Side story on the recent gun spree

[ganulv]

(1) Self-defence is no responsibility, but a legitimate choice.
Inventing responsibilities which are none merely muddles the language and discourse.

I believe a civilized society could reach a consensus that self-defense is or is not first and foremost an individual responsibility and be just as right in either. The trouble is that in the United States we do not tend to do consensus well. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid an’ all that.

[Fuchs]

The invention of rights and less often so responsibilities that actually don't exist or are a gross exaggeration or misinterpretation is a phenomenon which I only remember from encounters with Americans.
It appears to be a cheap trick in American rhetoric, but it may be more widespread. My evidence is anecdotal.

Another example is a confused person who believed his freedom of speech extended to getting whatever comment he has published on my blog.
His freedom of speech didn't even extend to say his opinion like that in public due to its limits in regard to libel!
More importantly, he had no claim to get his opinion published in the medium and place of his choosing, but rather to not be sanctioned for expressing it in whatever way he manages to express it (sans the libel).
______

In this case, the team "pro guns" denies that self defence without guns is sufficient and goes on to claim a responsibility to self defend. In combination this asserts the team "contra gun" is not meeting its responsibility, a ludicrous implication. Moreover, asserting a responsibility where there is none provides additional (imagined) weight to the team "pro gun"'s case.
A rational, mud-free discussion looks differently.

[slapout9]

(1) Self-defense is no responsibility, but a legitimate choice.
Inventing responsibilities which are none merely muddles the language and discourse.

Spoken like a true Obsolete Euro-Communist. You have never been a free citizen, you have never known individual rights and responsibilities, all you have ever known is what the Government told you to think.

[ganulv]

The invention of rights and less often so responsibilities that actually don't exist or are a gross exaggeration or misinterpretation is a phenomenon which I only remember from encounters with Americans.
It appears to be a cheap trick in American rhetoric, but it may be more widespread. My evidence is anecdotal.

Sometimes it is a cheap rhetorical device, but in my experience it tends to be due to the fact that most Americans have not spent much time deciding where they stand on whether rights are natural or socially constructed, which is a conclusion one needs to come to before having an opinion worth opining as regards legal rights current or proposed. In defense of my fellow Americans, that stuff is not all that difficult to muddle. And we do not really have an illustrious ancestor like Herr Nietzsche who has sketched out the difference beforehand to help guide us in our thinking.

[carl]

It seems to me that that Founding Fathers came down pretty forcefully on the side of natural rights. That is the basis upon which our laws and gov are established. Some progressive thinkers don't like that at all but that is the way it is. And just to make sure that everybody was clear on that, the Founders reiterated things in the Bill of Rights.

Self defense is a responsibility, not a choice. If as a free citizen, you expect somebody else to help you with criminals and thieves, you have to help them help you. You aren't a employer of servants who commands and expects people to come help them out without a concomitant responsibility to try and help yourself. You want help, you better be willing to pitch in.

Now if you don't expect anybody to come to your aid when you call, then it is a choice. You want to stand there passive while somebody cuts your throat, that is your choice. But if that is your choice you can't legitimately expect others to help you if you won't try to help yourself.

Self defense without guns is ineffective. What are you Fuchs, anti-women? A petite, 110 pound 55 year old women with a gun, is as formidable an opponent as 3 NFL all pro linebackers. If you take that gun away from her, then she is unable to defend herself against most of the people out there, and especially against groups of people. You have deprived her of her right to self-defense. That is a right conferred upon her by her simple existence. Nobody can legitimately take that away from her.

[slapout9]

Pretty good training film on accepting personal responsibility in an active shooter situation produced by Houston,Texas government with a grant from Department OF homeland security.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4IJA5Zpzz4

[carl]

This is how I was taught to become self reliant as part of learning to become a good citizen back in the days when Real Americans accepted the responsibility for the difficult situations that everyone would face as part of life itself. Instead of falling for some left over pseudo commie euro trash philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6Ew...=results_video

Slap: Check this one out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSS3yxpnFU

The nuns showed us this more than once. I am forever grateful that they did. It had a genuine effect on me and I still remember.

[Surferbeetle]

It seems to me that that Founding Fathers came down pretty forcefully on the side of natural rights. That is the basis upon which our laws and gov are established. Some progressive thinkers don't like that at all but that is the way it is. And just to make sure that everybody was clear on that, the Founders reiterated things in the Bill of Rights.

Agree

Self defense is a responsibility, not a choice. If as a free citizen, you expect somebody else to help you with criminals and thieves, you have to help them help you. You aren't a employer of servants who commands and expects people to come help them out without a concomitant responsibility to try and help yourself. You want help, you better be willing to pitch in.

There is indeed a real and ongoing cost/responsibility that comes with accepting the goodies that a society offers: security, infrastructure, rule of law, etc. This includes flesh and blood individuals as well as 'paper' individuals (corporations).

A petite, 110 pound 55 year old women with a gun, is as formidable an opponent as 3 NFL all pro linebackers. If you take that gun away from her, then she is unable to defend herself against most of the people out there, and especially against groups of people. You have deprived her of her right to self-defense. That is a right conferred upon her by her simple existence. Nobody can legitimately take that away from her.

Free markets and natural rights are interesting to think about and experience in this context.

During my travels in Iraq it was my observation that free markets very much in effect. I was aware of various 'impromptu' bazaars that had a number of items on offer to include long rifles and handguns. Tribal and personal responsibility was not an abstract topic to many, on either side.

It was my observation that 'rights' that we take for granted here in the West were not won/kept there solely through discourse.

As to violent video games and movies, perhaps they are a deep societal response to the bicycle helmet/pads/safety belt/risk averse forces of darkness?

[slapout9]

Slap: Check this one out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSS3yxpnFU

The nuns showed us this more than once. I am forever grateful that they did. It had a genuine effect on me and I still remember.

Yep, that is a good one. I am not Catholic but I had many friends that went to Catholic schools and the reputation of Nuns was always the same....they don't mess around!

[slapout9]

As to violent video games and movies, perhaps they are a deep societal response to the bicycle helmet/pads/safety belt/risk averse forces of darkness?

Beetle, you might be on to something there!

[Fuchs]

Spoken like a true Obsolete Euro-Communist. You have never been a free citizen, you have never known individual rights and responsibilities, all you have ever known is what the Government told you to think.

My people do not tolerate that our government claims authority to execute us after trial or even without trial by order f the head of government. We cannot be interned indefinitely legally or be tortured legally.

Stuff your "free citizen" stuff where it belongs; Germany is a more free society than the (U.S.) American one.
We're not that ambitious and stubborn in our delusions, though.

Besides, you obviously have no clue about Germany or what "communist" actually means, which is also very typical of U.S. people.

Your part about "individual rights and responsibilities" is so obvious nonsense, I wonder if you are that ignorant or rather reached the point of desperation in the discussion where you don't really care about the real world any more.
Yet another thing usually associated with - guess who.


I suppose your nonsense and behaviour in this thread clearly shows everyone how much weight your opinion should carry in discussions. None.

[carl]

It was my observation that 'rights' that we take for granted here in the West were not won/kept there solely through discourse.

That is critical. The chattering elites, the superzips, think that what we have now is the normal course of things. This is how it was and this is how it will always be no matter what is done. Guys like you and Slap have seen the face of the world as it really is and know different. But those people, raised in safe places, surrounded by kind people and never having seen the ferocious side of life, they don't have a clue. That wouldn't be so bad but they don't know they are clueless, assume the rest of us are and away they go.

[Surferbeetle]

It's always good to read your posts Slap. MOM: motive, opportunity, and method...thanks for that way back when.

Have noted a shortage of 9mm out this way of late and that the firearms counter at Wally World is a very, very popular place. That's ok, got some stashed, there is still plenty of .38 available, and target practice is good for the soul.

[carl]

My people do not tolerate that our government claims authority to execute us after trial or even without trial by order f the head of government. We cannot be interned indefinitely legally or be tortured legally.

Stuff your "free citizen" stuff where it belongs; Germany is a more free society than the (U.S.) American one.
We're not that ambitious and stubborn in our delusions, though.

Besides, you obviously have no clue about Germany or what "communist" actually means, which is also very typical of U.S. people.

Your part about "individual rights and responsibilities" is so obvious nonsense, I wonder if you are that ignorant or rather reached the point of desperation in the discussion where you don't really care about the real world any more.
Yet another thing usually associated with - guess who.

I suppose your nonsense and behaviour in this thread clearly shows everyone how much weight your opinion should carry in discussions. None.

Now Fuchs, calm down.

Let us return to basics. Do you believe in natural rights?

[carl]

It's always good to read your posts Slap. MOM: motive, opportunity, and method...thanks for that way back when.

Have noted a shortage of 9mm out this way of late and that the firearms counter at Wally World is a very, very popular place. That's ok, got some stashed, there is still plenty of .38 available, and target practice is good for the soul.

Not just 9mm. There isn't any .22lr to be had anywhere around here. (for less than 10 cents a round that it.)

[carl]

As to violent video games and movies, perhaps they are a deep societal response to the bicycle helmet/pads/safety belt/risk averse forces of darkness?

Beetle, you might be on to something there!

Sort of like Catholic girls once they got out of school in the years gone by? I am being serious. The dynamic would be the same.

[jmm99]

As a normal rule, sheep don't like the sheepdog. The sheepdog looks something like a wolf, and acts something like a wolf. But, the sheepdog is not a predator of prey (the sheep); the sheepdog is a predator of predators (the wolves).

Even knowing that the sheepdog will never intentionally harm a sheep, the sheep still don't like the sheepdog. The mutt reminds them that wolves do exist, do attack sheep and do eat them all up. The best sheeply thing to do is to simply forget about the problem.

So, the mild-mannered grazers plod along in their state of denial until the wolves attack. The sheep then turn to their second operational mode - they stampede. Some are lucky enough to find refuge behind the sheepdog; some are not.

Self-defense and defense of others are not a sheep's forte.

Obvious HT to Dave Grossman for the concept.

-------------------------------
ganulv:

...whether rights are natural or socially constructed, which is a conclusion one needs to come to before having an opinion worth opining as regards legal rights current or proposed. ... that stuff is not all that difficult to muddle.

I'd say election between natural rights, or socially constructed rights (are you saying the latter ~ to positive law), is not the crunch point. That distinction does enter into distinguishing the bases for the various arguments on bearing arms and self-defense. Both sides argue natural rights and positive law rights.

The crunch points as to both issues are:

1. Right vs privilege

2. Duty vs choice

"Duty" ~ "responsibility".

Maybe more on those points later - it gets a bit "weedy".

Regards

Mike

[motorfirebox]

The video games flap is just another moral panic. In the 50s we had comic books turning kids gay, in the 80s we had Dungeons and Dragons leading to devil worship, in the oughts and teens we have vidja games causing spree shootings.

I think the right to firearms occupies an important spot in the protection of personal freedom as that concept is understood in the US. I'll note, however, that the threat to personal freedom that the right to firearms was intended to protect is best represented, in modern times, not by the national military but by local and federal law enforcement.

It's quite clear, however, that we need to work pretty hard on our ability to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. In large part that will involve "enforcing the laws that are already on the books", as the NRA rallying cry goes. But it will also involve new legislation, since NRA lobbying has effectively gutted law enforcement's ability to fight black market firearms (witness that the ATF hasn't had a permanent director for six friggin' years). Legislation to restrict weapon types is not needed; the types of weapons that Feinstein and others want to ban--"assault weapons", to use the ridiculous term being bandied about--participate in something like 2% of gun violence. What we need instead is, among other things, heftier penalties for straw buyers, relaxed standards on warrants for straw buyers (currently, investigators must show specific criminal intent for each and every gun in a suspected straw buy--that a particular buyer purchases well over their yearly income in guns every month, and that guns purchased by that buyer show up with great frequency at crime scenes in Mexico, is not currently considered to be enough evidence to prosecute), and universal background checks.

The complaint that is lobbied most frequently against such measures--especially universal background checks--is that it will make it easier for Obama to collect our guns when he finally makes his move. These complaints are completely ####ing retarded. There's no other description for it.

[carl]

But it will also involve new legislation, since NRA lobbying has effectively gutted law enforcement's ability to fight black market firearms (witness that the ATF hasn't had a permanent director for six friggin' years).

Why? And why should the lack of a permanent ATF director hinder enforcement of firearms laws? The ATF should be able to go on with their job without a permanent director, who is only as permanent as his political acceptability anyway I believe. No matter what you do with the ATF, the bulk of gun law enforcement is going to be done by local and state agencies.

We have universal checks here in CO at least for commercial and gun show sales. The concern that people have about that isn't so far fetched. Universal check done, no permanent record kept, no problem. Universal check done, no permanent record kept, (permanent record kept on the sly), big problem. What they say and what they do may differ. The phone companies rolled over for the NSA in the past I believe.

[Fuchs]

Let us return to basics. Do you believe in natural rights?

That's totally unrelated. I certainly have never heard of gun possession being called a "natural right", and don't think "right to live" is particularly useful for a firearms policy discussion since the value of life should be obvious anyway.


I have thoughts about natural rights that could contribute to an interesting philosophical discussion about rights in general, but not here.

Why? And why should the lack of a permanent ATF director hinder enforcement of firearms laws?

What I read about the issue points at gazillions of small provisions inserted by NRA's representatives in Congress into bills. These provisions ban this ATF action, exclude that, de-fund something else and so on.
Up front the NRA appears to call for enforcement of existing laws before any new laws be considered while behind the scenes they make sure there's not going to be such an effective enforcement, thus the argument never goes away.



@motorfirebox:
That's a defect of many if not all Western democracies.
The general public has limited attention resources, and spectacular issues as well as issues pushed by effective special interests are most likely to capture this attention.
Meanwhile, the parliament can do its routine business largely unobserved, and not necessarily in our best interests.

The assault rifle-related and other gun rampages of heavily armed madmen capture the attention, and political activism leads to proposals aimed against this spectacular stuff.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of deaths in the statistics is being caused in a less spectacular way, and public attention is no help against it.

Same as with 9/11 and tobacco-related massacres. The average tobacco industry worker puts shame on the average AQ terrorist in regard to lethality.