone *should have the right to be irresponsible if they like
c. Better enforcement of existing laws, blah blah blah
d. We need these guns to protect ourselves from the government (not entirely untrue, the government is a bigger risk than criminals)
This reasoning presupposes that every particular facet of life is a just matter of public policy. It’s not.
Gun ownership is a matter of personal freedom, and for several, bearing arms is a cultural matter. Quoting statistics until you’re blue in the face changes nothing.
Furthermore, I reject out of hand any argument predicated on the logic that because others may abuse their freedom mine should be restricted.
A “right” is a legal concept so I skipped the last pair of checkboxes. It varies by country. In mine, it’s a right. But that’s probably not what you intended to ask.
Pretty sure you’re just doing (a) in my post. You even admitted to it.
How do you feel about requiring gun licenses? That is, they would be shall issue (pass the test and the state shall issue them, not may issue) and require that you pass a series of written, hands on, and live fire tests, overseen by a public servant.
Do you feel that the right is absolute and therefore private individuals should be able to own machine guns, antiaircraft missiles, and atomic warheads if they can afford them? Or, limited?
If the right is limited, why is the limit at where it currently is. Why not roll it back to where bolt actions from ww1 are the limit? Or muskets from revolutionary war era? What hard and fast principle means that a semiautomatic weapon with 30 rounds in the mag, max of 50 caliber is a reasonable “limit”?