The Great Gun Control Debate

[Brad Sallows]

The right to bear (small) arms is an inherent human right (derived from the inherent right to self-defence, in turn derived from the inherent right to life).  The "civil" part only enters the picture when "civil" limitations are imposed on the inherent human right.  A "civil right" is when a right is created and granted to you by civil (political) society that you can't or don't automatically have by yourself.

 

[KnightShift]

The right to bear (small) arms is an inherent human right (derived from the inherent right to self-defence, in turn derived from the inherent right to life).  The "civil" part only enters the picture when "civil" limitations are imposed on the inherent human right.  A "civil right" is when a right is created and granted to you by civil (political) society that you can't or don't automatically have by yourself.

The right to self defense could certainly be seen as an inherent human right, even a natural right.  However, I would argue that the right to bear (small) arms wouldn't be an inherent human right, as we (as far as I know) are the only species that have developed tools to be used in a defensive or offensive manner.  The right to life, and the right to defend oneself, yes, without a doubt is a basic human right.  I'm not usually one to agree with gun control limitations, but sometimes I'm glad its a privilege that is licensed rather than a right that can be abused.  The civil limitations placed on licensing individuals to own firearms in this country probably does save lives, as does licensing people to drive a car rather than just letting anyone and everyone get behind the wheel.  Excellent definition of "civil right", I was trying to figure out how to best word that myself, I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The right to bear (small) arms is an inherent human right (derived from the inherent right to self-defence, in turn derived from the inherent right to life).  The "civil" part only enters the picture when "civil" limitations are imposed on the inherent human right.  A "civil right" is when a right is created and granted to you by civil (political) society that you can't or don't automatically have by yourself.

I'm curious, why is the "inherent right" one to bear small arms in particular? Why not swords or clubs?

Situating the estimate can lead to silly questions seeking clarification of the intent.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm curious, why is the "inherent right" one to bear small arms in particular? Why not swords or clubs?

Situating the estimate can lead to silly questions seeking clarification of the intent.

Why not swords and clubs. Any means necessary to stop you from being killed. i.e. defending yourself appropriately. However, rather than a sword or club, why not the most expedient solution that stacks that defence in your favour.

I should not have to defend myself with a gun, in todays 'civil' society. After all, no harm will come to the innocent right? I should however, be allowed to arm myself at least as equally as those that would wish my family or myself grievous harm.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If I can exercise a right without someone providing it to me, it's inherent: it's a property of me.  I live; I have my own mind and can think my thoughts without restraint, guidance, or permission; I can acquire/fabricate and use materiel.

I wrote "(small)" where I should have written "(personal)" (as opposed to crew-served).

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Why not swords and clubs. Any means necessary to stop you from being killed. i.e. defending yourself appropriately. However, rather than a sword or club, why not the most expedient solution that stacks that defence in your favour.

Regardless of guns, you can carry a sword or club if you are so inclined.  You might get some attention from the police, but it isn't illegal. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Regardless of guns, you can carry a sword or club if you are so inclined.  You might get some attention from the police, but it isn't illegal.

It might be legal to bring a (big) knife to a gunfight, but that action has been a definition for stupidity and unpreparedness for a reason.

 

[The_Falcon]

But that saying is erroneous, in skilled hands, a knife is much more dangerous and a more effective weapon in close quarters.

 

[Kat Stevens]

the problem is getting to close quarters with a knife.  Gun out ranges knife by a considerable margin.

 

[The_Falcon]

the problem is getting to close quarters with a knife.  Gun out ranges knife by a considerable margin.

When you factor in the 21 foot rule (google it) and the stress levels one would be facing in situation, that would require them to defend themselves with a firearm, and the accompanying problems (tunnel vision, loss of fine motor control), the average person 'may' be lucky to get 1 or 2 shots off (and if they are REALLY lucky, they might actually hit the person), before they get sliced and diced by the person with the knife.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Let's level the playing field, then.  your antagonist has spent hundreds of hours honing his skill as a knife fighter.  My guy gets to spend equal time on his shooting skills.  Knife man breaks in to gun man's house.  Gun man spots knife man in the 21' zone and levels his 9mm Barretta at knife man.  Who's the smart money on?  There's a reason the bangers largely dropped the switchblade as the weapon of choice back in the '50s, you know.  Anyway, I've taken this as far off track as I'm willing to.



edited to fix typo

 

[The_Falcon]

Let's level the playing field, then.  your antagonist has spent hundreds of hours honing his skill as a knife fighter.  My guy gets to spend equal time on his shooting skills.  Knife man breaks in to gun man's house.  Gun man spots knife man in the 27' zone and levels his 9mm Barretta at knife man.  Who's the smart money on?  There's a reason the bangers largely dropped the switchblade as the weapon of choice back in the '50s, you know.  Anyway, I've taken this as far off track as I'm willing to.

The 21' rule (Tueller drill) is not rigid BTW, when it was created it was shown that it took the average police officer 1.5 seconds to unholster their side arm, take aim and fire, in that 1.5 seconds the average person could close a gap of 21 feet and be standing nose to nose with that officer.  However even at further distance a person can still be shot multiple times and not drop dead instantaneously (and therefore still be dangerous).  Which is why LE agencies train their personnel to treat anyone with a knife or other sharp/edged implement as a Deadly threat.

And not all 'bangers' use guns, there are plenty of incidents to this day of thugs carrying/using knives for their purposes.

edit to fix spelling and to add this
http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20566

And say, this isn't that far off topic.  If you are going to discuss, whether or not people should have the right to carry use/firearms in self defence, you should at least discuss the possibilty that it may not be the most prudent or ideal weapon to use in self defence.

 

[OldSolduer]

The 21' rule (Tueller drill) is not rigid BTW, when it was created it was shown that it took the average police 1.5 seconds to unholster their side arm, take aim and fire, in that 1.5 seconds the average person could close a gap of 21 feet and be standing nose to nose with that officer.  However even at further distance a person can still be shot multiple times and not drop dead instantaneously (and therefore still be dangerous).  Which is why LE agencies train their personnel to treat anyone with a knife or other sharp/edged implement as a Deadly threat.

And not all 'bangers' use guns, there are plenty of incidents to this day of thugs carrying/using knives for their purposes.

Here in Winnipeg they use knives, bats, tire irons, etc. They haven't discovered fire bombs.

 

[ModlrMike]

Here in Winnipeg they use knives, bats, tire irons, etc. They haven't discovered fire bombs.

Yes, they do. I see it every day at work, although I've been spared gunshot so far. The latest favorite is a pool ball in a sock.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yes, they do. I see it every day at work, although I've been spared gunshot so far. The latest favorite is a pool ball in a sock.

I stand corrected. The pool ball in a sock has been around forever. In jail they use bars of soap in a sock.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I stand corrected. The pool ball in a sock has been around forever. In jail they use bars of soap in a sock.

Hell, we used the bar of soap in a sock, or the wooden sock darner ball in a sock or, if the going was heavy, two rolls of pennies in a sock in bar brawls in the early '60s. We didn't need to be in jail - just out of camp on a pay-night.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The 21' rule (Tueller drill) is not rigid BTW, when it was created it was shown that it took the average police officer 1.5 seconds to unholster their side arm, take aim and fire, in that 1.5 seconds the average person could close a gap of 21 feet and be standing nose to nose with that officer.  However even at further distance a person can still be shot multiple times and not drop dead instantaneously (and therefore still be dangerous).  Which is why LE agencies train their personnel to treat anyone with a knife or other sharp/edged implement as a Deadly threat.

And not all 'bangers' use guns, there are plenty of incidents to this day of thugs carrying/using knives for their purposes.

edit to fix spelling and to add this
http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20566

And say, this isn't that far off topic.  If you are going to discuss, whether or not people should have the right to carry use/firearms in self defence, you should at least discuss the possibilty that it may not be the most prudent or ideal weapon to use in self defence.

I'll take my .45 over a knife in a "close quarters battle" any day.

 

[The_Falcon]

I'll take my .45 over a knife in a "close quarters battle" any day.

Thats your choice, I am merely trying to point out that merely possesing a firearm and requisite training in its use in no way guarantees that you will be able to effectively defend yourself in all situations.

All of these people were armed with firearms (except UK officers), and were trained (hopefully) in their use and how to respond/react in potentially violent encounters, and yet they were still attacked, injured and in some cases killed.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=police+officer+stabbed#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22police+officer+stabbed%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=5a996d56de453056

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22police+officer+slashed%22

Now I am NOT saying people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves at home or on the street.  I AM saying that just because you have a firearm don't get lulled into a false sense of security about how effectively you would be able to use it to defend yourself.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's stay on topic. This is a huge thread and one that has managed to survive without any tangents derailing it.

 

[The_Falcon]

Why not swords and clubs. Any means necessary to stop you from being killed. i.e. defending yourself appropriately. However, rather than a sword or club, why not the most expedient solution that stacks that defence in your favour.

I should not have to defend myself with a gun, in todays 'civil' society. After all, no harm will come to the innocent right? I should however, be allowed to arm myself at least as equally as those that would wish my family or myself grievous harm.

We are still on topic, I am merely trying to point out that the "self-defence" argument for owning/using/carrying firearms is not that solid, when even professionals who carry them on a daily basis are not always able to effectively use them for the purpose of defending them selves.  I am not gun-hater, I think people should be able to have access to whatever means necessary to defend themselves/their property and others, however the "self defence" argument alone is not as strong as some people would like to people.  If a police officer can't always effective defend them self, given all their training and experience, how do you think an ordinary person without that training and experience would fare.

I think the idea of owning firearms soley for self defence purposes can instill a false sense of security, particularly if the scenario is out in the public realm and not in ones own home.  And because of that false sense of security, a person may be inclined to  let their guard down and become a more susceptible target of the very people they acquired the firearm to protect themselves from in the first place.