Defining a Right

[Goshin]

You have a right ot that opinion and judgment. And the rest of society has a right to their opinion and their judgment as to which present the more serious threat and what they want to do about it . And that is what we are talking about.

I presented facts, not opinions.

 

[Goshin]

Brain cancer is even less a cause of loss of lives. Should we just ignore it and stop all research into preventing and treating it?

Brain cancer is not a right.

 

[haymarket]

I presented facts, not opinions.

But at the center of it is your opinion about what society should or should not do about guns and you want to pretend those "facts" make your case for you. Is that not correct?

Do you know what is the source for the figures in the cartoon you presented? I ask because I found this very quickly by a simple search

All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.

Your cartoon seems to have left out some 7,000 deaths by gun.

 

[Goshin]

But at the center of it is your opinion about what society should or should not do about guns and you want to pretend those "facts" make your case for you. Is that not correct?

No pretense involved. The facts make it clear that the hysteria about military-looking rifles has no basis in fact, in comparison to many other weapons and societal dangers.

Clubs, knives and bare hands each individually kill more Americans each year than all rifles. The most common firearm used in homicide is pistols. The hysteria about military-styled semi-autos is emotional rather than based in fact and figures.

But banning "assault weapons" is something you think you might actually have a shot at, so that's where you go. Just don't pretend it is purely from a love of protecting innocent life, or you'd be agitating to ban booze or drop the speed limit to 20mph, either of which could theoretically save 20x as many lives.

 

[ataraxia]

Brain cancer is not a right.

If we don't have to worry about things with huge death rates, then brain cancer and massacres kinda fall into the same category. Let's just not do anything about them, right?

 

[OpportunityCost]

I do not advocate government taking away rights except in the most extreme of circumstances like extreme natural disasters or riots or internal warfare where law and order and civil norms have broken down. An example of this would be a curfew which takes away ones right to move about as they please or even assemble. And then it should be temporary and restored ASAP.

And I do not have a mechanism I have given any thought to.

Lie. You have stated repeated support for legislative gun control laws. Try to bull**** someone else.

 

[Goshin]

If we don't have to worry about things with huge death rates, then brain cancer and massacres kinda fall into the same category. Let's just not do anything about them, right?

I have entertained all the nonsense I have time for this evening, beginning with this silliness about nukes and ending with brain cancer, all of which are entirely irrelevant.


I'll reserve further comment, if any, for posts worth being taken seriously.

 

[OpportunityCost]

There is no possible civilian use or reason for the public to have access to semiautomatic weapons with bump stocks. Like you said, sane limits are not a slippery slope to Stalinism.

Is there a possible civilian use for a semi-automatic pistol with more than 7 shots? Why do you keep making arguments that no one is putting forward?

 

[OpportunityCost]

To me, they are the same thing. How do you make the distinction?

Can you exercise the right without incurring anything of value belonging to another?

 

[haymarket]

No pretense involved. The facts make it clear that the hysteria about military-looking rifles has no basis in fact, in comparison to many other weapons and societal dangers.

Clubs, knives and bare hands each individually kill more Americans each year than all rifles. The most common firearm used in homicide is pistols. The hysteria about military-styled semi-autos is emotional rather than based in fact and figures.

But banning "assault weapons" is something you think you might actually have a shot at, so that's where you go. Just don't pretend it is purely from a love of protecting innocent life, or you'd be agitating to ban booze or drop the speed limit to 20mph, either of which could theoretically save 20x as many lives.

Why does society need to satisfy your reasons as to their legitimacy or lack thereof?

 

[haymarket]

Lie. You have stated repeated support for legislative gun control laws. Try to bull**** someone else.

Yeah - me and that radical communist Ronald Reagan supporting commons sense gun legislation. :doh:roll::mrgreen::lamo

That shows how ridiculous such an attack is.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yeah - me and that radical communist Ronald Reagan supporting commons sense gun legislation. :doh:roll::mrgreen::lamo

That shows how ridiculous such an attack is.

Not the point. You said you had no mechanism in mind when you already support one. You also stated only in extreme instances, yet you support incremental infringing upon a right. Trying to play as a moderate is all well and good but you have already made your own statement false.

 

[ataraxia]

Is there a possible civilian use for a semi-automatic pistol with more than 7 shots?

If you are asking me, no.

Why do you keep making arguments that no one is putting forward?

Wait what? You are saying no one is using the "slippery slope" argument to stop any sane gun control legislation?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20071219/sliding-down-the-slippery-slope

 

[ataraxia]

Can you exercise the right without incurring anything of value belonging to another?

Here, we are trying to balance your right to firearms for any possible civilian use with the danger of unlimited access to ever-more sophisticated arms by the public at large. To me, seven shots in your pistol is more than enough to do the job. We can argue it further if you wish, as I am flexible on that number.

But you still don't need bump stocks.

 

[OpportunityCost]

If you are asking me, no.

Well, that's completely wrong. Self defense, multiple attackers.

Wait what? You are saying no one is using the "slippery slope" argument to stop any sane gun control legislation?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20071219/sliding-down-the-slippery-slope

Is anyone HERE making that argument?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Here, we are trying to balance your right to firearms for any possible civilian use with the danger of unlimited access to ever-more sophisticated arms by the public at large. To me, seven shots in your pistol is more than enough to do the job. We can argue it further if you wish, as I am flexible on that number.

But you still don't need bump stocks.

Please use towards a larger context in regards to rights. Can you exercise the right without incurring cost to another versus societal obligation with significant costs?

 

[ataraxia]

Well, that's completely wrong. Self defense, multiple attackers.

Well then for those purposes rocket propelled grenade launchers would be even better. Think how well you would be able to nail that getaway car.

Come on, man. If you live in a place where you are going to need bump stocks to protect yourself, you should probably think about moving.

 

[ataraxia]

Please use towards a larger context in regards to rights. Can you exercise the right without incurring cost to another versus societal obligation with significant costs?

There's always a precarious balance between the two. But there does have to be a balance, rather than completely ignoring one side with the argument of "it's my rights!"

 

[OpportunityCost]

There's always a precarious balance between the two. But there does have to be a balance, rather than completely ignoring one side with the argument of "it's my rights!"

Of course, but there is a difference between the two is my point.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well then for those purposes rocket propelled grenade launchers would be even better. Think how well you would be able to nail that getaway car.

Come on, man. If you live in a place where you are going to need bump stocks to protect yourself, you should probably think about moving.

Why do you counter with an argument I didn't make every time.

I am not arguing for RPGs or bump stocks. I am countering your argument that more than 7 shot semi-automatic weapons with more than 7 shots have a civilian use, and a rather common one at that.

 

[haymarket]

Not the point. You said you had no mechanism in mind when you already support one. You also stated only in extreme instances, yet you support incremental infringing upon a right. Trying to play as a moderate is all well and good but you have already made your own statement false.

I gave you circumstances. Not a mechanism. But if you want to see it that way - no problem. Do you support the circumstances I provided to help you understand my position?

Where did I support incremental infringement upon a right.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I gave you circumstances. Not a mechanism. But if you want to see it that way - no problem. Do you support the circumstances I provided to help you understand my position?

Where did I support incremental infringement upon a right.

Here we go again. :roll:

 

[ataraxia]

Of course, but there is a difference between the two is my point.

I don't get that impression from you, or for the gun rights advocates. I get the impression that they feel they should have an unlimited right to any weapon they want, and if others' sense of security is threatened, why, that's just too bad.

 

[ataraxia]

Why do you counter with an argument I didn't make every time.

I am not arguing for RPGs or bump stocks. I am countering your argument that more than 7 shot semi-automatic weapons with more than 7 shots have a civilian use, and a rather common one at that.

So you're OK with restriction on bump stocks? If so, you and I are good.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So you're OK with restriction on bump stocks? If so, you and I are good.

I am. Semi-auto I am ok with, auto fire and burst fire---no.