Gun control ... actual question

[KimGordon67]

I kind of still think Hogan's explanation worked well:

If you believe in God, you typically believe that morality derives from God's authority -- whether it be expressed in the 10 Commandments, the Koran, or whatever.

If you are an atheist you basically believe that morality is one of those good ideas our descendants came up with tens of thousands of years ago. If that is where you are coming from, then that would explain your orientation of "they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are."

But even if morality was itself a man-made invention, "natural rights" implied by that morality are not generally seen as interchangeable or disposable in the same way as common legislative acts. They usually exist on a philosophically higher plane. Whether we derive them from God's authority or not, "we" all seem to generally agree that natural rights are the basis and reason for law rather than mere privileges under the law.​

To some extent, I guess if 'we' - those who believe in natural rights, those who don't, and those who still can't make their bloody mind up - can agree on what 'rights' are natural/human, to some extent it doesn't really matter about where you sit in the natural/created equation because, as Hogan so right pointed out, we all agree that rights trump law. The 'source' of those rights only becomes an issue if you're arguing about a specific right.

 

[Rightguide]

I think the internet will change the face of war in the civilized world.

It appears, for example, that russia is waging war on the usa via the internet.

Their stealth capabilities put ours to shame as well.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I think in the example Hypoxia gave, one could also argue that the mouse has the 'right' to fight for its life. It's just that the outcome is a bit inevitable.

... but that does make me think that I do believe animals have rights. So does that mean I think they're a 'natural' thing?

Yes, that is the old law of tooth and claw. You may have the right, that doesn't mean it'll protect you from some entity intent on ignoring your right and eating you (and not in the good way). The mouse, like a person, can flee, can hide, can fight back - in may not get away, it may be found, it may still be eaten. But the right remains.

Yes, it does. See, at heart, you're a natural rights person. Even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights echoes Natural Rights philosophy:

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". (Emphasis mine)

On of the things that influenced the writers of the US Constitution was that whole tyranny and oppression thing. Though no where near as explicit in protecting the right to rebel against tyranny, even the UNUDHR acknowledges that the outcome of the violation of basic rights is "as a last resort" rebellion. Since our founders here were in the midst of and the immediate aftermath of one such rebellion against tyranny, it was "in the air" and they secured for their children the right to bear arms - to protect their natural rights with the most effective means. They recognized that an unarmed person was subject to the capricious whims of the armed and because of their experience they profoundly did not trust government to have their best interests at heart forever - either collectively or individually. I still want to arm bears though. (I just like the idea of Armed Bears. I always think of the Panserborjn in "The Golden Compass".)

Since philosophy always evolves, natural rights evolved into human rights, and then came the recognition that animals also have rights (and at least here in California, so do trees, LOL).

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, that is the old law of tooth and claw. You may have the right, that doesn't mean it'll protect you from some entity intent on ignoring your right and eating you (and not in the good way). The mouse, like a person, can flee, can hide, can fight back - in may not get away, it may be found, it may still be eaten. But the right remains.

Yes, it does. See, at heart, you're a natural rights person. Even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights echoes Natural Rights philosophy:

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". (Emphasis mine)

On of the things that influenced the writers of the US Constitution was that whole tyranny and oppression thing. Though no where near as explicit in protecting the right to rebel against tyranny, even the UNUDHR acknowledges that the outcome of the violation of basic rights is "as a last resort" rebellion. Since our founders here were in the midst of and the immediate aftermath of one such rebellion against tyranny, it was "in the air" and they secured for their children the right to bear arms - to protect their natural rights with the most effective means. They recognized that an unarmed person was subject to the capricious whims of the armed and because of their experience they profoundly did not trust government to have their best interests at heart forever - either collectively or individually. I still want to arm bears though. (I just like the idea of Armed Bears. I always think of the Panserborjn in "The Golden Compass".)

Since philosophy always evolves, natural rights evolved into human rights, and then came the recognition that animals also have rights (and at least here in California, so do trees, LOL).

There's a 'good' way to be eaten ... I'm sure I don't know what you could be referring to.

For me, arming bears more brings to mind Narnia, for some reason, even though the bears weren't armed (to the best of my recollection).

... and hmmm. In terms of animal rights, I'm still not entirely sure. Most of the rights that are covered by that concept are in relation to their interactions with humans, and I'd argue that they're rights we've (very loosely) decided are moral. For example, lots of people agree that animal have the right to not suffer unnecessarily ... but try telling that a cat that's got a still-live mouse. Does the mouse's right to not suffer unnecessary pain still exist in the absence of a human to say 'oh - poor wee mouse'?

 

[Paul_Chance]

There's a 'good' way to be eaten ... I'm sure I don't know what you could be referring to.

For me, arming bears more brings to mind Narnia, for some reason, even though the bears weren't armed (to the best of my recollection).

... and hmmm. In terms of animal rights, I'm still not entirely sure. Most of the rights that are covered by that concept are in relation to their interactions with humans, and I'd argue that they're rights we've (very loosely) decided are moral. For example, lots of people agree that animal have the right to not suffer unnecessarily ... but try telling that a cat that's got a still-live mouse. Does the mouse's right to not suffer unnecessary pain still exist in the absence of a human to say 'oh - poor wee mouse'?

The good way to be eaten may or may not involve legs over shoulders,

Cats are serial killers LOL. When they gaze lovingly at you they're actually plotting your demise and deciding which part of you to eat first. Which, strangely enough brings me back to the first statement.

That is to a large degree why Locke settled on Life, Liberty and Property. In his initial drafts and formulations he also included Health - but ultimately had to abandon it because he did not observe any right to health (to not suffering, to medical care) in nature. He determined that any right to health care had to come from civil government according to the laws - and in fact, the right to health care was in direct violation with natural rights to liberty (producers determining the market value of their services), since a right to a doctor would of necessity involve compulsion somewhere in the chain - either direct of the doctor, or from the tax payer. Any right to medicine was the same way.

As individuals we choose how we exercise our rights for ourselves. The conflict arises when we try to choose how someone else exercises their rights, since that inevitably leads to compulsion - either naked or sugar coated.

That is the foundation of the argument against restrictive gun laws here in the US. Yes, we all agree if someone is a bad person and violated the law they can and should be punished and their expression of their rights restricted - up to and including capital punishment, since they were bad people. But, if you pass a law that punishes individuals who did not break the law (or the social compact) in the freedom of expressing their rights - then, that law itself is fundamentally unjust. That concept extends back before Cicero who said that "no law is just that makes a criminal out of an innocent man" and that it was not just to punish one person for the acts of another.

 

[KimGordon67]

The good way to be eaten may or may not involve legs over shoulders,

Cats are serial killers LOL. When they gaze lovingly at you they're actually plotting your demise and deciding which part of you to eat first. Which, strangely enough brings me back to the first statement.

That is to a large degree why Locke settled on Life, Liberty and Property. In his initial drafts and formulations he also included Health - but ultimately had to abandon it because he did not observe any right to health (to not suffering, to medical care) in nature. He determined that any right to health care had to come from civil government according to the laws - and in fact, the right to health care was in direct violation with natural rights to liberty (producers determining the market value of their services), since a right to a doctor would of necessity involve compulsion somewhere in the chain - either direct of the doctor, or from the tax payer. Any right to medicine was the same way.

As individuals we choose how we exercise our rights for ourselves. The conflict arises when we try to choose how someone else exercises their rights, since that inevitably leads to compulsion - either naked or sugar coated.

That is the foundation of the argument against restrictive gun laws here in the US. Yes, we all agree if someone is a bad person and violated the law they can and should be punished and their expression of their rights restricted - up to and including capital punishment, since they were bad people. But, if you pass a law that punishes individuals who did not break the law (or the social compact) in the freedom of expressing their rights - then, that law itself is fundamentally unjust. That concept extends back before Cicero who said that "no law is just that makes a criminal out of an innocent man" and that it was not just to punish one person for the acts of another.

The mouse puts its legs over the toad's shoulders? I'm so confused.

This does bring me back to a previous question, that I think got lost ... let's assume that, even if we can't agree that there are 'natural' rights, we can (generally) agree that people have rights, and at a base level, that those would include the right to life, liberty, and property.
So the 'right to life' then (somehow) morphs into the right to defend oneself - I can see the logic in that.
My question this is does this right only involve the act of defending oneself against direct attack, or does one the right to defend one's safety? They are slightly different things - the first presupposes an immediate and obvious threat to your life posed by another person/animal/state(?). The second is more about optimising your environment to lessen the likelihood of such a thing happening. (That's a slight over-simplification of my point, but I think it's clear enough.)

 

[KimGordon67]

Oh, I'd certainly joke about it, everyone knows that.

But threaten violence? Never.

If you want something you say to be understood by everyone as a 'joke', it would be a huge help if it was actually funny.

 

[Paul_Chance]

The mouse puts its legs over the toad's shoulders? I'm so confused.

This does bring me back to a previous question, that I think got lost ... let's assume that, even if we can't agree that there are 'natural' rights, we can (generally) agree that people have rights, and at a base level, that those would include the right to life, liberty, and property.
So the 'right to life' then (somehow) morphs into the right to defend oneself - I can see the logic in that.
My question this is does this right only involve the act of defending oneself against direct attack, or does one the right to defend one's safety? They are slightly different things - the first presupposes an immediate and obvious threat to your life posed by another person/animal/state(?). The second is more about optimising your environment to lessen the likelihood of such a thing happening. (That's a slight over-simplification of my point, but I think it's clear enough.)

Where that line gets drawn, from the immediate to the proximate to the distant is open to interpretation on the individual level. In America, generally, it's the three prong test of 1.) Is it a real threat (immediacy and method), 2. do YOU believe they intend to carry out the threat, and 3. have you exercised your last avenue of retreat (can you get out of the first two prongs by leaving and did you try).

How far away from you (in distance and time and method) the threat is varies according to the details, but generally the "farther away" the more likely you are to be charged. As long as you're defending yourself (or anyone else) from an immediate, direct, and life-threatening attack you're clear to use lethal force. That doesn't mean you won't be sued, investigated, charged etc. - it does mean at the end of the journey, you're most likely to get an acquittal.

*Under the Castle Doctrine you don't have to retreat from your home. Under stand your ground type laws you don't have a duty to retreat in the public sphere either.

 

[KimGordon67]

Where that line gets drawn, from the immediate to the proximate to the distant is open to interpretation on the individual level. In America, generally, it's the three prong test of 1.) Is it a real threat (immediacy and method), 2. do YOU believe they intend to carry out the threat, and 3. have you exercised your last avenue of retreat (can you get out of the first two prongs by leaving and did you try).

How far away from you (in distance and time and method) the threat is varies according to the details, but generally the "farther away" the more likely you are to be charged. As long as you're defending yourself (or anyone else) from an immediate, direct, and life-threatening attack you're clear to use lethal force. That doesn't mean you won't be sued, investigated, charged etc. - it does mean at the end of the journey, you're most likely to get an acquittal.

*Under the Castle Doctrine you don't have to retreat from your home. Under stand your ground type laws you don't have a duty to retreat in the public sphere either.

No, I get the right to defend oneself against actual attack, and the fact that that's dependent on the 'actuality' of the attack/threat of attack.
What I'm really asking is if that extends to the right to create an environment which lessens the risk of such an attack occurring?

 

[Paul_Chance]

No, I get the right to defend oneself against actual attack, and the fact that that's dependent on the 'actuality' of the attack/threat of attack.
What I'm really asking is if that extends to the right to create an environment which lessens the risk of such an attack occurring?

To a degree yes - you can "harden" your home or your environment up to the extend that it does not in itself become a hazard to innocent people or a risk to yourself or others who dwell there. You can certainly evict a person who is a threat (unless they have a legal right to be there, in which case you still can, it's just harder).

You cannot lay lethal traps or traps that have the potential to harm. You can't harden your house to the point it violates fire code and would prevent safe exit or entrance in the event of an emergency. (Actually, you can do whatever you want, LOL, just don't get caught). All the usual criminal and civil or contractual laws apply and do limit the expression of your right, as long as they don't deny the core right.

 

[KimGordon67]

To a degree yes - you can "harden" your home or your environment up to the extend that it does not in itself become a hazard to innocent people or a risk to yourself or others who dwell there. You can certainly evict a person who is a threat (unless they have a legal right to be there, in which case you still can, it's just harder).

You cannot lay lethal traps or traps that have the potential to harm. You can't harden your house to the point it violates fire code and would prevent safe exit or entrance in the event of an emergency. (Actually, you can do whatever you want, LOL, just don't get caught). All the usual criminal and civil or contractual laws apply and do limit the expression of your right, as long as they don't deny the core right.

**the following post is a hypothetical, not a declaration of any particular position**​

OK, so I make the following query cognisant of the fact that, as discussed some miles back, it's pretty much impossible to gather the relevant data to make a certain statement one way or the other ...

If you could collect data on the number of deaths prevented on the basis of gun ownership vs the number of deaths cause as a result of gun ownership (and probably some other data, but the specifics aren't that relevant) and if you could demonstrate beyond argument that widespread private gun ownership within your country meant that your risk of being killed by gunshot was greater than if there weren't widespread gun ownership, would you have a 'right' to ... demand? request? sue for? ... the retraction of gun ownership?
And yes, I do understand how difficult that would be to operationalise ... it's a philosophical question.

 

[Paul_Chance]

**the following post is a hypothetical, not a declaration of any particular position**​

OK, so I make the following query cognisant of the fact that, as discussed some miles back, it's pretty much impossible to gather the relevant data to make a certain statement one way or the other ...

If you could collect data on the number of deaths prevented on the basis of gun ownership vs the number of deaths cause as a result of gun ownership (and probably some other data, but the specifics aren't that relevant) and if you could demonstrate beyond argument that widespread private gun ownership within your country meant that your risk of being killed by gunshot was greater than if there weren't widespread gun ownership, would you have a 'right' to ... demand? request? sue for? ... the retraction of gun ownership?
And yes, I do understand how difficult that would be to operationalise ... it's a philosophical question.

Yes, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is also protected in the first amendment. There is also a mechanism to amend the constitution and change or invalidate the 2nd Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution (or in the subsequent case law) that prevents people from passing laws that severely restrict the expression of the right - as long as the core remains.

That is what the ongoing debate is all about. An outright ban is unlikely, given the current body politic. An amendment change is very difficult and highly unlikely for the same reason. But you have an equally protected right to try and change that through persuasion (free speech) and politics.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is also protected in the first amendment. There is also a mechanism to amend the constitution and change or invalidate the 2nd Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution (or in the subsequent case law) that prevents people from passing laws that severely restrict the expression of the right - as long as the core remains.

That is what the ongoing debate is all about. An outright ban is unlikely, given the current body politic. An amendment change is very difficult and highly unlikely for the same reason. But you have an equally protected right to try and change that through persuasion (free speech) and politics.

Well, I think the fundamental problem is the sheer difficulty, if not impossibility, of proving that, overall, private gun ownership makes people, on balance, safer or less safe.

But hurrah! Here endeth the thread ... in terms of what I guess I was trying to get at initially anyway. That was interesting, mostly. I learnt some shit, and am still working on the 'natural' rights thing.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Well, I think the fundamental problem is the sheer difficulty, if not impossibility, of proving that, overall, private gun ownership makes people, on balance, safer or less safe.

But hurrah! Here endeth the thread ... in terms of what I guess I was trying to get at initially anyway. That was interesting, mostly. I learnt some shit, and am still working on the 'natural' rights thing. And the kids seem to have mostly moved on to a different playground to insult each other in.

Yep - that is core challenge. Maybe somebody will some day. Maybe not. We may all collectively decide one day to give up our guns. But, probably only because death rays with be all rage.

LOL - I often think of America as that episode of "The Simpsons" where they're all sitting around the table and they get the electrical shock button and they all promptly shock each other unconscious. That is America in a nutshell. We all have the button and we're all frantically pushing it.

 

[Hypoxia]

IMHO much discussion and bloviation has missed the simple point: 'Rights' are social constructs and are not universal in human societies. Some cultures define certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities that others don't. Your "natural rights" do or don't exist at various points in space and time.

Theorize all you want. Expand or contract your list of imagined 'rights'. Cherry-pick some justifications for your selections. Slavery is okay because... Familial abuse is okay because... Openly carrying tools of mass death is okay because... Discrimination on the basis of enthnicity, religion, sexuality is okay because...

There's always another excuse.

 

[KimGordon67]

IMHO much discussion and bloviation has missed the simple point: 'Rights' are social constructs and are not universal in human societies. Some cultures define certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities that others don't. Your "natural rights" do or don't exist at various points in space and time.

Theorize all you want. Expand or contract your list of imagined 'rights'. Cherry-pick some justifications for your selections. Slavery is okay because... Familial abuse is okay because... Openly carrying tools of mass death is okay because... Discrimination on the basis of enthnicity, religion, sexuality is okay because...

There's always another excuse.

So half of me agrees that all rights are social constructs ... the other half is somewhat compelled by the well thought out case for 'natural' rights that Paul's presented. But, as I said at the top of this page, I'm not sure that it really matters if the Team Natural Rights and Team No-natural Rights can still agree on what they think humans have the right to.

I tend to disagree with the idea that 'social constructs' are imagined. We live in a world comprised of physical facts and the things that groups of humans agree are working concepts. The fact that something is a social construct means it's available for change, but it doesn't make it not-real. Gender is the example I tend to draw on - barring a very small set of physical characteristics, most of the things that make me a 'woman' in contemporary western society are culturally constructed - those things vary across time and space. However, that doesn't mean I'm not a woman. The other examples I could give here are myriad. The no-natural-rights half of me still believes that human rights exist, because we bring them into being. That doesn't make them not real - they're just a different kind of reality from an apple.

 

[Paul_Chance]

IMHO much discussion and bloviation has missed the simple point: 'Rights' are social constructs and are not universal in human societies. Some cultures define certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities that others don't. Your "natural rights" do or don't exist at various points in space and time.

Theorize all you want. Expand or contract your list of imagined 'rights'. Cherry-pick some justifications for your selections. Slavery is okay because... Familial abuse is okay because... Openly carrying tools of mass death is okay because... Discrimination on the basis of enthnicity, religion, sexuality is okay because...

There's always another excuse.

So half of me agrees that all rights are social constructs ... the other half is somewhat compelled by the well thought out case for 'natural' rights that Paul's presented. But, as I said at the top of this page, I'm not sure that it really matters if the Team Natural Rights and Team No-natural Rights can still agree on what they think humans have the right to.

I tend to disagree with the idea that 'social constructs' are imagined. We live in a world comprised of physical facts and the things that groups of humans agree are working concepts. The fact that something is a social construct means it's available for change, but it doesn't make it not-real. Gender is the example I tend to draw on - barring a very small set of physical characteristics, most of the things that make me a 'woman' in contemporary western society are culturally constructed - those things vary across time and space. However, that doesn't mean I'm not a woman. The other examples I could give here are myriad. The no-natural-rights half of me still believes that human rights exist, because we bring them into being. That doesn't make them not real - they're just a different kind of reality from an apple.

Whether one sees rights arising from God, from the Natural world, or from Society. often we end up in the same place (or very close). To me, this speaks subtly to their natural origin, but that's just me.

The conflict arises when there is the attempt to remove rights or a right that a significant minority hold to be inalienable. What should be the threshold to remove them (or stop honoring them). Rights often get set aside in exigent circumstances, but are usually restored when the circumstance is gone. What is the threshold to remove a right? I'd argue that rights only die when 100% of a society agree on it...then the right remains...but all expression of it simply fades away.

 

[KimGordon67]

Whether one sees rights arising from God, from the Natural world, or from Society. often we end up in the same place (or very close). To me, this speaks subtly to their natural origin, but that's just me.

The conflict arises when there is the attempt to remove rights or a right that a significant minority hold to be inalienable. What should be the threshold to remove them (or stop honoring them). Rights often get set aside in exigent circumstances, but are usually restored when the circumstance is gone. What is the threshold to remove a right? I'd argue that rights only die when 100% of a society agree on it...then the right remains...but all expression of it simply fades away.

Anything I say at this point is only going to get me branded a socialist. Or a communist. Or a feminist. Or something ... (I actually am about one-and-a-half of those things, but still ...)

 

[Paul_Chance]

Anything I say at this point is only going to get me branded a socialist. Or a communist. Or a feminist. Or something ... (I actually am about one-and-a-half of those things, but still ...)

LOL - and there in lies the great conversation of life.

I joke I am either so far to right I accidentally popped up on the left or I am so far to the left I accidentally popped up on the right.

 

[KimGordon67]

LOL - and there in lies the great conversation of life.

I joke I am either so far to right I accidentally popped up on the left or I am so far to the left I accidentally popped up on the right.

It's good to be flexible.

 

[KimGordon67]

**the following post is a hypothetical, not a declaration of any particular position**​

OK, so I make the following query cognisant of the fact that, as discussed some miles back, it's pretty much impossible to gather the relevant data to make a certain statement one way or the other ...

If you could collect data on the number of deaths prevented on the basis of gun ownership vs the number of deaths cause as a result of gun ownership (and probably some other data, but the specifics aren't that relevant) and if you could demonstrate beyond argument that widespread private gun ownership within your country meant that your risk of being killed by gunshot was greater than if there weren't widespread gun ownership, would you have a 'right' to ... demand? request? sue for? ... the retraction of gun ownership?
And yes, I do understand how difficult that would be to operationalise ... it's a philosophical question.

Just as postscript to this point - I found this, which suggests that there is a correlation between higher levels of private gun ownership and higher levels of all homicide (not just homicide-by-shooting, which you'd expect).

 

[Hypoxia]

Just as postscript to this point - I found this, which suggests that there is a correlation between higher levels of private gun ownership and higher levels of all homicide (not just homicide-by-shooting, which you'd expect).

Inherent in the weapon-lovers creed is "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society," ie if you know everyone else is carrying, and they know you are, everybody will act real nice. Overlay that on your Harvard study and we must conclude the extra killings are polite. Right.

If police expect everyone to be carrying, including black citizens, and police feel fearful facing black citizens, does that justify police killings of baleful blacks? Even if the blacks are polite?

 

[KimGordon67]

Inherent in the weapon-lovers creed is "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society," ie if you know everyone else is carrying, and they know you are, everybody will act real nice. Overlay that on your Harvard study and we must conclude the extra killings are polite. Right.

If police expect everyone to be carrying, including black citizens, and police feel fearful facing black citizens, does that justify police killings of baleful blacks? Even if the blacks are polite?

I so don't get the 'polite society' argument. (a) You could make the same argument where no one is carrying; and (b) the US would tend to provide clear empirical evidence that it doesn't work.

But yeah, I've seen evidence of the carnage resulting from killing someone with a knife - I guess guns are more polite.

 

[Que]

Just as postscript to this point - I found this, which suggests that there is a correlation between higher levels of private gun ownership and higher levels of all homicide (not just homicide-by-shooting, which you'd expect).

What that suggests to me is areas where people are known get shot, bludgeoned and stabbed regularly, they tend to arm themselves.

The reverse makes no sense at all. More armed citizens emboldens criminals? I think not.

 

[phrodeau]

“Polite society” belongs in the Oxymoron thread.