[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Thankfully, not in the US.
If a statute infringes on a fundamental right (such as a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights) the statute must:
(1) be justified by a compelling governmental interest,
(2) the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and
(3) the law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
The burden is on the government to prove each prong.
By the way, I didn’t ask for a list of human rights that applies in all situations. I asked whether people have a right to protect themselves, or not. By protect, I mean defend oneself or others under circumstances where lethal force is justifiable (i.e., to prevent imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person).[/quote]
the process you outline seems sensible but you are naive if you think that governments including yours are not more concerned with group needs than individual rights.
Here’s a not that hard of a concept for you Cockney-
You seem to have a herd time distinguishing the difference between a law abiding citizen and a criminal, so I’ll point them out.
Law Abiding Citizen- Enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness without infringing on anther persons rights.
Criminal- Someone who enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness, but does intentionaly infringe upon other peoples right to do so.
I figured I’d point that out for you because you seem to revert back to an arguement about criminal acts every time it is mentioned that regular law abiding citizens are the ones with the right to bear arms.
Maybe you just didn’t know that once a person commits a criminal act against another person they forfeit their rights as a first class citizen. Who knows what the case may be regarding your ignorance of this, but as it stands, you look kind of silly as you continue to demonstrate the inability to distinguish the difference between the two.
Sure, criminals will commit crimes using guns.
It is law abiding citizens right to stop them with our own.
It’s not a hard concept.
Now tighten up that big gaping hole in your argument, unless you would like to continue looking so silly.
the process you outline seems sensible but you are naive if you think that governments including yours are not more concerned with group needs than individual rights.[/quote]
I think we are all conscious of that reality, as well as the fact that the more “concerned” with “group needs” a government becomes, the more confiscatory, predatory, and rapacious it inevitably becomes.
Protection from freelance criminals is only one reason a free man arms himself. Protection from criminals acting in an official capacity is another reason.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Here’s a not that hard of a concept for you Cockney-
You seem to have a herd time distinguishing the difference between a law abiding citizen and a criminal, so I’ll point them out.
Law Abiding Citizen- Enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness without infringing on anther persons rights.
Criminal- Someone who enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness, but does intentionaly infringe upon other peoples right to do so.
I figured I’d point that out for you because you seem to revert back to an arguement about criminal acts every time it is mentioned that regular law abiding citizens are the ones with the right to bear arms.
Maybe you just didn’t know that once a person commits a criminal act against another person they forfeit their rights as a first class citizen. Who knows what the case may be regarding your ignorance of this, but as it stands, you look kind of silly as you continue to demonstrate the inability to distinguish the difference between the two.
Sure, criminals will commit crimes using guns.
It is law abiding citizens right to stop them with our own.
It’s not a hard concept.
Now tighten up that big gaping hole in your argument, unless you would like to continue looking so silly.
[/quote]
How wonderful it must be to live in your black and white world.
So if someone passes a law that says you can’t have a gun, and you object and hang on to your gun (as many people here are saying they would). You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
How about something closer to home for people on this site, you decide to take steroids to recover from your tough workouts. You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
You decide to smoke a joint to relax after a long days work. You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think we are all conscious of that reality, as well as the fact that the more “concerned” with “group needs” a government becomes, the more confiscatory, predatory, and rapacious it inevitably becomes.
Protection from freelance criminals is only one reason a free man arms himself. Protection from criminals acting in an official capacity is another reason.
[/quote]
I agree with you on your first point though I can also see from a governments point of view, getting right where to draw the line will always be a near impossible task.
On your second point, I am still waiting for examples of how this works in practice. Any time I have seen reports of people attempting to use guns in the US to further their agenda against the government it has not ended well (Waco for example.) Were the shit to really hit the fan, I just don’t think that your People’s Militia would stand a chance against government backed troops supported by the airforce and navy.
Anyone actually trying to excercise these rights to their full would be branded a terrorist threat and dragged off to Guantanamo (if they survived that long.)
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Thankfully, not in the US.
If a statute infringes on a fundamental right (such as a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights) the statute must:
(1) be justified by a compelling governmental interest,
(2) the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and
(3) the law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
The burden is on the government to prove each prong.
By the way, I didn’t ask for a list of human rights that applies in all situations. I asked whether people have a right to protect themselves, or not. By protect, I mean defend oneself or others under circumstances where lethal force is justifiable (i.e., to prevent imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person).
the process you outline seems sensible but you are naive if you think that governments including yours are not more concerned with group needs than individual rights.[/quote]
Actually, if you think government is concerned with anything but its own needs, I think you are being naive, but that’s beside the point.
It doesn’t matter what the government is “concerned” about, when their concern results in a statute that infringes upon a fundamental right (and what could be more fundamental than the right self defense) then the individual fundamental right takes priority.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I think we are all conscious of that reality, as well as the fact that the more “concerned” with “group needs” a government becomes, the more confiscatory, predatory, and rapacious it inevitably becomes.
Protection from freelance criminals is only one reason a free man arms himself. Protection from criminals acting in an official capacity is another reason.
I agree with you on your first point though I can also see from a governments point of view, getting right where to draw the line will always be a near impossible task.
On your second point, I am still waiting for examples of how this works in practice. Any time I have seen reports of people attempting to use guns in the US to further their agenda against the government it has not ended well (Waco for example.) Were the shit to really hit the fan, I just don’t think that your People’s Militia would stand a chance against government backed troops supported by the airforce and navy.
Anyone actually trying to excercise these rights to their full would be branded a terrorist threat and dragged off to Guantanamo (if they survived that long.)[/quote]
And, since I am plugging public choice anyway, I might as well post this link here.
Your view of governments is a tad to rosy cheeked for me.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
So if someone passes a law that says you can’t have a gun, and you object and hang on to your gun (as many people here are saying they would). You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
[/quote]
So if “someone” (like Washington DC) passes a law that says “you” (like Dick Heller) can’t have a gun, and “you” (Dick Heller) object, then “you” (Dick Heller) sue the government (imagine that) which results in someone else (US Supreme Court) overturning the unconstitutional law. There’s a process. We don’t just all become criminals.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Here’s a not that hard of a concept for you Cockney-
You seem to have a herd time distinguishing the difference between a law abiding citizen and a criminal, so I’ll point them out.
Law Abiding Citizen- Enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness without infringing on anther persons rights.
Criminal- Someone who enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness, but does intentionaly infringe upon other peoples right to do so.
I figured I’d point that out for you because you seem to revert back to an arguement about criminal acts every time it is mentioned that regular law abiding citizens are the ones with the right to bear arms.
Maybe you just didn’t know that once a person commits a criminal act against another person they forfeit their rights as a first class citizen. Who knows what the case may be regarding your ignorance of this, but as it stands, you look kind of silly as you continue to demonstrate the inability to distinguish the difference between the two.
Sure, criminals will commit crimes using guns.
It is law abiding citizens right to stop them with our own.
It’s not a hard concept.
Now tighten up that big gaping hole in your argument, unless you would like to continue looking so silly.
How wonderful it must be to live in your black and white world.
So if someone passes a law that says you can’t have a gun, and you object and hang on to your gun (as many people here are saying they would). You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
How about something closer to home for people on this site, you decide to take steroids to recover from your tough workouts. You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
You decide to smoke a joint to relax after a long days work. You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
[/quote]
Nice try at diversion. Didn’t work though.
Why are you unable to acknowledge that law abiding citizens that legaly own guns are a separate element of society from violent criminals?
This is the second time you have tried to dodge the fact that there is a difference between the two.
The first was when I pointed out that it is the criminals who escalate violence in the scenario you presented here:
wich you conveniently ignored.
Now This?
Either you debating skills aren’t what you imagine, or you simply aren’t willing or able to distinguish the difference between a law abiding citizen and a violent criminal.
Regardless of which, trying to draw attention away from the main hole in your arguement by creating false scenarios, which you have here, is just plain weak. Especially in a thread that you started with a request of no falacious reasoning tactics.
You are beginning to appear to be weak of reason, riddled with hypocracy, and when confronted with some very basic and obvious facts that you refuse to acknowledge, closed minded.
What happened to all of that exchange of ideas and exposition of different views mumbo-jumbo?
Does that go out the window with the rules that you origionaly set?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Part of the point that I was trying to make is that random violence in Britain is quite common. But many Brits try to put up this front that because the number of people who get shot is low that Britain is somehow safe.
What you do see in Britain is other types of violence. Two of Britain’s most popular national past times are Glassing and Happy Slapping.
Glassing which is very common involves breaking a bottle or a glass and then repeatedly jamming the jagged glass into someones face so they are permanently disfigured. The provocation for such a vicious attack can be merely bumping into someone in a crowded pub. In America glassing is not as common because people know better.
[/quote]
No, glassing is any time that someone uses a glass or bottle as a weapon in a bar fight. It is not ‘very common’ it is in fact very rare, however it does happen, and more than it should.
No, happy slapping is attacking a random stranger and filming it on your camera phone, normally with the intention of uploading the video to youtube.
The attack ranges from literally just a light slap through to a disgusting assault, yes it is something that has been on the increase and yes it is a problem but to say it is uniquely British is utter tosh. There are plenty of youtube videos of American kids attacking each other randomly or otherwise. I can’t remember the last time a group of British schoolgirls held another girl hostage and filmed themselves beating her over a period of hrs.
[Quote]
One was a family man named Gary Newlove, he confronted a group of teenagers who vandalized his car so his family had to helplessly watch him kicked to death in their driveway. In America housewives can defend their family which the British think is terrible.
The sentences the killers got were a joke. The leader of the attack got 17 years and is appealing because it exceeds the sentencing guidelines.
One of the gang who kicked father-of-three Garry Newlove to death is considering an appeal against his conviction and his 17 year jail sentence, his solicitor has said.
Adam Swellings, 19, from Crewe, was jailed for life with a recommendation he serve a minimum of 17 years, for a killing that sparked outrage and a national debate about Britain?s yob culture.
Patrick Heald, Swellings’ solicitor, said however that the term had gone beyond parliament’s recommended tariff of 15 years for similar crimes.
[quote]
Yes this attack was disgusting, has nothing to do with US attitudes to guns though. Can’t remember the last time a group of British schoolkids turned up to school with automatic weapons and slaughtered their classmates.
[quote]
The British have made a mess of their own country but stubbornly refuse to admit it. Then we get British twats like Cockney Blue who want to spread British stupidity to other countries. Then they wonder why we get annoyed at their bullshit.[/quote]
I have openly admited that there are lots of problems in Britain so not sure where you get that from.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So if someone passes a law that says you can’t have a gun, and you object and hang on to your gun (as many people here are saying they would). You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.
So if “someone” (like Washington DC) passes a law that says “you” (like Dick Heller) can’t have a gun, and “you” (Dick Heller) object, then “you” (Dick Heller) sue the government (imagine that) which results in someone else (US Supreme Court) overturning the unconstitutional law. There’s a process. We don’t just all become criminals.
[/quote]
That’s cool and all by the book, but it’s hardly “from my cold dead hands” is it. More like "you’ll hear from my lawyer, something that I understand that Americans say quited a lot.
November 2008 report of The US Joint Forces Command. Mexico is under pressure from drug cartels and gangs and is danger of collapse in the next few years.
Why are you unable to acknowledge that law abiding citizens that legaly own guns are a separate element of society from violent criminals?
This is the second time you have tried to dodge the fact that there is a difference between the two.
The first was when I pointed out that it is the criminals who escalate violence in the scenario you presented here:
wich you conveniently ignored.
Now This?
Either you debating skills aren’t what you imagine, or you simply aren’t willing or able to distinguish the difference between a law abiding citizen and a violent criminal.
Regardless of which, trying to draw attention away from the main hole in your arguement by creating false scenarios, which you have here, is just plain weak. Especially in a thread that you started with a request of no falacious reasoning tactics.
You are beginning to appear to be weak of reason, riddled with hypocracy, and when confronted with some very basic and obvious facts that you refuse to acknowledge, closed minded.
What happened to all of that exchange of ideas and exposition of different views mumbo-jumbo?
Does that go out the window with the rules that you origionaly set?
[/quote]
I have already posted an answer to it, actually before you made the point.
Hey here is some more interesting reading
“The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).”
and
“In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman, et al) It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”
Yes there is a diference between a law abiding citizen defending themselves and a criminal, but the stats show that a gun owner is far more likely to become a criminal than to use their gun for self defence.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
November 2008 report of The US Joint Forces Command. Mexico is under pressure from drug cartels and gangs and is danger of collapse in the next few years.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
November 2008 report of The US Joint Forces Command. Mexico is under pressure from drug cartels and gangs and is danger of collapse in the next few years.
Lots of law abiding mexicans are gonna wish they had a gun.
You might try reading that report again.
First page, first paragraph:
‘This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict what will happen in the next 25 years.’[/quote]
You might want to read beyond the first page. This isn’t written for their own entertainment, it is however an attempt to identify risk. Page 35-36, Weak and Failing States:
“In terms of worst case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.”
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes there is a diference between a law abiding citizen defending themselves and a criminal, but the stats show that a gun owner is far more likely to become a criminal than to use their gun for self defence.[/quote]
There are stats that show gun owners are more likely to become criminals than non-gun owners?
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes there is a diference between a law abiding citizen defending themselves and a criminal, but the stats show that a gun owner is far more likely to become a criminal than to use their gun for self defence.
There are stats that show gun owners are more likely to become criminals than non-gun owners?
[/quote]
Not that I am aware of, there are however stats that show that a gun owner is far more likely to become a criminal than to use their gun for self defence (which is exactly what I said.)
Here they are for a third time:
“The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).”
and
“In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman, et al) It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”
“The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).”
[/quote]
The problem with statistics like this is that they do not measure the intangible effect of having an armed populace. For instance, what if the threat of the owner having guns kept 99/100 potential intruders from even attempting a burglary? An exaggeration no doubt, but its a number you could never measure. Also, are there any statistics on the number of home firearms that are never fired once? Not trying to be an ass, just curious, as I think that could also shed some light on the subject.
As for the defense against the government, you must look at an armed population as a whole, not individuals, who will give the government pause. We don’t want a single armed individual to be able to dictate to the government how to operate, but when millions of Americans stand armed against possible tyranny, it will help keep them in check before going too far.
However, in an effort to bring some sanity to this discussion, I think we can all agree with Cockney that a gun can escalate an already tense situation into a fatal one that could be averted if there was no access to a gun. On the other hand, Cockney should realize that this is not the only situation that needs to be weighed in our overarching “are guns good for society analysis”. Many other situations, as pointed out above in great detail, need to be considered in favor of gun ownership or at least a sane discussion of it.
And I am probably a lot more moderate than most of the posters here. I do not own a gun and probably never will, but in the end who am I to tell everyone else how they should live their lives?
“The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).”
The problem with statistics like this is that they do not measure the intangible effect of having an armed populace. For instance, what if the threat of the owner having guns kept 99/100 potential intruders from even attempting a burglary? An exaggeration no doubt, but its a number you could never measure. Also, are there any statistics on the number of home firearms that are never fired once? Not trying to be an ass, just curious, as I think that could also shed some light on the subject.
As for the defense against the government, you must look at an armed population as a whole, not individuals, who will give the government pause. We don’t want a single armed individual to be able to dictate to the government how to operate, but when millions of Americans stand armed against possible tyranny, it will help keep them in check before going too far.
However, in an effort to bring some sanity to this discussion, I think we can all agree with Cockney that a gun can escalate an already tense situation into a fatal one that could be averted if there was no access to a gun. On the other hand, Cockney should realize that this is not the only situation that needs to be weighed in our overarching “are guns good for society analysis”. Many other situations, as pointed out above in great detail, need to be considered in favor of gun ownership or at least a sane discussion of it.
And I am probably a lot more moderate than most of the posters here. I do not own a gun and probably never will, but in the end who am I to tell everyone else how they should live their lives?
[/quote]
No doubt you are right, and no doubt there is some detterant affect (the size of it would be very hard to measure.)
I’m pretty sure there are some statistics that a really large percentage of handguns owned are never fired.
Still not sure I buy the armed populace keeping the Government in check theory. If it is true, I am terrified to think what the US government would be up to if gun bans ever did get passed.
But I agree that the arguments are many and complex. I would never presume to tell people how to live their lives, however on the flip side, as you can probably tell, I am happy to give my opinion on an issue.