Sat January 12, 2013 8:20 pm
Sat January 12, 2013 10:45 pm
Stip wrote:whoops. I thought I read that as Buchanan somewhere in the thread. I didn't click to the original link
Sun January 13, 2013 2:54 am
Half are owned by veterans and cops. Writes Keene: "Nearly 90 percent of those who own an AR-15 use it for recreational target shooting; 51 percent of AR owners are members of shooting clubs and visit the range regularly; the typical AR owner is not a crazed teenage psychopath, but a 35-plus-year-old, married and has some college education."
Wed January 16, 2013 6:16 am
Wed January 16, 2013 6:37 am
stip wrote:
Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
Philosophically speaking this isn't accurate. Jefferson, Locke, et all acknowledge that states can restrict the full, unfettered execution of our natural rights in the interest of the public (in particular if it helps create stability). That's why we form governments in the first place. It's the entire point of the enterprise. There are also long established legal precedents that say the full use of a right needs to be balanced against the larger interests of society, which is why there are perfectly constitutional laws limiting speech, for instance (libel, slander, public safety).
These restrains are legitimate provided:
A: laws are made via due process through a legislative process accountable to the people
B: Citizens who feel that the laws are so onerous as to consistently and persistently violate their rights are welcome to exit that society
Gun control violates none of these restrictions. And, in fact, you could make a very serious argument based on the people Buchanan is referencing that gun rights are the flimsiest rights there are, and are certainly not natural, since the whole point behind exiting the state of nature and forming a government is so you no longer have to take self protection into your own hands.
Pat Buchanan is a pretty shitty political philosopher
Wed January 16, 2013 5:11 pm
Wed January 16, 2013 5:34 pm
America is not a particularly violent country, according to Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health. The rate of violent crimes falls right in the middle of the rates in other high-income nations. American kids are not more likely to get into fights at school, and Americans are not more likely to be mentally ill than people in comparable countries.
“What we do have is guns. Especially handguns. And we have more homicides,” Miller said. “Our firearm homicide rate is an order of magnitude higher than in these other countries. Our rates of homicides with non-gun mechanisms—knives, bats, whatever—is pretty much right where they are in other high income countries.”
And guns make all the difference, Miller said. “We’re not more violent, but when we are violent, we kill.”
Wed January 16, 2013 5:41 pm
Green Habit wrote:I really liked the end of this article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ses.2.htmlAmerica is not a particularly violent country, according to Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health. The rate of violent crimes falls right in the middle of the rates in other high-income nations. American kids are not more likely to get into fights at school, and Americans are not more likely to be mentally ill than people in comparable countries.
“What we do have is guns. Especially handguns. And we have more homicides,” Miller said. “Our firearm homicide rate is an order of magnitude higher than in these other countries. Our rates of homicides with non-gun mechanisms—knives, bats, whatever—is pretty much right where they are in other high income countries.”
And guns make all the difference, Miller said. “We’re not more violent, but when we are violent, we kill.”
Wed January 16, 2013 6:14 pm
Green Habit wrote:I really liked the end of this article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ses.2.htmlAmerica is not a particularly violent country, according to Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health. The rate of violent crimes falls right in the middle of the rates in other high-income nations. American kids are not more likely to get into fights at school, and Americans are not more likely to be mentally ill than people in comparable countries.
“What we do have is guns. Especially handguns. And we have more homicides,” Miller said. “Our firearm homicide rate is an order of magnitude higher than in these other countries. Our rates of homicides with non-gun mechanisms—knives, bats, whatever—is pretty much right where they are in other high income countries.”
And guns make all the difference, Miller said. “We’re not more violent, but when we are violent, we kill.”
Maybe people who own guns should be licensed, Vernick said. Every state has a requirement that cosmetologists are licensed, he pointed out, but only 17 states require gun licenses.
Wed January 16, 2013 7:16 pm
Wed January 16, 2013 8:27 pm
stip wrote:I know. When will the government stop hounding cosmetologists...
Wed January 16, 2013 8:39 pm
stip wrote:There is never an ironclad guarantee for any right. Returning fire is not the same thing as safety either. The question is whether you are safer/more likely to have your rights protected under the various possible arrangements that are in front of you, and the amount of control you can exert over the circumstances you confront. The 101 Social Contract theory that would have been in the minds of the federalists and anti-federalists alike would have argued that, provided there were sufficient checks on the state through separated powers, checks, democratic procedures, accountability mechanisms, etc., we would be better off with a set of circumstances that has us give up the near total freedom found in the state of nature (including the ability to decide for yourself when to use force) and allow society to collectively make and enforce these decisions. And whether or not it is doing this effectively is determined by looking at the overall performance. The clear failure of law enforcement in this case does not negate the overall point, just like a particular US military failure does not invalidate the need for a military. It should obviously encourage us to look very closely at what failed and to try and fix it.
Wed January 16, 2013 9:35 pm
simple schoolboy wrote:stip wrote:There is never an ironclad guarantee for any right. Returning fire is not the same thing as safety either. The question is whether you are safer/more likely to have your rights protected under the various possible arrangements that are in front of you, and the amount of control you can exert over the circumstances you confront. The 101 Social Contract theory that would have been in the minds of the federalists and anti-federalists alike would have argued that, provided there were sufficient checks on the state through separated powers, checks, democratic procedures, accountability mechanisms, etc., we would be better off with a set of circumstances that has us give up the near total freedom found in the state of nature (including the ability to decide for yourself when to use force) and allow society to collectively make and enforce these decisions. And whether or not it is doing this effectively is determined by looking at the overall performance. The clear failure of law enforcement in this case does not negate the overall point, just like a particular US military failure does not invalidate the need for a military. It should obviously encourage us to look very closely at what failed and to try and fix it.
The point isn't that the police failed-its that they had no obligation to even try to protect those women. I'm not demanding the impossibly high bar of certainty that the state will defend me, merely that it Is obliged to try. I also don't trust cops to be the only ones armed as there is already enough of a double standard when it comes to police wrongdoing.
Thu January 17, 2013 4:10 pm
Wed January 23, 2013 1:34 am
Wed January 23, 2013 2:49 am
Wed January 23, 2013 3:12 pm
simple schoolboy wrote:Didn't you hear? The 2nd amendment was created so racist white men could put down slave rebellions. It's not pertinent that the descendents of those racist white men later limited the scope of that right to reduce the ability of newly freed blacks to defend themselves and again when they had to gall to demand civil rights.
Thu January 24, 2013 2:47 pm
Man in Black wrote:Who wants to talk about the racist history of gun control in this country?
Thu January 24, 2013 7:08 pm
Thu January 24, 2013 7:14 pm
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Gangs are so 1990's.