Gun free zone

[augustocroppo]

By the way, self-defense is a right or a duty?

It appears you cannot even understand the difference of both definitions.

It appears you cannot understand the fact that it is both.

Self-defense is not a moral or legal obligation. The act to react against an imminent physical attack is completely voluntary and cannot be enforced by laws or moral standards. In accordance with your delusional premise (self-defense is a right and a duty of the individual), any person would have the duty to defend itself from an attacker. Disable people, elders or children would have the obligation to react against  any imminent physical attack which they could face. This is, of course, false. There is no moral or legal obligations which forces a disable person, an elder or a child to react against a threat.

A disable person, an elder or children is indeed entitled to defend his body as much he/she can, but at the same time they are entitled to let another person defend their body as much they can. Therefore the action of self-defense is a right and not a duty. Individuals have the right to choice who defend them, whatever is themselves or somebody else.

Individuals also have the right to choose if other individuals should or should not handle lethal weapons near them. A school which not allows individuals to own lethal weapons in their premises is not forcing another individuals to not defend themselves (it is not a duty), but exercising the right to decide who will defend themselves (it is a right).

[Richy_T]

I've never had to use my home insurance either. Perhaps I should cancel it.

[notme]

By the way, self-defense is a right or a duty?

It appears you cannot even understand the difference of both definitions.

It appears you cannot understand the fact that it is both.

Self-defense is not a moral or legal obligation. The act to react against an imminent physical attack is completely voluntary and cannot be enforced by laws or moral standards. In accordance with your delusional premise (self-defense is a right and a duty of the individual), any person would have the duty to defend itself from an attacker. Disable people, elders or children would have the obligation to react against  any imminent physical attack which they could face. This is, of course, false. There is no moral or legal obligations which forces a disable person, an elder or a child to react against a threat.

A disable person, an elder or children is indeed entitled to defend his body as much he/she can, but at the same time they are entitled to let another person defend their body as much they can. Therefore the action of self-defense is a right and not a duty. Individuals have the right to choice who defend them, whatever is themselves or somebody else.

Individuals also have the right to choose if other individuals should or should not handle lethal weapons near them. A school which not allows individuals to own lethal weapons in their premises is not forcing another individuals to not defend themselves (it is not a duty), but exercising the right to decide who will defend themselves (it is a right).

I agree on right vs. duty, but the last paragraph seems to have come from you ass.  Are you sayig I have the right to demand that the police officer who pulled me over to go put his gun back in his car because it makes me uncomfortable?

[foggyb]

The responses in this thread show clearly that for some US citizens, giving up guns is as good as stepping in front of a bus. While it's possible that not having a gun is not fatal, it does seem to be a real fear. Removing guns for these people isn't going to make them feel more secure, but just the reverse.

Any country where people feel the need to have weapons to protect themselves from other citizens or from the government should probably work on that lack of security before they advocate gun control.

The legitimate reason to have a gun, is to USE it for its intended purpose. Not for some kind of warm fuzzy secure feeling you get from it. That's a fantasy you invented. Security is a not a feeling, its the ability to defend oneself.

[myrkul]

By the way, self-defense is a right or a duty?

It appears you cannot even understand the difference of both definitions.

It appears you cannot understand the fact that it is both.

Self-defense is not a moral or legal obligation.

On the contrary, it is a moral obligation:

All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

A disable person, an elder or children is indeed entitled to defend his body as much he/she can, but at the same time they are entitled to let another person defend their body as much they can. Therefore the action of self-defense is a right and not a duty. Individuals have the right to choice who defend them, whatever is themselves or somebody else.

Duties can be delegated. You are not required to do your own parenting, either.

Individuals also have the right to choose if other individuals should or should not handle lethal weapons near them.

No, they do not. They have the right to choose if other individuals may carry weapons onto their property, but by denying them that ability, they are taking responsibility for their defense while on their property. In a public space, or a space not owned by the individual, no such ability exists.

[augustocroppo]

I agree on right vs. duty, but the last paragraph seems to have come from you ass.  Are you sayig I have the right to demand that the police officer who pulled me over to go put his gun back in his car because it makes me uncomfortable?

No, that is not what I meant. I was arguing over the right that the individual have to choose who will defend him.

[myrkul]

I agree on right vs. duty, but the last paragraph seems to have come from you ass.  Are you sayig I have the right to demand that the police officer who pulled me over to go put his gun back in his car because it makes me uncomfortable?

No, that is not what I meant. I was arguing over the right that the individual have to choose who will defend him.

Well, if you wish for me to not use my gun to defend you, then I will certainly comply. I will, however, use it to defend myself. You may gain some accidental benefit from that. I apologize, and would advise that if you wish to ensure this does not happen, you stay out of my presence.

[augustocroppo]

On the contrary, it is a moral obligation:

All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

This men and women have the full right to react against a physical threat as they think appropriate, but they do not have any moral or legal obligation to react at all.

Duties can be delegated. You are not required to do your own parenting, either.

People are not required to do they own self-defense. So?

No, they do not.

Yes, they do! In an organized society a group of people can decide if people will be allowed to handle guns in public or private schools.

They have the right to choose if other individuals may carry weapons onto their property, but by denying them that ability, they are taking responsibility for their defense while on their property. In a public space, or a space not owned by the individual, no such ability exists.

There is no implied agreement of protection when an person is allowed to enter a private property (in this case, a school). Unless the owner explicit offers the protection, the property owner do not have any moral obligation to defend an person from an physical threat. However, the person have the full right to react as he/she thinks necessary in face of any physical threat.

[myrkul]

This men and women have the full right to react against a physical threat as they think appropriate, but they do not have any moral or legal obligation to react at all.

Indeed, I would prefer they not act, or rather - delegate their action - rather than literally firing blind. But they still have the moral obligation to see to their own defense, whether by learning to defend themselves without sight (doable, but not usually worth the effort) or by delegating that responsibility. Certainly I have no obligation to defend them, nor does anyone else who has not explicitly agreed to.

Duties can be delegated. You are not required to do your own parenting, either.

People are not required to do they own self-defense. So?

So, though it may be delegated, you cannot just expect someone to take care of it for you. It is your duty to see that it gets taken care of, just as with parenting.

No, they do not.

Yes, they do! In an organized society a group of people can decide if people will be allowed to handle guns in public or private schools.

I feel we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. A group of people can indeed decide if people will be allowed to handle guns in their school. But not in another one.

They have the right to choose if other individuals may carry weapons onto their property, but by denying them that ability, they are taking responsibility for their defense while on their property. In a public space, or a space not owned by the individual, no such ability exists.

There is no implied agreement of protection when an person is allowed to enter a private property (in this case, a school). Unless the owner explicit offers the protection, the property owner do not have any moral obligation to defend an person from an physical threat. However, the person have the full right to react as he/she thinks necessary in face of any physical threat.

If you take away my ability to defend myself, you are taking the responsibility for that duty. You may not see it that way, but that is the truth of the matter.

[fornit]

They have the right to choose if other individuals may carry weapons onto their property, but by denying them that ability, they are taking responsibility for their defense while on their property. In a public space, or a space not owned by the individual, no such ability exists.

There is no implied agreement of protection when an person is allowed to enter a private property (in this case, a school). Unless the owner explicit offers the protection, the property owner do not have any moral obligation to defend an person from an physical threat. However, the person have the full right to react as he/she thinks necessary in face of any physical threat.

If you take away my ability to defend myself, you are taking the responsibility for that duty. You may not see it that way, but that is the truth of the matter.

nobody is taking anything away from you. just dont enter that private property if you dont agree to the terms. i thought ancap is all about voluntary contracts...

the word duty shouldnt even be in the vocabulary of any ancap-believer.

[Richy_T]

the word duty shouldnt even be in the vocabulary of any ancap-believer.

Nonsense.

+1. And particularly in reference to the moral duty of self defense, I would say that I have a moral duty to do what I can to return home at night and keep providing for my family. I guess a single guy with no family has no moral reason not to stand there and be beaten out of this world with an iron pole.

[FirstAscent]

the word duty shouldnt even be in the vocabulary of any ancap-believer.

Nonsense.

+1. And particularly in reference to the moral duty of self defense, I would say that I have a moral duty to do what I can to return home at night and keep providing for my family. I guess a single guy with no family has no moral reason not to stand there and be beaten out of this world with an iron pole.

I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.

I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.

[Richy_T]

I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.

I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.

I agree completely. That's how I got here from being a gun control advocate.

[FirstAscent]

I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.

I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.

I agree completely. That's how I got here from being a gun control advocate.

And the process from A to B was... ?

[FirstAscent]

I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.

I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

For starters, which "worsening problem" might you be talking about?

More guns over time in the US.

[FirstAscent]

I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.

I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

For starters, which "worsening problem" might you be talking about?

More guns over time in the US.

How is this a problem?

If you can't figure out why, then I think you need to take off your 'I love guns' sunglasses. Let's start with some data:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

[FirstAscent]

So, the U.S. has high crime and many guns. That's enough for you? You don't stop to consider things like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against terrorism, the fact the U.S. has constantly been at war around the globe for decades, poverty levels, education, decline of the family, etc?

Did I not mention the benefits of starting with a clean slate a few posts back? That would indicate that everything bears worth looking at. And if we analyze everything in context, the conclusions very might well result in less firearms plus other policies (possibly changed) will result in less violence and less gun deaths.

Don't lose sight of the fact that less deaths is an important goal, both in comparison to our past, and in comparison to other nations. The US is indeed unique (apparently in a bad fucking way), and I'm not seeing it as a model that other nations might want to copy.

[FirstAscent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

[FirstAscent]

So, the U.S. has high crime and many guns. That's enough for you? You don't stop to consider things like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against terrorism, the fact the U.S. has constantly been at war around the globe for decades, poverty levels, education, decline of the family, etc?

Did I not mention the benefits of starting with a clean slate a few posts back? That would indicate that everything bears worth looking at. And if we analyze everything in context, the conclusions very might well result in less firearms plus other policies (possibly changed) will result in less violence and less gun deaths.

Don't lose sight of the fact that less deaths is an important goal, both in comparison to our past, and in comparison to other nations. The US is indeed unique (apparently in a bad fucking way), and I'm not seeing it as a model that other nations might want to copy.

Fair enough. As long as the solution doesn't involve forcing law abiding citizens to disarm, I think there is certainly progress to be made.

But that's what the other nations do. And it works.

[FirstAscent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

Of course I'm interested in reducing crime. Before we start taking away more freedoms, we should work on ending some of the failed policies that contribute to crime.

End the war on drugs This is probably the number one step in reducing crime across the board.

End the war on terrorism. Close military bases around the world. Bring the troops home to be fathers and mothers instead of soldiers. This would be a fantastic second step.

End welfare. It's obviously creating a class of people that don't produce and end up living a life of crime in our revolving door justice system.

While some aspects of your suggestions might lead to better results, are those the solutions employed by the better performing countries in the list?