- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on June 04, 1999 at 16:01:19:

In Reply to: knowing me knowing you posted by Gee on June 04, 1999 at 13:17:35:

: and the right to bear arms alone too.

It doesn't say that. See below.

: Difficult to consider when cannons were the biggest thing at the time.

Indeed, I think this clause needs seriously updating, it presupposes the absence of a standing Army, and can't account for modern weapons. But as it stands, you ae saying you have teh right to nuclear weapons.

: a collective cannot have a right denied to an individual lest that right contradicts itself.

Not sure about that- a collective could hold the right denied to individuals quite easilly, or rather some individual rights will requir the consent of the collective- say putting up a Lead plant with fumes, etc.

: Who owns them then - the government, the 'village'? If you can own a toothbrush for personal use you can own a gun likewise - you have used this argument before for less scary items - it applies again.

I think you have to pay for them, and own them, but you have to own and maintain one specific type- such a model could mean teh US doing the same, but people could only buy the right gun for their town militia.

: Its not a reason why arms are kept, its the other way round. Arms are kept, this should be left alone otherwise militias are impossible.

But you are saying above there, that the reason why people should be allowed to keep them, is so that a militia can be possible- it is the reason for that Clause, its raison d'etre, no amount of monkeying around the semantics can eliminate the qualification, "people can keep arms in order to be able to form a militia". And a regulated one at that.

: It requires the 're-intepration' to lend credibility to enthusiasts of victim disarmament and state run libraries (with blacklisted books ofcourse)

I see no re-interpretation, except to adapt the clause to changed circumstances. Common law judicial systems suck.

: We would, hence lawful wording has to very precise, and that is why the 2nd amendment is as it is. Its intent was very clear, and widely followed, when it was written - but development of language has opened the lever modern politicians want.

No, because even according to that Early meaning, and *your* interpretation, it still only exists as a right to bear arms so the state can have militias, without those militias the arms become redunant.

: And you except that meanwhile higher levels of violence will be present and require greater self defence.

No, because I think violence would fall down fairly shortly, and I think Guns are lousy for self defence. I thank fuck the British Police force remains largely unarmed still- as things get worse that'll change, but...

: The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun.

Which presumes they have got to their gun, what percentage of women are *able* to resist with a gun, and are in a position to do so? Thats the point I was making, most of the time the gun won't be there for you.

: Resistance with a gun is the safest course of action for victims to take.

But that is illusory if they cannot get to their gun in time.

: From extrapolation of reports and research (hotly disputed ofcourse) it is estimated that guns are shown to attackers somewhere up to 1.5 million times a year (US), approximaetly 98% of the time showing is enough, 1% the gun is fired as warning and 1% the gun is fired in the direction of assailant.

As a percentage of attacks?

: The idea that equally armed thug v attacker makes gun ownership futille is very silly. The thug isnt after an equal chance of dying - he wants to have all the advantages - hence the 'gun showing' defence puts a thug off

Assuming teh attacker is a thug- most rapes are committed by a known person, most murders are committed by a known person, most burglaries do not involve a victim, most street attacks and muggings are infrequent, and probably a gun wouldn't help with a knife already at your throat.

What you are talking about is potential usefullness, I'm talking about actual usefullness.

: It is no accident that crime went up in Washington when gun controls set in, even though its very difficult to show causality except anecdotally.

I suspect the rampant and increasing poverty would show more of a reason, the link twixt the two is well documented.

: It would be unconstitutional. Thats very weak - banning guns is like
No it wouldn't you can still bear arms- just not fire-arms- a sword is an armament.

: I bet you could buy a gun from a dealer in your city or if you popped over to liverpool or manchester.

Yes, I probably could, but I don't think I stand more chance of being attacked due to my lack of a gun- I prefer to think that bby improving social conditions I can cut violent crime, making guns utterly unnecessary.

: The only people are left gun-less after a ban are law abiding people. They are not magicked away by a ban, nor are they made all that much more difficult to get for a criminal intent on using one - and nor does it save more than the occasional life by accidental death - the cause of which is irresponsibility or plain bad luck - so ban sharp things and swimming pools and cars and rich food and concrete steps and matches etc etc.

Actually one yank I know does say the accident figures for guns are horriifically high. Strangely its very low ovcer here where all handguns are banned even for sporting purposes. (Shotguns are still allowed IIRC).

: The one thing you didnt answer was "do you agree that the individual has the right to defend himself against an aggressor?" and as corrolary that such defence may necessitate or result in the death of the assailant and that such defence, to be meaninglful, also means that the individual must have the right to use a tool of self defence whether it be a knife, pool cue or gun.

Erm, yes, of course, but by the same token it doesn't mean that people have the right ot own armanments, reducing the number of homocidally designed items in society, and making their access more difficult will seriously effect opportunity crime, and professionals, well, you wouldn't stop them anyway.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup