Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Bern80]

I’ve put a case that there is no need for a civilian (other than certain police officers) to privately own a fully automatic weapon.

You've countered that argument by focusing on “need” as an abstract concept rather than taking my point.

I asked a question about what items would be taken on a camping trip and why. AB gave a list but then spat the dummy when I asked why those items were nominated. The answer is that they were “necessary”. That is, there was a need for them. Need in context.

Now, there would be no need for them if a camping trip wasn’t being planned. So while someone can choose to go camping, they will need certain items in order to be able to enjoy their camping trip.

Using your approach none of those items are “needed” in the abstract, true, but they are necessary in the camping context.

That’s why your PS3 as against fully automatic weapon point makes no sense.

If you want to play video games you’ll need a console, a PS3 is a console and can be used to play video games.

If you don’t want to play video games then you have no need for the PS3.

If you have a need to kill people efficiently then you need something like a fully automatic weapon to do so.

If you have no need to kill people efficiently then you don’t need a fully automatic weapon.

That argument doesn't work either because under it you would in fact be required to allow me ownership of an automatic weapon beacause if I'm planning to shoot an automatic weapon I will then need an automatic weapon, by your argument. Somehow the activity of playing videogames and shooting an automatic weapon are not equal in your mind. that's the only non-like variable there can be in this equation. Otherwise they are both an activity, they bothj require acquiring some instrument/tool/piece of equipment to accomplsh and there is no justification that is more reasonable for one activity than the other.

That's why this whole 'need in context' thing doesn't work. The argument is rife for argument on the basis of semantics alone as I've shown above. the bigger point is we simply do not disallow ownership of something based solely on whether that thing is needed or not because again to do so is completely aribtrary.

 

[Diuretic]

This is what I posed:

If you want to play video games you’ll need a console, a PS3 is a console and can be used to play video games.

If you don’t want to play video games then you have no need for the PS3.

If you have a need to kill people efficiently then you need something like a fully automatic weapon to do so.

If you have no need to kill people efficiently then you don’t need a fully automatic weapon.


Now, which parts of that argument are invalid? Don't restate the argument as you've just done, your strawman tactic, just look at the argument and find its invalidity.

 

[Foxfyre]

You left out the possibility that a person may simply want to obtain the skill to use that automatic and enjoys target shooting or competing with others. In such a case he or she still NEEDS that automatic that will in all likelihood not include killing anything.

 

[Bern80]

This is what I posed:

If you want to play video games you’ll need a console, a PS3 is a console and can be used to play video games.

If you don’t want to play video games then you have no need for the PS3.

If you have a need to kill people efficiently then you need something like a fully automatic weapon to do so.

If you have no need to kill people efficiently then you don’t need a fully automatic weapon.


Now, which parts of that argument are invalid? Don't restate the argument as you've just done, your strawman tactic, just look at the argument and find its invalidity.

It is invalid because I am not required to use an automatic weapon to kill people. I can use it for other things.

It is invalid because you continue to attribute some innate purpose to inanimate objects. The othe concept you simply can't grasp I guess is that people give objects their purpose, not the other way around make what they are predominatnly used for irrelevant.

It is invalid because by your argument if i wanted to use a PS3 as a paper weight, I should not be allowed to have one.

 

[Diuretic]

You left out the possibility that a person may simply want to obtain the skill to use that automatic and enjoys target shooting or competing with others. In such a case he or she still NEEDS that automatic that will in all likelihood not include killing anything.

Good point but perhaps it's covered where they can front up to a range and use their fully auto firearms?

 

[Diuretic]

It is invalid because I am not required to use an automatic weapon to kill people. I can use it for other things.

It is invalid because you continue to attribute some innate purpose to inanimate objects. The othe concept you simply can't grasp I guess is that people give objects their purpose, not the other way around make what they are predominatnly used for irrelevant.

It is invalid because by your argument if i wanted to use a PS3 as a paper weight, I should not be allowed to have one.

Of course you can use it for other things, I already covered that, you can use it on a car body at the range where you can hire a full auto and blast away.

I made the point about design purpose. Did that a number of times in the thread, look for the references to Kalashnikov.

If you want a really neat paper weight you can use your PS3, it wasn't designed for it but I can't see an objection.

 

[LOki]

I’ve put a case that there is no need for a civilian (other than certain police officers) to privately own a fully automatic weapon.

You've countered that argument by focusing on “need” as an abstract concept rather than taking my point.

I asked a question about what items would be taken on a camping trip and why. AB gave a list but then spat the dummy when I asked why those items were nominated. The answer is that they were “necessary”. That is, there was a need for them. Need in context.

Now, there would be no need for them if a camping trip wasn’t being planned. So while someone can choose to go camping, they will need certain items in order to be able to enjoy their camping trip.

Using your approach none of those items are “needed” in the abstract, true, but they are necessary in the camping context.

That’s why your PS3 as against fully automatic weapon point makes no sense.

If you want to play video games you’ll need a console, a PS3 is a console and can be used to play video games.

If you don’t want to play video games then you have no need for the PS3.

If you have a need to kill people efficiently then you need something like a fully automatic weapon to do so.

If you have no need to kill people efficiently then you don’t need a fully automatic weapon.

If you want to effectively defend your life and liberty, the lives and liberty of your loved ones, your property and/or your community from those who would forcibly take and/or destroy those things and people, you will need a fully automatic weapon to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I missed it then.
On your question. This is where it gets a bit complex. I'm not looking at this issue as a sort of abstract, I'm looking at it from a policy point of view so that could be the reason for the disconnect.

Its not really that complex.

Given that your life is on the line, you need the best weapon for the job. In this case, the job is killing the people that you need to kill in order to protect your life. The best weapon for this job is one that's designed to do that as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

That would be an automatic weapon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the abstract that's so.

OK then - we're in agreement.

Given that you agree, what is there left of your argument?

 

[Bern80]

Of course you can use it for other things, I already covered that, you can use it on a car body at the range where you can hire a full auto and blast away.


If you want a really neat paper weight you can use your PS3, it wasn't designed for it but I can't see an objection.

Man you really are obtuse. Why are you so afraid to say what you really mean? Why will you allow me to OWN a PS3 for it's unintended purpose, but not allow me to OWN an automatic weapon for your perceived unintended purpose.

I made the point about design purpose. Did that a number of times in the thread, look for the references to Kalashnikov.

And my point is Kalashnikov (A PERSON for the slow) gave the weapon its purpose, the gun didn't tell him this is what you must use me for. And you still haven't answered why it is relevant with regards to me being allowed to have one.

 

[Diuretic]

If you want to effectively defend your life and liberty, the lives and liberty of your loved ones, your property and/or your community from those who would forcibly take and/or destroy those things and people, you will need a fully automatic weapon to do so.

Yep, if you live in Afghanistan or somewhere. But do you seriously mean that the average person in a western democracy needs to do that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yep, if you live in Afghanistan or somewhere. But do you seriously mean that the average person in a western democracy needs to do that?

The better armed you are, the more likely you are to fight off your attacker.
That applies everywhere.

 

[AllieBaba]

We're back to the need vs. rights.

We don't NEED freedom of speech. But it is our right in this country, and we are entitled to exercise it at will, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others.

We don't NEED to bear arms. But we have the right to, and we are entitled to exercise it at will, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others.

Who are you to tell anybody what they should or should not own, as long as they aren't violating your rights?

 

[Diuretic]

Its not really that complex.

Given that your life is on the line, you need the best weapon for the job. In this case, the job is killing the people that you need to kill in order to protect your life. The best weapon for this job is one that's designed to do that as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

That would be an automatic weapon.

I don't know much about fully automatic weapons as personal arms (except they're fun to fire) but I can't envisage the average individual as needing one. There's the word again but let's keep it in context. A handgun - yes. General duties police where I am are issued with a handgun for self defence and for the defence of other people. In the US I know it's the same, but of course many departments issue shotguns as well. But to the best of my knowledge I don't remember seeing a fully automatic weapon in a patrol car. Yes, in SWAT units, but not in general duties cars. There's no need.

And that's where we're bumping up against each other. I think you're looking at the issue in abstract terms and I'm looking at it in practical terms.

Anyway, I would think that unless you're facing hordes of attacking crazies, that a fully automatic weapon isn't much good for self-defence for a civilian in a domestic situation.

 

[Diuretic]

OK then - we're in agreement.

Given that you agree, what is there left of your argument?

Need. As stated above.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't know much about fully automatic weapons as personal arms (except they're fun to fire) but I can't envisage the average individual as needing one. There's the word again but let's keep it in context. A handgun - yes. General duties police where I am are issued with a handgun for self defence and for the defence of other people. In the US I know it's the same, but of course many departments issue shotguns as well. But to the best of my knowledge I don't remember seeing a fully automatic weapon in a patrol car. Yes, in SWAT units, but not in general duties cars. There's no need.

And that's where we're bumping up against each other. I think you're looking at the issue in abstract terms and I'm looking at it in practical terms.

Anyway, I would think that unless you're facing hordes of attacking crazies, that a fully automatic weapon isn't much good for self-defence for a civilian in a domestic situation.

Police are starting to issue larger caliber rifles and automatics to certain police in some cities.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know much about fully automatic weapons as personal arms (except they're fun to fire) but I can't envisage the average individual as needing one.

No offemse, but your lack of imagination as the cornerstone of your argument doesnt do much for the soundness of your argument.

I cannot imagine never being. Thus, there -must- be an afterlife.

And that's where we're bumping up against each other. I think you're looking at the issue in abstract terms and I'm looking at it in practical terms.

Abstract or practical, the effect is the same:
When your life is on the line, you NEED the most effective weapon you can get. In terms of firearms, that will always be an automatic weapon.

Anyway, I would think that unless you're facing hordes of attacking crazies, that a fully automatic weapon isn't much good for self-defence for a civilian in a domestic situation

You already conceded that semi-auto rifles are "ok" to own.
I can do anything with an M16 that I can do with an AR15.
The reverse is not true.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't know much about fully automatic weapons as personal arms (except they're fun to fire) but I can't envisage the average individual as needing one. There's the word again but let's keep it in context. A handgun - yes. General duties police where I am are issued with a handgun for self defence and for the defence of other people. In the US I know it's the same, but of course many departments issue shotguns as well. But to the best of my knowledge I don't remember seeing a fully automatic weapon in a patrol car. Yes, in SWAT units, but not in general duties cars. There's no need.

And that's where we're bumping up against each other. I think you're looking at the issue in abstract terms and I'm looking at it in practical terms.

Anyway, I would think that unless you're facing hordes of attacking crazies, that a fully automatic weapon isn't much good for self-defence for a civilian in a domestic situation.

Once again, who are you to dictate what "needs" or "wants" we are allowed to address?
It's a right, and as a right, it has nothing to do with need. It's there for us, if we want it. Or if we need it. Better to not need and have, than to need and not have.

And there are lots of people out there who love and are fascinated by weaponry, and who enjoy owning and using them legally. You think you have the right to tell them what is a valid hobby and what isn't?

 

[Diuretic]

Man you really are obtuse. Why are you so afraid to say what you really mean? Why will you allow me to OWN a PS3 for it's unintended purpose, but not allow me to OWN an automatic weapon for your perceived unintended purpose.

Obtuse? That's polite for "dense" isn't it? And give me a break, afraid to say what I really mean? What the hell do you think I've been doing? Can I get any clearer?

And if you can't see the difference between a person being allowed to own a video games console and a person being allowed to own a fully automatic weapon then I can't help you, I don't have the therapeutic skills.

And my point is Kalashnikov (A PERSON for the slow) gave the weapon its purpose, the gun didn't tell him this is what you must use me for. And you still haven't answered why it is relevant with regards to me being allowed to have one.

Kalashnikov thought about the weapon in the usual complex manner humans do when they're dealing with abstract thoughts. He thought about what he wanted the weapon to do and in what conditions. I also think, but this is speculation on my part, that he probably followed the Soviet dictum of making things so that they could be used in a range of environments and be very rugged. With those thoughts in mind (and no doubt others I haven't even thought of) he began the design work and then probably oversaw the manufacturing of the weapon. And the purpose was to kill people.

As for your being allowed to have one, see the thread. I'm still putting the very simple, straightforward and completely transparent reason as - you have no need for one unless you're in the military or a police CT unit - or you want to head down to the range and take apart a car body with a squirt gun.

Can you process those ideas?

 

[Diuretic]

The better armed you are, the more likely you are to fight off your attacker.
That applies everywhere.

And the more proficient you are with the firearm, the better trained you are to use the firearm and that you're psychologically prepared to use it. And it's about "appropriate" not "better". That doesn't address the need of a civilian non-specialist cop for a fully automatic weapon.