- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Back to Aha-!

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on June 05, 1999 at 11:38:00:

In Reply to: vroom! posted by Gee on June 04, 1999 at 17:03:32:

: To update it would require a standard such as "no individual has the right to initiate force against another individual, and this includes the threat of force, even if it is only implicit."

No, to update it would have to account for a standing arming and well armed police force, and modern weaponry. It need rephrasing and clarifying.

:no reason to abandon the right to self defence and replace it with the helplessness of the victim.

Right to self defence is not co-eval with the ownership of guns, they are two seperate matters.

: Placed the other way round as per your second part of the sentence, this does not confer rights upon the collective that are anot also individual/s.

No, an individual cannot buiuld a lead plant without the collectives permission. All rights are those of the collective (read Rousseau).

: I dont like the sound of that principle - why not do likewise with toothbrushes so as to protect the national dental integrity?

Because they are a private matter, not a public matter, a militia is a public body, in order to be able to function you'll need uniformity of weaponry.

: No, as ive said for a militia to be possible the already existent RKBA would need to be protected, but the protection is a given, not one that only exists for the purpose of militias.

But the clause clearly states as its justification that a militia is why bearing arms must be allowed- the two are not seperable without violence to the english langugae.

:This isnt monkeying around it is the reason for the amendement. Militias are made possible by RKBA, RKBA is not dependant upon militias.

Then why should it state the relative clause on militias, assuming a pragmatic reading a la Grice, this statement flouts the maxim of quantity (it gives more information than needed), I must infer something from that excess information.

: Read above, the right to bear arms is not for the sole purpose of militias its what happens to enable such to exist.

So you're claiming that the main clause of the sentence is the condition for teh relative clause? Unlikely.

Simnple sentence structure SPOC(A)


Subject: The Right to Bear Arms.
Predicate: Shall not be infringed.
No Object.
No Compliment.
Adverbial:A Well Armed Militia being necessary, etc.

The Adverbial alters the predicate, its How and where the sentence is done, it conditions the sentence. Basically, it can be rendered:
'The right to be arms shall not be infringed because a well armed militia is needed.' The because, IMNSHO is implied in the clause.

: Things will get worse because criminals do not obey the law, gun bans are meaningless to them. What do you consider to be better self defence than a gun?

Better self-defence- living in a society that has less violence, this is brought about by decreasing poverty and increasing the quality of life- people are not criminals for the hell of it, its been shown that when theres money around and the economy is sound, crime falls. Prevention is better than guns. Wouldn't even take long.

: Most poeple who carry their gun have it in less than a seconds reach.
Really? Wouldn't have thought so, and anyway, a second may be too long. Plus in the home it may well be 50 yards awwyay or so when a friend attacks. To be effective it would have to be ready at all times. Wouldn't want to live in that society, really.

: Why would a woman buy a gun for self defence and then hide it so she cant get to it?

Because its heavy, because she might be carrying the shopping, because she may be sat at home...

:Moreover, even if the percentage able to get to their gun was a low as anti self defence proponents would desperately love it to be then it does nothing to form an argument against guns - more an argument for better skills and concealed carry.

Even that, given the eventualities above, wouldn't help that much.

: First lets look at some FBI data; With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. But what's not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on.

And familly members, certainly over here. Last I heard teh figures for Britin indicated that teh people were close.

:Only one U.S. city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings, and the statistic gives a very different impression: between 1990 and 1995, just 17% of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors or roommates of their killers.

Friend is notoriuosly slippy to define.

: and secondly even when in some cases the chances of getting to your gun are low then that is simply *not* an argument to disarm people. Why make a bad situation worse by adding thugs to the list of untouchables?

Well, it is an argument that says its a less than effective solution to the problem.

: and thirdly it is *not* whether you can or cant get to your gun on the occasion it happens - its the criminals perception of his chance of getting shot that matters - and if he knows poeple have guns then whatever his technique the chances of him getting shot are infinitely higher than if all victims are disarmed (5% being alot more than 0%) - even a very small chance is offputting. This potential threat is the silent deterrant.

I reckon most criminals owuld fall into the classifications of:
1:Too desperate to think about such things.
2:Experienced enough to know that people can't always have their gun on them.

Plus we have to look at the rules of reasonable force- to threaten to kill an attempted assualter is excessive force.

: As are the dates of gun laws - how convenient.

No, because tehre is more data to prove teh link between crime and poverty, and also murder rates go up and down here, and we have no guns....

: Guns are arms, swords are arms - both can kill - whats the difference, how can you explain that one in terms of principles?

Yes, I can't have a drive by stabbing killing five people, I can't stab someone from 20 yards away, I have to kill people up-close and personally. Its more pragmatisim than principle.

: Youd increase your chances against the assailant, moreover if you, your friends and half the people of your city owned guns then it would become a huge deterrent to a criminal. Much too risky for him.

No, because they'd be armed as well, and chances are people who are desperate don't ratiocinate that way. I'd feel less safe at night thinking most folk were heavilly armed with ranged weapons. Knives, I'm OK with, I can run...

: This is similar to the myth that your guns is more likely to kill you than someone elses.

Didnm't say that, said tehf igures were high.

: No more than 4% of the gun deaths in the study can be attributed to the homeowner's gun.

Percentages mean little here, I want raw numbers.

: There is also the question of banning anything dangerous. More young children die each year (in the US) by drowning in a bucket (!) than by accidental gunshot wounds. Garden swimming pools are even worse - lets ban them.

No, but other such things aren't designed to kill.

: Common fallacies have led you to deny the right to self defence.
No, simply teh right to own a gun, I maintain the right to self defence, within teh grounds of reasonabole force (shooting intruders into your home is bang out of order).

:Reducing the number of guns in a country only reduces the number in lawful hands. its too late to undo the knowledge and the millions made.

Indeeed, hopefully under socialism they'll all get recycled.

: When one studies all countries rather than just a select few, there is no relationship between gun ownership and murder

Surely though, this undermines your own argument, and frankly is my oiwn, that the two are not related, so why bother having legal firearms, they do no good. All your stats will show is that poverty and economic conditioons are more responsible for deaths than guns, crack that, and guns become superfluos, irrelevent.

:An opportunist thief is different from a habitual robber who would find it 'man in a pub' easy to get a gun - these are not 'professionals'. And at no point does any of it deny the right to self defence, which to mean anything at all has to imply that you can use a tool of defence.

Indeed, but I don't think guns are a tool of defence, ranged weapons aren't- and lets not forget reasonable force.

Basically, my point is that guns really aren't worth bothering about, they don't affect the crime rate one way or another, only economic and social conditions do, so making a big fuss over some frankly pointlkess items isn't really worth it, and probnably does more harm than good- only a real solution to crime counts- and self defence does not automatically equate with guns.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup