AR-15 massacres 9 shoppers and cop!

[oldbadger]

Drawstring.

Ah.....
I must go see my doctor sometime.
I can't sleep on my right shoulder for long and could well have a messed up rotator cuff.
And I cannot pull my old bow, I discovered a short time ago.
It might have happened when slinging pebbles out to sea with a distance-sling.

Hmmm..... rotor/rotator cuff. ..... could be.

 

[oldbadger]

Let us unpack some of those assumptions.

First you assume I have a gun in my house.

Second, you assume you "sleep more soundly."

I hope you can see the bias that frames these assumptions. Neither of these assumptions has any relevancy to my point. I am glad you sleep well and feel secured with the precautions and measures you have chosen. If those are reasonable precautions and measures i do not believe it is within the government's authority to "ban" them. So too, does that very same argument extend to guns.

I'm sorry......... I was well aware of what I was assuming/suggesting/proposing, and you were right.

But now I have been told that you don't feel any need to have a gun, not in bed, or not when out shopping,

So you don't own a gun. Don't feel the need, may I assume?

Thank you.

 

[Curious George]

I'm sorry......... I was well aware of what I was assuming/suggesting/proposing, and you were right.

But now I have been told that you don't feel any need to have a gun, not in bed, or not when out shopping,

So you don't own a gun. Don't feel the need, may I assume?

Thank you.

I do not have any guns in my house nor do I carry any guns on my person; but, i am not sure why that matters. I brought it up earlier to illustrate bias, and to question the effect of bias on the discussion. I fail to see how it matters whether i sleep without a gun or on top of a heap of guns. My point was a principled one. That i personally do not feel any need to have a gun does not mean, having one is unreasonable.

 

[oldbadger]

I do not have any guns in my house nor do I carry any guns on my person; but, i am not sure why that matters. I brought it up earlier to illustrate bias, and to question the effect of bias on the discussion. I fail to see how it matters whether i sleep without a gun or on top of a heap of guns. My point was a principled one. That i personally do not feel any need to have a gun does not mean, having one is unreasonable.

Actions speak louder than words CG.

 

[Curious George]

Actions speak louder than words CG.

Yes but not acting in a specific manner does not mean that acting in that manner is unreasonable. And, reasonableness is the basis which I hold the issue turns.

It does not seem there is much disagreement with whether guns are reasonable tools of self defense. I would hope there isn't disagreement that governments ought not have authority to ban reasonable means of self defense, but i think ultimately that is exactly where the disagreement is. I think that colored by the harm that some people have caused, many people are willing to grant authority to the government to infringe on fundamental rights. This is unfortunate in my opinion because i think we can achieve better results with a broader approach. I see the "ban x guns or y guns or all guns" as a mere band-aid fix to more deeply rooted societal issues. I think government must have limits, and when dealing with a fundamental right such as self defense people need to recognize and discuss those limits rather than jump toward what they think are easy fixes for complex problems.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes but not acting in a specific manner does not mean that acting in that manner is unreasonable. And, reasonableness is the basis which I hold the issue turns.

It does not seem there is much disagreement with whether guns are reasonable tools of self defense. I would hope there isn't disagreement that governments ought not have authority to ban reasonable means of self defense, but i think ultimately that is exactly where the disagreement is. I think that colored by the harm that some people have caused, many people are willing to grant authority to the government to infringe on fundamental rights. This is unfortunate in my opinion because i think we can achieve better results with a broader approach. I see the "ban x guns or y guns or all guns" as a mere band-aid fix to more deeply rooted societal issues. I think government must have limits, and when dealing with a fundamental right such as self defense people need to recognize and discuss those limits rather than jump toward what they think are easy fixes for complex problems.

Hang on...... So this is not about keeping a handgun on the home or concealed when outside. You think it's some kind of moral right to own a fastfire semi auto military style rifle. Yes?
Well I don't expect anything to change in the USA, so good luck with all that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does not seem there is much disagreement with whether guns are reasonable tools of self defense.

Come again?

 

[Curious George]

Come again?

It does not seem there is much disagreement with whether guns are reasonable tools of self defense.

 

[Curious George]

Hang on...... So this is not about keeping a handgun on the home or concealed when outside. You think it's some kind of moral right to own a fastfire semi auto military style rifle. Yes?
Well I don't expect anything to change in the USA, so good luck with all that.

No, i think this is about moral, just and rational limitations on government.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does not seem there is much disagreement with whether guns are reasonable tools of self defense.

There's quite a bit of disagreement if you had bothered to pay attention.

For most people, keeping a gun in the home - especially loaded and quickly retrievable - actually decreases the overall level of safety in the home, so the idea that it would be a "reasonable tool for self defense" strikes me as foolish.

 

[oldbadger]

No, i think this is about moral, just and rational limitations on government.

You have told me 'No' to this...? :-
OB:- moral right to own

OK.....How do you mean?
Defund the police?
No more driving licences?
No more State waste collection services?
End Federal Government?
What do you mean?

And what on Earth is a 'Moral limitation'?

 

[Revoltingest]

There's quite a bit of disagreement if you had bothered to pay attention.

For most people, keeping a gun in the home - especially loaded and quickly retrievable - actually decreases the overall level of safety in the home, so the idea that it would be a "reasonable tool for self defense" strikes me as foolish.

Aside from your not posting anything to support this,
there's a problem.....
Safety would depend upon far more factors than just
"gun or no gun". There are also....
- Storage method.
- Training & handling protocols of the owner.
- Risks posed by others in the home.

I say that for some, having guns is benficial.
But for others....they should get pepper spray.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, i think this is about moral, just and rational limitations on government.

As long as you aren't looking at that issue from a lopsided way.

For instance, the laws that limit the liability of firearm manufacturers and dealers for the harm of their products are also a government intervention.

 

[Curious George]

There's quite a bit of disagreement if you had bothered to pay attention.

For most people, keeping a gun in the home - especially loaded and quickly retrievable - actually decreases the overall level of safety in the home, so the idea that it would be a "reasonable tool for self defense" strikes me as foolish.

Seems to me you are trying to answer a different question entirely

 

[Curious George]

You have told me 'No' to this...? :-
OB:- moral right to own

OK.....How do you mean?
Defund the police?
No more driving licences?
No more State waste collection services?
End Federal Government?
What do you mean?

And what on Earth is a 'Moral limitation'?

I thought it was obvious: the limitation on the government concerns the government's authority in restricting access to reasonable means of self defense

 

[Curious George]

As long as you aren't looking at that issue from a lopsided way.

For instance, the laws that limit the liability of firearm manufacturers and dealers for the harm of their products are also a government intervention.

I am not discussing laws that limit manufacturers' liability.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems to me you are trying to answer a different question entirely

I'm just putting your question in context.

Regulating the conditions under which the firearms industry can be sued is one aspect of firearm regulation. You talked about not wanting the government to infringe on our fundamental rights; well, one fundamental right is the right to seek redress through the courts when someone has wronged us.

If you're going to talk about restrictions of rights, remember that laws like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (to use an American example) is also a restriction on the rights of the people.

Allow a freer expression of the rights of the people and you may find that firearm owners are even more restricted by what they can do... not by government regulation, but by the invisible hand of the market.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not discussing laws that limit manufacturers' liability.

I know. I am.

 

[Curious George]

I'm just putting your question in context.

Regulating the conditions under which the firearms industry can be sued is one aspect of firearm regulation. You talked about not wanting the government to infringe on our fundamental rights; well, one fundamental right is the right to seek redress through the courts when someone has wronged us.

If you're going to talk about restrictions of rights, remember that laws like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (to use an American example) is also a restriction on the rights of the people.

Allow a freer expression of the rights of the people and you may find that firearm owners are even more restricted by what they can do... not by government regulation, but by the invisible hand of the market.

You seem to think i am in support of reducing liability by prohibiting certain litigation. That is definitely not the case.

 

[Curious George]

I know. I am.

Then you are the one off OP