Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[M14 Shooter]

I said if there was a high probability of attack on citizens by people with full autos then I accept there would be a need for citizens being armed with full autos as well.

This is predicated on the idea that to, within your rights, defend yourself with weapon X, you need to be attacked by weapon X.

You agree that this is not the case, and therefore you must necessarily agree that the predicate upon with your statement is built is flawed -- and so, your premise fails.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry we're not playing syllogisms here. You probably know that syllogisms don't require truth value, all that has to happen for a valid argument is that p1 and p2 must support the conclusion, the truth value of the premises is irrelevant.

In this discussion the truth value of every statement is very important. So, without reference to the use of Venn diagrams can you please tell me why my argument is invalid in truth value terms rather than in its structural validity?

So...
You cannot show how your conclusion necessarily follows.
Thanks!

 

[ReillyT]

This is predicated on the idea that to, within your rights, defend yourself with weapon X, you need to be attacked by weapon X.

You agree that this is not the case, and therefore you must necessarily agree that the predicate upon with your statement is built is flawed -- and so, your premise fails.

As I pointed out, that (x requires x) clearly was never his premise.

 

[Diuretic]

This is predicated on the idea that to, within your rights, defend yourself with weapon X, you need to be attacked by weapon X.

You agree that this is not the case, and therefore you must necessarily agree that the predicate upon with your statement is built is flawed -- and so, your premise fails.

I didn't say that at all. Go back through the last few posts.

I said it may be permissible to use a firearm to kill someone attacking with their bare hands.

Now if you want to use symbols for that then fine, the statement would then read, "it's permissible to defend yourself with weapon X against weapon Y".

Nowhere have I argued that within your rights, defend yourself with weapon X, you need to be attacked by weapon X. That would suggest that if someone attacked you with their bare hands and you were armed that you would have to throw away your firearm and defend with your bare hands as well. I've specifically denied that.

And a premise doesn't fail, an argument fails and it fails for many reasons, the conclusion not following from the premises is just one of the reasons. But as I said, we're not doing syllogisms, this isn't a class in informal logic, it's simply a discussion about concepts which need to have truth value.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't say that at all. Go back through the last few posts.

I'm kinda sad to say this, because you've always struck me as a reasonably honest guy, but...

You're being obtuse, purposefully, so you wont have to admit your position isn't supportable.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm kinda sad to say this, because you've always struck me as a reasonably honest guy, but...

You're being obtuse, purposefully, so you wont have to admit your position isn't supportable.

I'm honest and I'm stubborn. But I do admit when I'm wrong, I hope.

I'm not deliberately obtuse, but I can be a bit thick at times. But on this one I'm not in some sort of ego defence mode, I'm trying to get you to understand my arguments, not accept them. If I'm wrong I fully expect to be corrected. But this stuff isn't fact, we can't go to a source and find an agreed answer. I'm giving an opinion and we all know the story with opinions.

I've answered your objections but you insist on giving me lessons on informal logic. You'll find that difficult, my philosophy professor found it very difficult (but he was an arrogant prick anyway). I've formulated my views and put them and I've tried to be as consistent as possible. That's all I can do. By all means object, but do it conscientiously.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm honest and I'm stubborn. But I do admit when I'm wrong, I hope.

Then you need to admit it here, as the premise on which you base your argument is flawed. You do not need to face a threat from automatic weapons to show a need to have automatic weapons to defend yourself, or justify possession of same.

 

[Bern80]

As I said, if I want to open a can I need to use a can-opener. Do you agree?
If I want to eat food I can make a sandwich and not use a can-opener. I was linking the action of opening a can with the requirement for a can-opener.

So, if I want to do x then I need to have y or I can't do x.

If I want to shoot recreationally I need a firearm. I don't need to shoot recreationally, but if I do, then I need a firearm.

I want to recreationally shoot an automatic weapon (x), then I need to have an an automatic weapon (y). thus you would need to allow me to own one.

 

[Ravi]

I think you mis-characterized his premise. I don't think his premise was that if you attacked with x, you only need x to defender yourself. It was if you are attacked with x, you only need y (at some level short of automatic weapons (z)) to defend yourself.

So, if you attacked by a child with a chopstick, you may need more than a chopstick to defend yourself, but you certainly don't need more than a handgun (and you certainly don't need a bazooka).

Anyway, that is how I read what he is saying.

HE probably does need a bazooka to defend himself against a child with a chopstick.

 

[LOki]

Why do you constantly tell me what my argument is? And you reframe it as well into the bargain? If you can't counter the argument then admit it, but stop reframing it and throwing it at me, it's unseemly.

I don't think that I reframed your argument--certainly not in any manner that changes the "essence" of your argument or renders it into a different argument.

If you can't counter the argument then admit it, but stop ignoring the counter arguments, denying that your argument has been repeatedly addressed, it's unseemly.

Ok, let me get this right.... I have a RIGHT to self defense, but I do NOT have a need for any tool to accomplish that right? Or rather just those YOU happen to think are acceptable?

Yes, you have a right to self-defence. Your right to self-defence is, though, hedged. The response has to be proportionate. For example, if you were attacked by a man with bare hands you it wouldn't be proportionate to shoot him, so you can't use any tool, no.

Explain this. If an assailant presents a lethal threat, what kind of threat might be greater, and why should the defensive response neccessarily be scaled back to anything less than a lethal response?

Even if you manage that task, what is it about such scaling back that establishes that under no circumstances what-so-ever might a fully automatic weapon be "needed" for that response?

I'm arguing that a rifle, shotgun or pistol not being fully automatic is needed for recreational shooting, yes. I'm arguing that a fully automatic weapon isn't needed for recreational shooting. That's not what it's designed for. It's designed for killing people.

I wish to point out that it appears to me that every single time you say, "...designed for killing people" you are intentionally using it as an imprecise way of asserting "...designed for murdering people." You should clarify.

Also, at what point was it established that, by your very own critera, the primary purpose of rifles, shotguns and pistols is NOT killing people--that these weapons were not primarily designed for the express purpose of killing people, and their secondary purposes are recreational uses, target shooting, hunting, etc...?

I said if there was a high probability of attack on citizens by people with full autos then I accept there would be a need for citizens being armed with full autos as well.

What's wrong with that?

This is predicated on the idea that to, within your rights, defend yourself with weapon X, you need to be attacked by weapon X.

You agree that this is not the case, and therefore you must necessarily agree that the predicate upon with your statement is built is flawed -- and so, your premise fails.

The place where Diuretic's premise fails resides primarily where he demands that the prohibition of others owning things is validly founded upon his refusal to accept the reasons that those others cite for needing said things--he says they don't need them, therefore they shouldn't have them. Period.

As Bern80 (and you also) pointed out on several occaisions, this assertion is subject to the most virulantly wild flavor of hypocracy.

The part that is really repugnant to sense (and entirely undefensible) is this notion of his that his (or his government's, or some government's) whimsical notions of what our needs are should have greater validity than our own notions of what our needs are.

 

[BrianH]

You said that if a criminal get get a full auto firearm then a law-abiding civilian should also be able to get one.
But if criminals - terrorists for example - can get nukes then using your argument everyone should be able to have a nuke.
You've indicated that you don't agree with everyone having a nuke. Why not?

Well I haven't seen many people being killed lately by criminals with nukes...that's why I felt that I could make that comparison. People have, however, been killed by criminals with automatic firearms. The difference is, is if a terrorist has a nuke, the government knows more about it than we do and has the means to take care of the situation. The military isn't going to show up at your house to protect you from an automatic-weapon wielding criminal...maybe police after you're dead....but you catch my drift.

The lethality of a nuke vs. an automatic firarm are completely different.

Example: 1.) Kid finds his dad gun and shoots him/herself on accident (God forbid). Kid finds his dad's nuke and kills millions by accident.

2.) Criminals, gangs, terrorists break into your minimally guarded home (with automatic weapons) an steal your nuke...the world's held hostage at a blink of an eye.

3.) Law-abiding citizens goes over the deep end and freaks out, detonates the nuke, killing millions. (The guy that massacred the Amish girls a couple of years ago was a law-abiding citizen, had no criminal history, just freaked out. WHat if he had a nuke and decided to use that instead?

These are some of the reasons why I feel that civilians owning nukes are out of the question.

 

[ReillyT]

The place where Diuretic's premise fails resides primarily where he demands that the prohibition of others owning things is validly founded upon his refusal to accept the reasons that those others cite for needing said things--he says they don't need them, therefore they shouldn't have them. Period.

As Bern80 (and you also) pointed out on several occaisions, this assertion is subject to the most virulantly wild flavor of hypocracy.

I don't really give a shit about gun control, but I have been paying some attention to this thread, and it seems to me that there has been an almost intense effort to misunderstand Diuretic's basic argument.

If I have read him right - and I am pretty sure that I have the gist of it - his argument is relatively simple and wholly reasonable.

1. People only need (generally) automatic weapons to satisfy wants (such as range shooting). They do not (generally) need automatic weapons for self-defense. They may need some level of weaponry more lethal than a club (e.g., a handgun), but they really don't need automatic weapons.

[People can disagree with this, or take issue with the "generally" aspect of it, but really, the idea that it is often (or hardly ever) the case that in the US a person's existence rests on their ability to procure or possess an automatic weapon is silly. I am not saying it never happens, but I am saying it almost never happens.]

2. Since autos aren't needed in this sense (e.g., the way that food is needed - for survival) one should subject them to a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether this "want" (for the possession of automatic weapons) should be permitted.

I am guessing that Diuretic feels that automatic weapons don't pass this threshold. I am inclined to agree, although honestly, since owners are frequently the people shot with their own weapons, I don't give a shit.

His argument if I haven't gotten it wrong (and please forgive me if I have Diuretic) is neither illogical, nor silly. It is based upon a set of values. It is based on an evalution of benefits and detriments. However, so are almost all arguments.

The part that is really repugnant to sense (and entirely undefensible) is this notion of his that his (or his government's, or some government's) whimsical notions of what our needs are should have greater validity than our own notions of what our needs are.

How do you survive in the world? This is happening to you all the time. The government tells you that you don't need cocaine, nuclear devices, fireworks, anthrax, teenage hookers, child pornography, etc. How do you manage to deal with all this control?

 

[Diuretic]

Far from getting it wrong RT, you've explained it clearly. I think I'm suffering deleterious effects from the USMB equivalent of the "fog of war".

 

[AllieBaba]

I want to recreationally shoot an automatic weapon (x), then I need to have an an automatic weapon (y). thus you would need to allow me to own one.

Exactly. Rights aren't based on needs. All we need is food and water. Rights take us quite a bit beyond that.

 

[Diuretic]

I'll take questions now. Those of you who want to discuss my views on self defence please ask away. Those of you who want to keep discussing my views on fully automatic weapons please ask away. Those of you who are having conversations with each other about my views go ahead but if you've got a point then please feel free to ask directly. I won't bite

 

[ReillyT]

Far from getting it wrong RT, you've explained it clearly. I think I'm suffering deleterious effects from the USMB equivalent of the "fog of war".

I feel like you have been pretty clear the whole time. I don't expect my efforts to meet with any greater success.

 

[Ravi]

I'll take questions now. Those of you who want to discuss my views on self defence please ask away. Those of you who want to keep discussing my views on fully automatic weapons please ask away. Those of you who are having conversations with each other about my views go ahead but if you've got a point then please feel free to ask directly. I won't bite

Could you recommend some good Australian fiction instead? I need something to read this weekend.

 

[Diuretic]

Could you recommend some good Australian fiction instead? I need something to read this weekend.

Stay away from Patrick White! David Malouf or Thomas Kenneally are excellent.

If you like quirky SF then John Birmingham's three volumes of his "Axis of Time" trilogy is good but I still think he pinched his thesis from Harry Turtledove. But Birmingham's "He Died With a Falafel in his Hand" is probably a modern Australian classic

 

[Diuretic]

I feel like you have been pretty clear the whole time. I don't expect my efforts to meet with any greater success.

Sadly I have to agree, but at least the effort's not wasted, I have to admit to having cleared up a few things in my own mind. Having started with doubt and questions in my own mind I find the discussion helped me.

 

[Ravi]

Stay away from Patrick White! David Malouf or Thomas Kenneally are excellent.

If you like quirky SF then John Birmingham's three volumes of his "Axis of Time" trilogy is good but I still think he pinched his thesis from Harry Turtledove. But Birmingham's "He Died With a Falafel in his Hand" is probably a modern Australian classic

Thanks, Birmingham sounds interesting, I'll check him out.