Ok the answer is more murders. Your gun will not guarantee that you are not murdered either. To get what you want you need to remove yourself from society. No one will kill you if no one can find you
the point you seem to miss is that you keep screaming for more restrictions upon Other people and you have yet to make a rational argument in support of that. We have to assume that limiting the freedom of people you don't like is your END, rather than limiting freedom being a means to a LEGITIMATE end.
again, some restraints are legitimate. Anti gun laws that are designed to harass honest gun owners are not legitimate You fail to understand or delineate the difference between restrictions that actually serve a legitimate societal benefit without raping constitutional rights vs your designed harassment of honest gun owners that are neither legitimate nor constitutional
That makes no sense at all. I have served many years, as a sworn officer, EMS, etc .. and it was always sad to find dead victims of crime. People that had no means to defend themselves, ending up in the morgue. There is indeed a difference, some people in NYC apply for and recieve a gun permit, it can take 6 -8 months, and yes, having a gun makes a vast difference in survival, a live victor rather than a dead victim.
that's a silly as saying can you guarantee you won't have your home burn down if you own a fire extinguisher owning a gun merely increases your odds of surviving a violent attack
yeah and there are attorneys whose entire practice revolves around that. If you are a rich Democrat Celebrity=like Joan Rivers or the anti gun publisher of the NY Times, its far easier to get one than say a Cab driver or a convenience store clerk in bad parts of town
No attack on the body of another is acceptable. Go to shoot me anywhere and I kill you and my action will be likely judged as self defense.
Very true, I can tell you it is not an easy process, it is harder to get a pistol permit in NYC than it is to become a Police Officer. The first step is a trip to Police H.Q. to get an application, a mistake and your application is delayed, the package deal is usually a 24/7 range membership, application assistance, then the applicant has to file the application in person at H.Q. 1 Police Plaza. Advice was often to apply for a Rifle / Shotgun license first, once approved, apply for a pistol license / target permit next, once Approved, apply for an employment related restricted carry license, security guard etc..... It is very can be very expensive, difficult, can take up to a year, but not impossible.
I just shake my head at people who want guarantees in life. There ARE no guarantees in life! Where gun control fails is it puts restrictions upon the Constitutional rights of people who have committed no crime in hopes it will affect the ability of criminals to commit crime. Gun control disarms honest citizens while doing nothing to hamper a criminal from getting whatever he wants. The moment a law infringes upon the rights of lawful citizens and undermines their ability to defend themselves from criminal attack is the moment a law goes from being valid to being authoritarian and unacceptable. No, you aren't guaranteed of succeeding in defending yourself merely by having a gun... but the odds of your survival are increased exponentially.
Your definition of a "civilized society" and mine are different. In a civilized FREE society people deal with their problems themselves for the most part. Disputes that cannot be resolved can be litigated through the courts, and the government has a role... but not a PRIMARY role. When it comes to personal defense and security the best the government can do is provide a reactionary force and punitive measures to punish those who violate the law. It is categorically impossible for the government to provide protection for the private citizen; that duty falls upon the citizen and the citizen alone.
Okay, so let's move to "No attack on another body". I point a gun at you and threaten to shoot you unless you comply with my demands. No attack has been made, only the threat of one.
Of course I'm serious. Why is this the case? I said one thing and you said something else. When I asked why, you repeated yourself.
No it wasn't. It was responding to your strawman. We're talking about government's duties to its citizens in the forms of negative and positive rights. The assumption behind this idea is that the consequences don't matter because it's in support of some sort of duty of the state. For example, saying you have a government insured right to life means the government has the duty to protect your life. Deontology deals with duties. It doesn't matter what the consequences are, so saying that they do matter it's irrelevant. If you want to say that the intentions aren't leading to the consequences then that's a separate issue. Here we're talking about the basic idea of how do we frame the government's duties. Sure? I'm not really sure what you were getting at here.
So I'm going to translate this into another way of saying the same thing. The government has the positive duty to protect my right to life. To protect life, there must be a positive duty (right) to own firearms.
You are arguing that we should trust that someone who shoots at you, is not trying to kill you. That's purely ridiculous.
It's common sense. At one time there was even an interpretation of the law where if someone so much as threatened you with bodily harm in front of witnesses you could legally ambush them, shoot them in the back of the head, and it was considered justifiable self-defense simply because the other individual had expressed the intent to harm you. You have a right to defend yourself, and you do NOT have to wait for an assailant to strike. Why? Because if you see him raising the weapon and you wait until he actually strikes then there is a good chance you are dead and unable to strike back. The legal standard for self-defense is basically what is described the "reasonable person standard"; i.e. would a reasonable person under those same circumstances feel at risk of death or great bodily injury. When I was in LE the standard we were taught was AOJ, which was defined as "Ability+Opportunity=Jeopardy". If someone has a knife, for instance, then they have the Ability to cause you death or great bodily injury, but if they're 50 yards away then they don't really have the Opportunity, so even if they're screaming they want to kill you they're still not an immediate threat. But if they have a knife and are seven to ten yards away then they have the Ability and the Opportunity and you are justified in feeling in Jeopardy. A criminal pulls a gun on you then you have every right to act before he actually shoots at you. Why? Because he has the Ability and the Opportunity and you are legally justified in feeling like you are in immediate Jeopardy of death or great bodily injury and thus legally justified in acting preemptively to defend yourself.
Alright. Intuition is a fine argument to make on this. The point I'm making on this is that the way we phrase our rights matters. We have the right to life, but how do we manifest that right? We could say the government has the right to not do something, or we could say the government has the right to do something. These are negative and positive rights respectively. Ultimately we can talk about gun control as a way of seeing how do we balance the right to life with gun control. Do we have the right for the government to not interfere with ownership of firearms or do we have the right to firearms? There are subtle distinctions but important ones.
See, I see it very differently. To my way of thinking government does not have "rights". Rights are the sole purview of the individual. Government has Powers, not rights. We have a right to life, ergo we have a right to defend that life. If we have a right to defend our lives then we have the right to own the most effective means with which to conduct that defense, and any interference by the government in our ability to defend our lives is nothing less than an assault upon our right to life itself.
Not correct. The very act of pointing a firearm at someone is in and of itself an attack. This is why pointing a gun at someone - even if you don't pull the trigger - is itself a crime. This is why, in Brown v. United States it was ruled that "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
