1
   

HAVE U LESS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE IF U R STUDYING ?

 
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 05:44 pm
David, I'll never get through to you because we disagree in some very fundamental ways.

You value the lives of law-abiding people, but not the lives of those who break the law. I make no such distinction; the life of a criminal is as valuable as the life of a law-abiding citizen.

You see personal freedom as more important than the well-being of all people. That is, you are more concerned with the right to bear arms than with the struggle to prevent violent crime. This is indicated by your response to what I said about Canada... you ignored the fact that Canada actually has less gun crime, and focused on the fact that in reducing gun crime they have had to limit the freedom to bear arms.

I want to say, "Surely, if it actually saves many lives, Canada's authoritarian attitude is a good thing?!" But you won't listen.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 05:58 pm
Hi Agrote,

Most everyone hears what they want to hear, and many selectively ignore what they don't want to hear. I'm not saying this is just David, but most of us, including myself at times I'm sure.

For myself, I prefer a balance between personal rights and community rights.

As less guns = less deaths - this meets the communities rights for a safer environment. As less individual deaths also benefit the individual (while acknowledging there are a very very rare number of times when a gun would be useful), gun control meets that balance in my view.

While that balance holds true in Australia, that balance may be somewhat different in the US due to the sheer number of Guns already in existence.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 06:39 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I'm thinking, David, that the more you most re your ideas,
the more you move people to reject wing-nut ideas such as your own.
Keep up the good work.

It does not matter ( especially not qua aliens ).
If I convinced u and everyone else in this forum,
no practical change wud occur.

This forum is not to effect practical politcal change,
but the USSC will take care of that.

David
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 07:03 pm
there you go man,
keep as cool as you can.
Face pile of trials
with smiles for
it riles them to believe
that you perceive
the webs they weave
and keep on thinking FREE.
Psychopaths are the future.
I can dig it david.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 07:35 pm
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
Baloney !
Every citizen shud be required to carry an MP 5,
for crime reduction, and public schools shud train their students
in safe n accurate gunnery practice.

Quote:
International stats don't support your assertion that guns reduce crime -
see the stats provided in your other guns thread.

I care about AMERICA and NY ( not to imply that I have formed a judgment qua " international stats " ) and our citizens' ability
to defend themselves from predatory violence.
I re-iterate:

" I have confidence that more guns in the hands of the citizens
reduce crime, but even if u succeeded in convincing me of your stats,
I 'd not throw my gun collection in the garbage.

I have use of it, regardless of your ( questionable ) stats.

If a burglar broke into my bedroom in the middle of the nite,
he 'd likely get a few rounds of .44 caliber hollowpointed slugs
in his lower intestine. He can discuss the stats with me,
while he is bleeding on the floor.
"







Quote:
Violent recidivists shud be BANISHED
and removed from the North American Continent.


Quote:

Which country would accept them?

Well, money talks, so I don 't believe that we 'd have much problem with that,
but I think we 'd be better off just leaving them on uninhabited land.

America owns some islands in the Aleutian chain that r closer to Japan than to the USA.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 07:42 pm
dyslexia wrote:
there you go man,
keep as cool as you can.
Face pile of trials
with smiles for
it riles them to believe
that you perceive
the webs they weave
and keep on thinking FREE.

Psychopaths are the future.
I can dig it david.


Nice rhymes,
but I am not endorsing psychopathology.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 08:16 pm
agrote wrote:


Quote:
David, I'll never get through to you because we disagree
in some very fundamental ways.

You value the lives of law-abiding people,
but not the lives of those who break the law.

That depends on WHICH law.
If scientists worked to illegally clone humans I 'd applaud that
and cheer them on, valuing THEIR lives dearly.

I bear no ill will toward ladies of the evening, nor toward illegal gamblers,
and I respect their lives as much as anyone else.

On the other hand:
ideally, predatory criminals will be killed by their victims,
during their acts of depredation, thus avoiding recidivism
and the costs of criminal litigation and incarcerated maintenance.


Quote:
I make no such distinction;
the life of a criminal is as valuable as the life of a law-abiding citizen.

If u refer to predatory criminals,
then I find your concern incomprehensible and dangerous.
That is like u r going into philosophical PARTNERSHIP
with robbers, rapists, murderers n kidnappers.







Quote:
You see personal freedom as more important
than the well-being of all people.

Yes; freedom is more important than life.





Quote:
That is, you are more concerned with the right to bear arms
than with the struggle to prevent violent crime.

Yes.
Each citizen has an inalienable right of self defense







Quote:
This is indicated by your response to what I said about Canada...
you ignored the fact that Canada actually has less gun crime,
and focused on the fact that in reducing gun crime they have had to limit the freedom to bear arms.

Apparently, Canadia is not a free country.
It is authoritarian; that is anathema.





Quote:

I want to say, "Surely, if it actually saves many lives,
Canada's authoritarian attitude is a good thing?!"

I want to respond that, " in my opinion,
the citizens, the victims of this authoritarianism,
shud overthrow that government and avenge themselves upon the authoritarians. "




Quote:
But you won't listen.

I don 't mind LISTENING.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 08:27 pm
Quote:
I care about AMERICA and NY ( not to imply that I have formed a judgment qua " international stats " ) and our citizens' ability
to defend themselves from predatory violence.


That is fine by me that you hold that view.

Perhaps you misunderstand the main reason I bother continuing to contribute to these threads (It's not because I think I will change your mind). I continue to contribute because you (or sometimes someone else) make assertions that are not supported by relevant stats.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 08:55 pm
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
I care about AMERICA and NY ( not to imply that I have formed a judgment qua " international stats " ) and our citizens' ability
to defend themselves from predatory violence.


That is fine by me that you hold that view.

Perhaps you misunderstand the main reason I bother continuing to contribute to these threads (It's not because I think I will change your mind). I continue to contribute because you (or sometimes someone else) make assertions that are not supported by relevant stats.

My principles are not based upon statistics.
Thay r not based upon numbers.
Thay r based upon the inalienable right of self defense
and upon resistance to any USURPATION of authority ( like imposing gun controls )
by government.

This issue is NOT limited in its importance to considerations of defense from criminals and animals.
Societies wherein the citizens r well armed tend to be more INDIVIDUALISTIC
and self reliant; more anti-socialist.
I support that.
The neck of government shud be under the heavy boot of its father,
the individual.

I said before:
FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE.
That principle does not derive from " international statistics. "
David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 09:21 pm
Quote:
My principles are not based upon statistics.
Thay r not based upon numbers.


I was not talking about your principles David, I was talking about your assertions (eg. Guns reduce crime)
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 03:01 am
vikorr, I think you're right - a balance between individual rights and general well-being is what's best.

David, if you think that freedom is more important than life then I might as well give up in trying to debate gun control with you. But I might be willing to discuss freedom vs. life... Why do you think freedom is more important?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 03:43 am
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
My principles are not based upon statistics.
Thay r not based upon numbers.


I was not talking about your principles David,
I was talking about your assertions (eg. Guns reduce crime)

In America, during the last half of the 1900s,
many states enacted statutes providing for discriminatory liscensure
of the right to self defense;
( I call it the saints n angels doctrine:
that only saints n angels have the right to defend themselves
from violent depredations of criminals or animals, n imperfect humans
must take their chances, and their taxes will be used to screw them
out of their rights to self defense ).

Beginning with Florida, that was repudiated n rejected in 1986,
such that any citizen can get a license to carry concealed guns
( the same as any citizen can freely vote
or any citizen can freely speak, or any citizen can freely buy newspapers )
unless he has a history of mental impairment,
or a bad criminal history.
Since then, 39 more of the the United States have copied Florida,
with crime reductions in each state the following year,
according to FBI stastics ( which I have not personally checked ).

Vermont has never had any gun laws, and it has consistenty remained
the safest state, with the least, or near the least crime in the nation.
OF THOSE 40 of the 50 STATES, NONE OF THEM
HAVE EVER CHANGED THEIR MINDS n REVERTED TO GUN CONTROL.

NONE OF THEM HAS HAD A BAD EXPERIENCE WITH CRIME.
NONE OF THEM has found its rejection of gun control to have been an error.
Indeed, a Florida state legislator ( Silver, I believe )
who had led the futile opposition to rejection of gun control in Florida
in 1986, publicly apologized for his opposition.
He had predicted that the streets wud run red with blood.
The actual experience was that crime dropped and further declined.

Speaking of Florida puts me in mind of the Susan Gonzales experience:
There was a lady in Florida, Susan Gonzales, who feared n detested guns.

She requested her husband not to have any guns in their house,
especially with their children there. One night, 2 criminals broke down their front door.
They entered her home, shot Mrs. Gonzales twice, and shot her husband
as he lay in his bed.
Franticly, she scrambled to get the OBJECT OF ABHORENCE:
her husband's 9 shot .22 caliber revolver.


She grabbed it up and killed one of the criminals.
The other fled, after she shot him too.
Altho it is possible that the criminals might have allowed Mrs. Gonzales' children to live
(if they did not care that the children'd complain to the police and testify against them in court)
Mrs. G was not willing to confide the lives of her children
to the discretion of the men who shot both of their parents.

We need to understand that this attack was STOPPED
by the presence of an UNLOCKED gun in the home.
Without it, the murders of the parents and children probably would have
contined until all the children were dead. That gun was the INSTRUMENT OF LIFE for the Gonzales family.

After hospitalization, the Gonzales recovered from their wounds.
She became a public speaker in support of the right to keep and bear arms,
and takes her .38 Taurus revolver everywhere with her.
Wise is he who learns from his mistakes,
but wiser is he who learns from the mistakes of others.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 03:56 am
agrote wrote:
vikorr, I think you're right - a balance between individual rights and general well-being is what's best.

David, if you think that freedom is more important than life then I might as well give up in trying to debate gun control with you.
But I might be willing to discuss freedom vs. life...

Why do you think freedom is more important?

I have known life to be very enjoyable.
I love life; all of my life, I have been free
.

In my childhood, since age 8, I was alone most of the time,
and hence free ( tho my parents never sought to interfere with my freedom ).
I armed myself with a .38 revolver that I won in a poker game
with some other kids in my neighborhood, and was secure in my freedom alone.
( I had been concerned about how I 'd defend my house, if I ever had to; I never did. )
As it turned out, I never needed the piece for personal defense.
We lived in a very peaceful area, but with it, I had a sense of tranquility n serenity.
I took it everywhere, until years later, when I upgraded to a .44 revolver.

Without freedom, life wud become a hellish, NEGATIVE experience.
A man wud be better off dead.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:24 am
agrote wrote:
vikorr, I think you're right - a balance between individual rights and general well-being is what's best.

But I might be willing to discuss freedom vs. life... Why do you think freedom is more important?

ANOTHER POINT, bearing upon our rightful freedom:
in accordance with the philosophy of John Locke,
( as manifested in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution )
government has ONLY those powers with which it has been invested
by its creators, the citizens.

Thay went out of their way to deny the power to control guns, to government,
not only because there had never been any police and that concept was distrusted,
but also because thay had only just finished OVERTHOWING a government
and thay knew that thay might well have to do it AGAIN,
and thay explcitly SAID SO.
In other words, if the citizens chose to overthrow government again,
thay wanted to WIN, as thay had over the English.
Guns were the instruments of freedom and seen as such.

Hence, gun controls can only be imposed as an act of USURPATION,
with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.
If government can usurp THAT ( the power to control guns )
then the precedent is established that it can usurp ANYTHING.


Individual rights trump ( outrank ) the general well-being,
in that government has no authority to violate them by compromise,
and can only address the general well-being insofar as
it does not interfere with individual rights.
David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 06:25 am
Quote:
That principle does not derive from " international statistics. "

Quote:
Since then, 39 more of the the United States have copied Florida,
with crime reductions in each state the following year,
according to FBI stastics ( which I have not personally checked ).


This reminds me of the other thread where I said that you were attempting to discredit (or ignore) any stat that doesn't meet your view (ie principles), whilst using 'stats' to back up your principle.

You are going to have to make up your mind whether or not you are basing your 'principles' on stats.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:29 pm
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
That principle does not derive from " international statistics. "

Quote:
Since then, 39 more of the the United States have copied Florida,
with crime reductions in each state the following year,
according to FBI stastics ( which I have not personally checked ).


This reminds me of the other thread where I said that you were attempting to discredit (or ignore)
any stat that doesn't meet your view (ie principles),
whilst using 'stats' to back up your principle.

You are going to have to make up your mind whether or not you are basing your 'principles' on stats.


I have copied n pasted this from the antecedent page ( P. 13 ).
Maybe u did not read it the first time,
or the second time that I posted this information:



I re-iterate:

" I have confidence that more guns in the hands of the citizens
reduce crime, but even if u succeeded in convincing me of your stats,
I 'd not throw my gun collection in the garbage.

I have use of it, regardless of your ( questionable ) stats.

If a burglar broke into my bedroom in the middle of the nite,
he 'd likely get a few rounds of .44 caliber hollowpointed slugs
in his lower intestine. He can discuss the stats with me,
while he is bleeding on the floor.
"


I also discussed the deception of USURPATION of prohibited authority by government,
pointing out, or implying, that if government can usurp THIS authority,
then it can usurp any other authority, and nothing, no security,
is left to the citizens, of the Constitution, and government degenerates into despotism,
at the leisure and in the discretion of government.
THAT is not based upon numbers.

I recounted the Susan Gonzales experience, in Florida.
THAT is not based upon numbers,
yet u imply that I have not offered justification for my position,
other than my statistics of the American experience.
I have some degree of confidence in FBI statistics.
I have no opinion of " international statistics. "


David

P.S.:
I am beginning to suspect
that u have not read what I posted.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 07:13 pm
devil's advocate
i certainly don't condone such a thing, but if you were to shoot all the people that don't want any gun control, you win both politically AND the argument.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:45 am
It is tempting, but I certainly don 't condone such a thing,
and I wud never shoot any giraffes (except in self defense ).
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 10:45 am
international statistics on gun control are simply not relevant to america.

it has been shown that even nations in close proximity to the US have varying results on gun control.

there never has been a way to use foreign statistics to apply to america.

i try to compare statistics from state to state. doing this states with high gun control are more likely to have a higher crime rate all around, especially violent crime. statistics say that gun control does not work.

analyzing cities and counties, shows the same result.

states that have passed concealed carry legislation have shown a significant decrease in crime rates. this may be only an american phenomenon, but guns in the hands law abiding american citizens works.


as for the importance of the second amendment.

english law proves this to be important.
as the english bill of rights also had the right to arms per king george's request. the bill had no protections against parliamentary sovereignty.
so, the bill was quickly amended to not include right to arms shortly after the parliament took power. should they so choose, the parliament could in fact take any or all of the rights away from any "citizen".

the writers of the US constitution knew this would happen and so protected all our rights within the framework of our government.

i thought the UN was anti-self defense but i was wrong, it turns out even the UN bill of rights has a clause for the right to self defense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 04:05:06