Wisconsin shooting leaves five dead

[Chernoslavia]

Because simply being diagnosed with a mental disorder shouldn't cost you your natural rights.

Guns are not natural rights.

As to disorders? There are certain diseases where you a threat to yourself and others; you should not have access To guns if you have one of those.

It is. Humans have always made weapons to defend themselves.

Should your granddad have his Sten taken from him if it is found that he has nightmares about being in WW2 Poland?

[Kernen]

Guns are not natural rights.

As to disorders? There are certain diseases where you a threat to yourself and others; you should not have access To guns if you have one of those.

They are a natural right though.

That presupposes there are rights that stem from something other than human law.

I can't see how firearms are a natural right when, assuming you accept natural rights, natural rights focus on freedom from harm and positive rights to that which is biologically necessary. At best, the right to use force to defend oneself comes closest, but that does not require, ipso facto, a gun.

But this is not to say that a legal right is less important than a natural right. Legal rights include some of our most powerful rights in society: to vote, to speak, to be free from invidious discrimination. I would argue that guns not being a natural right makes them more valuable, because you cannot effectively argue a lack of justification for a legal right when it was created by consensus and careful reason instead of merely intuited from the ether.

[Satuga]

They are a natural right though.

That presupposes there are rights that stem from something other than human law.

I can't see how firearms are a natural right when, assuming you accept natural rights, natural rights focus on freedom from harm and positive rights to that which is biologically necessary. At best, the right to use force to defend oneself comes closest, but that does not require, ipso facto, a gun.

But this is not to say that a legal right is less important than a natural right. Legal rights include some of our most powerful rights in society: to vote, to speak, to be free from invidious discrimination. I would argue that guns not being a natural right makes them more valuable, because you cannot effectively argue a lack of justification for a legal right when it was created by consensus and careful reason instead of merely intuited from the ether.

The right to protect yourself, family and property is a human right, guns make said human right easier to perform, therefore the right to own guns is effectively a human right. Unless you think we can somehow go back to the times where everyone owned a sword to defend their family.

[Telconi]

They are a natural right though.

That presupposes there are rights that stem from something other than human law.

I can't see how firearms are a natural right when, assuming you accept natural rights, natural rights focus on freedom from harm and positive rights to that which is biologically necessary. At best, the right to use force to defend oneself comes closest, but that does not require, ipso facto, a gun.

But this is not to say that a legal right is less important than a natural right. Legal rights include some of our most powerful rights in society: to vote, to speak, to be free from invidious discrimination. I would argue that guns not being a natural right makes them more valuable, because you cannot effectively argue a lack of justification for a legal right when it was created by consensus and careful reason instead of merely intuited from the ether.

In the modern age, an effective defense of one's self does require a gun.

[Kernen]

That presupposes there are rights that stem from something other than human law.

I can't see how firearms are a natural right when, assuming you accept natural rights, natural rights focus on freedom from harm and positive rights to that which is biologically necessary. At best, the right to use force to defend oneself comes closest, but that does not require, ipso facto, a gun.

But this is not to say that a legal right is less important than a natural right. Legal rights include some of our most powerful rights in society: to vote, to speak, to be free from invidious discrimination. I would argue that guns not being a natural right makes them more valuable, because you cannot effectively argue a lack of justification for a legal right when it was created by consensus and careful reason instead of merely intuited from the ether.

The right to protect yourself, family and property is a human right, guns make said human right easier to perform, therefore the right to own guns is effectively a human right. Unless you think we can somehow go back to the times where everyone owned a sword to defend their family.

But that isn't how it works. You don't get to extend a right merely because its easier to practice. It would be easier to have free speech if you got rid of copyright law, but that isn't how it works.

That presupposes there are rights that stem from something other than human law.

I can't see how firearms are a natural right when, assuming you accept natural rights, natural rights focus on freedom from harm and positive rights to that which is biologically necessary. At best, the right to use force to defend oneself comes closest, but that does not require, ipso facto, a gun.

But this is not to say that a legal right is less important than a natural right. Legal rights include some of our most powerful rights in society: to vote, to speak, to be free from invidious discrimination. I would argue that guns not being a natural right makes them more valuable, because you cannot effectively argue a lack of justification for a legal right when it was created by consensus and careful reason instead of merely intuited from the ether.

In the modern age, an effective defense of one's self does require a gun.

No argument. That has little, if any, bearing on my argument.

[Telconi]

The right to protect yourself, family and property is a human right, guns make said human right easier to perform, therefore the right to own guns is effectively a human right. Unless you think we can somehow go back to the times where everyone owned a sword to defend their family.

But that isn't how it works. You don't get to extend a right merely because its easier to practice. It would be easier to have free speech if you got rid of copyright law, but that isn't how it works.

In the modern age, an effective defense of one's self does require a gun.

No argument. That has little, if any, bearing on my argument.

If human rights are biologically necessary, and guns are biologically necessary...

[Kernen]

But that isn't how it works. You don't get to extend a right merely because its easier to practice. It would be easier to have free speech if you got rid of copyright law, but that isn't how it works.



No argument. That has little, if any, bearing on my argument.

If human rights are biologically necessary, and guns are biologically necessary...

Guns aren't biologically necessary. Beneficial, sure.

Note that I'm not arguing guns aren't a right, nor that guns are bad. Just that they aren't a natural right.

[Telconi]

If human rights are biologically necessary, and guns are biologically necessary...

Guns aren't biologically necessary. Beneficial, sure.

Note that I'm not arguing guns aren't a right, nor that guns are bad. Just that they aren't a natural right.

In some situations, yes, they are very much necessary. If there's is an eminent lethal threat that can only be neutralized with a gun, then said gun is very much necessary to life.

[Neanderthaland]

Guns aren't biologically necessary. Beneficial, sure.

Note that I'm not arguing guns aren't a right, nor that guns are bad. Just that they aren't a natural right.

In some situations, yes, they are very much necessary. If there's is an eminent lethal threat that can only be neutralized with a gun, then said gun is very much necessary to life.

Really stretching the definition of "biologically necessary," and still untrue. Or, at least, I can't think of a single situation where a gun is absolutely necessary over another weapon that isn't hopelessly contrived.

[Telconi]

In some situations, yes, they are very much necessary. If there's is an eminent lethal threat that can only be neutralized with a gun, then said gun is very much necessary to life.

Really stretching the definition of "biologically necessary," and still untrue. Or, at least, I can't think of a single situation where a gun is absolutely necessary over another weapon that isn't hopelessly contrived.

Do you have a better definition of "biologically necessary" other than "you'll die without it"?

[Neanderthaland]

Really stretching the definition of "biologically necessary," and still untrue. Or, at least, I can't think of a single situation where a gun is absolutely necessary over another weapon that isn't hopelessly contrived.

Do you have a better definition of "biologically necessary" other than "you'll die without it"?

Shockingly, millions of people for hundreds of thousands of years managed to live their entire lives without them. So calling them "biologically necessary" is clearly a lie. And ridiculous on the face of it.

Please stop with these deranged arguments. You're making what should be a very straightforward argument about individual rights into something cringeworthy.

[Telconi]

Do you have a better definition of "biologically necessary" other than "you'll die without it"?

Shockingly, millions of people for hundreds of thousands of years managed to live their entire lives without them. So calling them "biologically necessary" is clearly a lie. And ridiculous on the face of it.

Please stop with these deranged arguments. You're making what should be a very straightforward argument about individual rights into something cringeworthy.

Lots of people lived without synthetic insulin, I'm sure diabetics will be happy to hear they don't actually need it because a pretend cave man said so.

[The Emerald Legion]

If human rights are biologically necessary, and guns are biologically necessary...

Guns aren't biologically necessary. Beneficial, sure.

Note that I'm not arguing guns aren't a right, nor that guns are bad. Just that they aren't a natural right.

Natural rights have nothing to do with biological necessity. Natural rights have to do with what you could do, barring societies existence.

[Neanderthaland]

Shockingly, millions of people for hundreds of thousands of years managed to live their entire lives without them. So calling them "biologically necessary" is clearly a lie. And ridiculous on the face of it.

Please stop with these deranged arguments. You're making what should be a very straightforward argument about individual rights into something cringeworthy.

Lots of people lived without synthetic insulin, I'm sure diabetics will be happy to hear they don't actually need it because a pretend cave man said so.

Insulin actually is a good example of a biological necessity. Synthetic insulin is just insulin for people whose bodies don't produce enough of it themselves. No one is born with little derringers in their bloodstream. This analogy fails on the face of it.

Again, this is a simple argument. And one where it's very easy for 2nd Amendment supporters to maintain the moral high ground. All we have to do is maintain a solid position regarding individual liberty and the constitution.

What you're doing makes us look stupid.

[The Emerald Legion]

Lots of people lived without synthetic insulin, I'm sure diabetics will be happy to hear they don't actually need it because a pretend cave man said so.

Insulin actually is a good example of a biological necessity. Synthetic insulin is just insulin for people whose bodies don't produce enough of it themselves. No one is born with little derringers in their bloodstream. This analogy fails on the face of it.

Again, this is a simple argument. And one where it's very easy for 2nd Amendment supporters to maintain the moral high ground. All we have to do is maintain a solid position regarding individual liberty and the constitution.

What you're doing makes us look stupid.

I mean, only if you take the somewhat arbitrary and nonsensical position that natural rights have to do with biological necessity.

They don't, otherwise food would be free. It has to do with actions you could take. When alone, noone can stop you from speaking freely, and so speaking freely is a natural right.

When you're alone, doing things that makes you happy (playing games, excercising, whatever) is something you can do. Therefor, the pursuit of happiness is a natural right.

When you're alone, owning, carrying, and using Firearms is something you can do, and is therefore, a natural right.

Where your natural rights stop is interaction with other people. You don't have a right to be sold a firearm for example, and I would actually be ok, if dissapointed, with firearms regulation that Drew that line. 'You can make, keep, and own whatever you want. But you can't trade it."

Likewise, you don't have a natural right to shoot people. That's a legal right.

[Telconi]

Lots of people lived without synthetic insulin, I'm sure diabetics will be happy to hear they don't actually need it because a pretend cave man said so.

Insulin actually is a good example of a biological necessity. Synthetic insulin is just insulin for people whose bodies don't produce enough of it themselves. No one is born with little derringers in their bloodstream. This analogy fails on the face of it.

Again, this is a simple argument. And one where it's very easy for 2nd Amendment supporters to maintain the moral high ground. All we have to do is maintain a solid position regarding individual liberty and the constitution.

What you're doing makes us look stupid.

Yes, your disapproval has been expressed before, it's not relevant and really doesn't need to be restated with each post.

Having said that, It's a perfectly relevant analogy, as firearms are just lethal force for people who's body's have an insufficient capacity to exert it.

[Neanderthaland]

Insulin actually is a good example of a biological necessity. Synthetic insulin is just insulin for people whose bodies don't produce enough of it themselves. No one is born with little derringers in their bloodstream. This analogy fails on the face of it.

Again, this is a simple argument. And one where it's very easy for 2nd Amendment supporters to maintain the moral high ground. All we have to do is maintain a solid position regarding individual liberty and the constitution.

What you're doing makes us look stupid.

Yes, your disapproval has been expressed before, it's not relevant and really doesn't need to be restated with each post.

Having said that, It's a perfectly relevant analogy, as firearms are just lethal force for people who's body's have an insufficient capacity to exert it.

If it's possible to live to live a hundred years without something, that thing is not a "biological necessity." It might be a "situational necessity," but not a biological one. Biology functions just fine without it in most conditions.

And I will continue to restate that suggesting it is a "biological necessity" is dumb, and makes us look dumb, because I want you to understand that you're not helping.

[Telconi]

Yes, your disapproval has been expressed before, it's not relevant and really doesn't need to be restated with each post.

Having said that, It's a perfectly relevant analogy, as firearms are just lethal force for people who's body's have an insufficient capacity to exert it.

If it's possible to live to live a hundred years without something, that thing is not a "biological necessity." It might be a "situational necessity," but not a biological one. Biology functions just fine without it in most conditions.

And I will continue to restate that suggesting it is a "biological necessity" is dumb, and makes us look dumb, because I want you to understand that you're not helping.

It's possible to live without most things that are at some point necessary to life.

I mean, I can't stop you. But for someone who talks about looking dumb, it's a bit of a questionable move.

[Neanderthaland]

If it's possible to live to live a hundred years without something, that thing is not a "biological necessity." It might be a "situational necessity," but not a biological one. Biology functions just fine without it in most conditions.

And I will continue to restate that suggesting it is a "biological necessity" is dumb, and makes us look dumb, because I want you to understand that you're not helping.

It's possible to live without most things that are at some point necessary to life.

I mean, I can't stop you. But for someone who talks about looking dumb, it's a bit of a questionable move.

If you don't have any insulin, you always will die in roughly a week. That's what a "biological necessity" looks like.

If you don't have a gun... you'll probably be fine. Most people are fine. Maybe not in specific situations. But then by that definition, a cell phone is a biological necessity. Might not be able to call 911 without it.

And that's dumb.

[Telconi]

It's possible to live without most things that are at some point necessary to life.

I mean, I can't stop you. But for someone who talks about looking dumb, it's a bit of a questionable move.

If you don't have any insulin, you always will die in roughly a week. That's what a "biological necessity" looks like.

If you don't have a gun... you'll probably be fine. Most people are fine. Maybe not in specific situations. But then by that definition, a cell phone is a biological necessity. Might not be able to call 911 without it.

And that's dumb.

Sure, anyhow.

[Greed and Death]

It's possible to live without most things that are at some point necessary to life.

I mean, I can't stop you. But for someone who talks about looking dumb, it's a bit of a questionable move.

If you don't have any insulin, you always will die in roughly a week. That's what a "biological necessity" looks like.

If you don't have a gun... you'll probably be fine. Most people are fine. Maybe not in specific situations. But then by that definition, a cell phone is a biological necessity. Might not be able to call 911 without it.

And that's dumb.

Some could die in as little as a day do to ketoacidosis.

[Tobleste]

Why not both?

That said, I'd have some respect for gun control opponents if they spent half as much effort on addressing gun violence through mental health as they do on trying to shut down conversations on gun control. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence that they actually care about the topic and seem to just use mental health as a distraction (like video games - another thing they occasionally blame mass shootings on yet do feck all about because they dont really care about the issue).

just one question if you will permit me.

why are you afraid of guns?

Because they can easily kill people and I know nothing about the people who hold them. If I saw police officers or military personnel with guns, I wouldn't be as frightened.

[Washington Resistance Army]

just one question if you will permit me.

why are you afraid of guns?

Because they can easily kill people and I know nothing about the people who hold them. If I saw police officers or military personnel with guns, I wouldn't be as frightened.

Tbqh at least in the US you should be more scared of cops with guns than normal people. They uh, don't exactly have the best track record.

[The East Marches II]

Because they can easily kill people and I know nothing about the people who hold them. If I saw police officers or military personnel with guns, I wouldn't be as frightened.

Tbqh at least in the US you should be more scared of cops with guns than normal people. They uh, don't exactly have the best track record.

It is doubly ironic given that one's track record of complaining about police violence and racism. Giga brain ideas going on regarding who to trust with guns.

[Tobleste]

Here's what I dont get: you guys like to pretend that guns are just like trucks in that they're great and safe and it would be stupid to regulate them. But you also argue that without guns "the people" (I.e. gun owners) would be defenseless from an imminent Gestapoesque American dictatorship.

How can guns be so devastating that an American Reich would be brought low by a small amount of under educated gun hoarders but be so irrelevant that they're no more dangerous than a car? If cars and trucks are just as dangerous as guns, why do you need guns? If guns are no more dangerous than cars and trucks, how can guns be so effective?

I'm being slightly sarcastic. I know the real reason. The arguments are completely inconsistent and are invented to defend a cultural gun obsession that is limited to America.

I mean, have you ever considered that the government would ALSO have trucks? Meaning that the people would lack guns, but have trucks. They could certainly then use those trucks to fight the government. However the government would have both trucks AND guns.

Not to mention that it's only slightly less than half of the people in US that have access to guns. 30% Personally own a gun themselves, and 43% live in a household with a gun. Keep in mind that while guns are not distributed to EVERYONE, the US civilian population has more small arms than the Russian and Chinese military's combined.

So we're not talking about 'A small number of guns in the hands of some paranoid preppers.' we're talking about enough guns to arm the entire civilian populace of the USA in an untracked, decentralized network that at the very least, almost half of the USA has immediate access to, and if it came down to it, it wouldn't take the other half that long to avail themselves of it.

They're less 'inconsistent' and more 'you literally don't understand what you're talking about.'

Guns are tools. Trucks are tools. That they can both be used to murder lots of people doesn't mean they shouldn't be used.

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.