The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread

[Emily]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

CSM's response:

This has been researched and quite extensively. The research shows that the claims of self-defense are typically untrue.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Other research shows that "for every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths" and "the mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

rebump courtesy of Emily 

[filledeplage]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

CSM's response:

This has been researched and quite extensively. The research shows that the claims of self-defense are typically untrue.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Other research shows that "for every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths" and "the mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

rebump courtesy of Emily 

Old findings. 

The interesting link is that one that is current, looking at the pathway to jail and under-diagnosis of mental illness.   

[Micha]

The far left's "arguments" are a mirage.  People have to buy into them, in order for them to exist.  When they look away, it just vanishes.  What DOES exist is the US Constitution.  Our Rights.  The truth.  We have the right to defend ourselves.

They can't get over that.

What I in fact can't get over is that many US citizen see their constitution as a holy scripture, given to them by a higher force to grant them holy rights. The fact that the US constitution exists does not mean that it is "the truth". It was written by a couple of intellectuals for the needs of their society at the time. This is the same nonsense as that Jews and Muslims aren't allowed to eat pork because 2500/1500 years ago when their holy scriptures were put down they didn't have fridges.

There are plenty of nations where they have it there way.  They demand that WE be like them.

It's "their way", not "there way", Bean Bag. It's not like "Werewolf? There wolf, there castle".

[Douchepool]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

[the captain]

I agree more with Micha here. I recognize that at the nation's founding the ideas TRBB were said and that remains part of the national myth/narrative. But it presupposes a creator, a creator who grants rights, that we have properly understood what those rights are, and that we correctly discern the implications as we create our governments or laws.

I don't think any of those presuppositions is true.

I think people have developed morality through evolving society, with constant push and pull. Nothing was given us except by ourselves.

[Douchepool]

Well, therein lies this question - if there is no creator, do we not have rights? Are we not sentient beings?

[the captain]

Great questions indeed, which is why a (respectful) religion and ethics thread or board would be fun.

[the captain]

But short answer: yes, as generally agreed upon by society, but not in any grand, "from above" sense. And yes, we are.

[alf wiedersehen]

So, TRBB, let's say you discovered there was no creator. Would you disregard the beliefs you used to hold and begin violating the rights you once thought people had?

[Douchepool]

We could end up at the conclusion that rights are objective and people have their own idea about what rights they have. On the self-defense matter I've heard "yeah, I have a right to defend myself by any means necessary," "well, only if I use equal force," "yeah, but I should retreat if I can," or "no, I should call the police."

This is why there will be no consensus. Of course, leaving it up to the democratic process won't do much better, either.

[Douchepool]

So, TRBB, let's say you discovered there was no creator. Would you disregard the beliefs you used to hold and begin violating the rights you once thought people had?

Nope. I respect the property of others.

[the captain]

We could end up at the conclusion that rights are objective and people have their own idea about what rights they have. On the self-defense matter I've heard "yeah, I have a right to defend myself by any means necessary," "well, only if I use equal force," "yeah, but I should retreat if I can," or "no, I should call the police."

This is why there will be no consensus. Of course, leaving it up to the democratic process won't do much better, either.

Oh I absolutely agree there will never be literal consensus; but there never has been. And people who proclaim specific rights from a creator don't agree, either, whether on the rights or the creator who granted them (or to whom, or how). Instead throughout history, most people's rights (legally defined and religiously believed) tend to change more or less together. To me that strongly implies that religious beliefs aren't inherent and unchanging, but rather evolve with and to fit majority culture. There are always outliers with massive disagreement, and even more people with minor ones that are typically glossed over.

Re consensus, hence democracy. An idea nobody believes works well, but if not that, who decides on matters such as rights? God certainly doesn't speak in a clear voice to convince the masses.

[Micha]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

[Emily]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

I would. And I know that's really problematic, but criminalizing them is really problematic as well. It's a difficult issue and when I say "I would" it should not be taken as facile. It's something I've thought about quite a bit, and I think the damage done by criminalization is more than the damage done by the drugs themselves. On top of that is the abridging of personal autonomy which I think should only happen when the benefits very clearly by far outweigh the drawbacks.

[Micha]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

I would. And I know that's really problematic, but criminalizing them is really problematic as well. It's a difficult issue and when I say "I would" it should not be taken as facile. It's something I've thought about quite a bit, and I think the damage done by criminalization is more than the damage done by the drugs themselves. On top of that is the abridging of personal autonomy which I think should only happen when the benefits very clearly by far outweigh the drawbacks.

The drug question is really a very differenciated subject. Some drugs are illegal, others aren't. Alcohol is legal, though it causes many deaths each year through irresponsible use. Out of experience I know that it is possible to take alcohol as a drug in a responsible way. I can't claim that about cannabis, out of lack of experience. The reason I came up with the question is that I got acquainted yesterday with a young man who takes medicine because of his schizophrenia that made him hear voices and other auditorial hallucinations. He also mentioned frequent drug use, I asked him what he took, he said LSD, I asked whether he had heard voices before he ever took LSD, he answered no. Just like BW. My opinion is now it should stay illegal to sell LSD to people, because society has the duty to protect certain of its members from themselves using too dangerous drugs. Same goes for guns - they're just to dangerous for everybody to easily get them, even though everybody DOES have the right to defendhimself (even if it wasn't in the US constitution).

[the captain]

The intersection of individual liberty and the public good (protection from crime, national security, general health, shared economic interests)--even another's individual liberty--is a tricky one. The reality is that we don't live in separate vacuums, that our actions and inactions have consequences beyond ourselves (and thus infringe on others' lives, or liberties). Yet I'm a strong advocate of individual liberty, especially in theory and often in practice.

Satisfactory answers to specific policy proposals aren't easy to come by.

[filledeplage]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

Micha - good point.  But I would say legalize everything -- then it puts those who push drugs out of business, and fills the jails to over 50% with people needing addiction treatment.  We wouldn't have those tunnels for drug transport.  It would collapse their economy.  And re-focus the effort towards treatment and not punishment.

Then, use those facilities, to provide substance abuse and education in a compassionate setting.  People who have what we call "diminished capacity to make a judgment," or get treatment when they are high as hell, need protection and not condemnation by society. Many don't realize that they are destroying their bodies because they are too high to appreciate the good judgment that is impaired.  

[Emily]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

I would. And I know that's really problematic, but criminalizing them is really problematic as well. It's a difficult issue and when I say "I would" it should not be taken as facile. It's something I've thought about quite a bit, and I think the damage done by criminalization is more than the damage done by the drugs themselves. On top of that is the abridging of personal autonomy which I think should only happen when the benefits very clearly by far outweigh the drawbacks.

The drug question is really a very differenciated subject. Some drugs are illegal, others aren't. Alcohol is legal, though it causes many deaths each year through irresponsible use. Out of experience I know that it is possible to take alcohol as a drug in a responsible way. I can't claim that about cannabis, out of lack of experience. The reason I came up with the question is that I got acquainted yesterday with a young man who takes medicine because of his schizophrenia that made him hear voices and other auditorial hallucinations. He also mentioned frequent drug use, I asked him what he took, he said LSD, I asked whether he had heard voices before he ever took LSD, he answered no. Just like BW. My opinion is now it should stay illegal to sell LSD to people, because society has the duty to protect certain of its members from themselves using too dangerous drugs. Same goes for guns - they're just to dangerous for everybody to easily get them, even though everybody DOES have the right to defendhimself (even if it wasn't in the US constitution).

That's a good point - if taking a drug once can be life destroying, maybe that drug should be illegal. [eta: though lots of things legal and illegal can be life-destroying on the first try if not used correctly or in moderation. Driving, for instance. So I have to think about this.]
With regard to LSD, the thing is that schizophrenia, which is typically an inherited trait usually manifests at about the same age as one might be experimenting with drugs. And the effects of LSD have some commonality with schizophrenia, so if the two things coincide, it's easy for people to assume a causal link, while it may just be co-incidence.
I don't know, and scientists haven't identified a causal link. But if there is one, yeah, that should be taken into account.
I agree with you about the guns.

[Emily]

The intersection of individual liberty and the public good (protection from crime, national security, general health, shared economic interests)--even another's individual liberty--is a tricky one. The reality is that we don't live in separate vacuums, that our actions and inactions have consequences beyond ourselves (and thus infringe on others' lives, or liberties). Yet I'm a strong advocate of individual liberty, especially in theory and often in practice.

Satisfactory answers to specific policy proposals aren't easy to come by.

I agree with this, though the definition of "liberty" is too open to debate so I avoid the term.
I don't think it's sacrilege to interfere with personal autonomy, but I think a very high standard has to be met before it's done.

[Emily]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

Micha - good point.  But I would say legalize everything -- then it puts those who push drugs out of business, and fills the jails to over 50% with people needing addiction treatment.  We wouldn't have those tunnels for drug transport.  It would collapse their economy.  And re-focus the effort towards treatment and not punishment.

Then, use those facilities, to provide substance abuse and education in a compassionate setting.  People who have what we call "diminished capacity to make a judgment," or get treatment when they are high as hell, need protection and not condemnation by society. Many don't realize that they are destroying their bodies because they are too high to appreciate the good judgment that is impaired.  

+1 - look! We agree! 

[Micha]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

Micha - good point.  But I would say legalize everything -- then it puts those who push drugs out of business, and fills the jails to over 50% with people needing addiction treatment.  We wouldn't have those tunnels for drug transport.  It would collapse their economy.  And re-focus the effort towards treatment and not punishment.

Then, use those facilities, to provide substance abuse and education in a compassionate setting.  People who have what we call "diminished capacity to make a judgment," or get treatment when they are high as hell, need protection and not condemnation by society. Many don't realize that they are destroying their bodies because they are too high to appreciate the good judgment that is impaired.  

Maybe it would be better to just criminalize selling the stuff. The drug user is a kind of victim more than a criminal. Here in Germany, if I'm not mistaken, it's legal to own a small amount of cannabis for own consumption, but if you are caught with more than a certain amount, you're treated as a dealer and are brought to the court. I think it is illegal to even own or take LSD, heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and the like.

[filledeplage]

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights and neither does government. Humans have inalienable rights that come from their creator. We're all individuals and we all own our bodies. As a result, we have a right to defend our bodies by any means necessary.

So would you go as far to say that drugs like heroin and LSD should be made legal because everybody has the right to destroy his/her own body?

Micha - good point.  But I would say legalize everything -- then it puts those who push drugs out of business, and fills the jails to over 50% with people needing addiction treatment.  We wouldn't have those tunnels for drug transport.  It would collapse their economy.  And re-focus the effort towards treatment and not punishment.

Then, use those facilities, to provide substance abuse and education in a compassionate setting.  People who have what we call "diminished capacity to make a judgment," or get treatment when they are high as hell, need protection and not condemnation by society. Many don't realize that they are destroying their bodies because they are too high to appreciate the good judgment that is impaired.  

Maybe it would be better to just criminalize selling the stuff. The drug user is a kind of victim more than a criminal. Here in Germany, if I'm not mistaken, it's legal to own a small amount of cannabis for own consumption, but if you are caught with more than a certain amount, you're treated as a dealer and are brought to the court. I think it is illegal to even own or take LSD, heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and the like.

Hi Micha - one of my brothers lived a year in Germany. (Hope you see the Touring Band while they tour Germany.)  The US has had a fake war on drugs.  I can't say it any more diplomatically. It is what it is. Drugs have been used as currency for decades.

De-criminalizing it, initially could collapse the drug economies of the countries who are predators as regards the US.  It would not cure addiction but it would likely stop drug-mules and the tunnels that have sprung up to transport these drugs that are killing our youth.  Then we could start to get a handle on recovery delivery services without fear of prison. 

Just treat it as a health problem, like a broken leg. No stigma. And save those talented young people whose gifts and intelligence are taken from us from drugs.

 

[Micha]

Hi Micha - one of my brothers lived a year in Germany. (Hope you see the Touring Band while they tour Germany.) 

Well, I do have a ticket. They don't tour on their own, though, it's a big show with several other artists, 7 other acts all together, including OMD and the John Miles Electric Band, all being backed by a smyphony orchestra. I don't expect them to play for longer than half an hour. As the show is six days from now, I think it's too late to file Surf's Up as a request - I don't like any of the non-demo studio versions of it and want to hear it played by a symphonic orchestra!

[filledeplage]

Hi Micha - one of my brothers lived a year in Germany. (Hope you see the Touring Band while they tour Germany.) 

Well, I do have a ticket. They don't tour on their own, though, it's a big show with several other artists, 7 other acts all together, including OMD and the John Miles Electric Band, all being backed by a smyphony orchestra. I don't expect them to play for longer than half an hour. As the show is six days from now, I think it's too late to file Surf's Up as a request - I don't like any of the non-demo studio versions of it and want to hear it played by a symphonic orchestra!

Maybe not Surf's Up, just the more well-known hits, buts still a really great opportunity you have to hear them with a symphony.  I'm jealous. I've never seen them with a symphony, so, for me - something to look forward to! 

Have fun! 

[Micha]

Another kid just killed herself because her dad just had to have a gun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/30/georgia-6-year-old-dead-finds-gun-in-couch-cushion-fatally-shoots-herself/

According to the Centers For Disease Control’s "WONDER" database, 69 children under the age of 15 died from accidental gunshots in the US in 2013. How many saved their lives defending themselves with a gun that year? Thank GOD guns are restricted in my country. There will aways be loads of irresponsible people who own them if guns aren't restricted.