Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[M14 Shooter]

Is this why I'm wrong?

Yes, with the hooeryness of proprotinal reponse explained in the next para.

 

[Diuretic]

Putting aside for the moment that the need/need v want/need is inaccurate...

Shooting is all about self-defense, and thus, it is a need/need not a want/need.

Self-defence is a right, not a need.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, with the hooeryness of proprotinal reponse explained in the next para.

And that's this:

If you are fighting for my life, you don't fight fair -- you "need" every advantage you can possibly have. Thus, the fact that there is a legitimate threat to my life, regardless of how that threat manifests itself, creates the "need" for automatic weapons.

Is that right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Self-defence is a right, not a need.

Its a right because you need to be able to defend yourself.
Thus, need.

 

[Diuretic]

Its a right because you need to be able to defend yourself.
Thus, need.

Sorry, word meanings are important here. A right isn't a need. I've seen arguments here on other topics where it's been said that no-one has a right to food (usually in the context of welfare state discussions). But everyone has a need for food. So, a right and a need are different from one another.

You have a right to self-defence, you will have a need for self-defence if you're attacked but your right exists irrespective of the fact that you may never need to defend yourself from attack.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Same if you WANT to shoot fully automatic weapons, then you NEED to own one. Explain again why I NEED a rifle to shoot if I want to, BUT I don't need an automatic to shoot if I want to?

And you NEED a can opener. And have since around the late 1800's when canned goods became so much a part of our food source processing.

 

[ReillyT]

Putting aside for the moment that the need/need v want/need is inaccurate...

Shooting is all about self-defense, and thus, it is a need/need not a want/need.

Even accepting that there is a need for instruments of self-defense, that does not imply that all instruments, no matter how destructive, are needed. What is needed is only an appropriate instrument of self-defense. There may be compelling reasons why this need should only be met by some instruments, but not all potential instruments

 

[ReillyT]

Same if you WANT to shoot fully automatic weapons, then you NEED to own one. Explain again why I NEED a rifle to shoot if I want to, BUT I don't need an automatic to shoot if I want to?

And you NEED a can opener. And have since around the late 1800's when canned goods became so much a part of our food source processing.

That ignores the complexity of the need/need versus need/want. All needs should be satisfied in some manner, but not all wants need be satisfied.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Self-defence is a right, not a need.

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?

 

[Diuretic]

Same if you WANT to shoot fully automatic weapons, then you NEED to own one. Explain again why I NEED a rifle to shoot if I want to, BUT I don't need an automatic to shoot if I want to?

And you NEED a can opener. And have since around the late 1800's when canned goods became so much a part of our food source processing.

You can shoot a full auto but not need to own one. I mentioned the range.

I said that certain recreational shooting uses require firearms. Skeet, fixed target, combat shooting (Hogan's Alley type), hunting etc. require firearms. There are firearms designed for those purposes such as shotguns, rifles, handguns.

I differentiated those firearms from full autos by pointing out that the purpose of a full auto is to kill people, not for recreation. Given that purpose I argued that only the military and certain police officers should have them because they could demonstrate a need for them. A civilian can't demonstrate a need for them. So if they can't demonstrate a need for them then they shouldn't be able to own them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That ignores the complexity of the need/need versus need/want. All needs should be satisfied in some manner, but not all wants need be satisfied.

Sorry but you are late to the game. Diuretic has stated that need is all that matters, that he is NOT stating the dangerous nature of automatics or firearms has ANYTHING to do with the issue.

Please get up to date on the discussion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And that's this:
Is that right?

Correct.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even accepting that there is a need for instruments of self-defense, that does not imply that all instruments, no matter how destructive, are needed.

The conversation was agreed to be restricted to firearms.

What is needed is only an appropriate instrument of self-defense.

No. What is needed is the most effective insutrment available. No one deliberately fights for his life with one hand when he could fight with both.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can shoot a full auto but not need to own one. I mentioned the range.

I said that certain recreational shooting uses require firearms. Skeet, fixed target, combat shooting (Hogan's Alley type), hunting etc. require firearms. There are firearms designed for those purposes such as shotguns, rifles, handguns.

I differentiated those firearms from full autos by pointing out that the purpose of a full auto is to kill people, not for recreation. Given that purpose I argued that only the military and certain police officers should have them because they could demonstrate a need for them. A civilian can't demonstrate a need for them. So if they can't demonstrate a need for them then they shouldn't be able to own them.

You are amazing. Your totally devoid of LOGIC. READ your argument. You are arguing that a rifle, a shotgun, or a pistol that are not fully automatic can be a need just for FUN, but that somehow only a fully automatic suddenly becomes ONLY for killing.

You are aware that most non tripod mounted autos were originally intended just to spray the area and force the enemy to seek cover? Read up on the function of the Thompson submachine gun and same types of automatics in WW1.

 

[Diuretic]

Sorry but you are late to the game. Diuretic has stated that need is all that matters, that he is NOT stating the dangerous nature of automatics or firearms has ANYTHING to do with the issue.

Please get up to date on the discussion.

ReillyT is not only up to date but right on point.

 

[ReillyT]

Sorry but you are late to the game. Diuretic has stated that need is all that matters, that he is NOT stating the dangerous nature of automatics or firearms has ANYTHING to do with the issue.

Please get up to date on the discussion.

I don't believe that this can be separated from the conversation, as I believe Diuretic was suggesting in post 510.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Wrong again. If I am 95 pounds and a 300 pound man attacks me shooting him would most definately be considered appropriate defense.

 

[Diuretic]

Correct.

Now, this was your point:

If you are fighting for my life, you don't fight fair -- you "need" every advantage you can possibly have. Thus, the fact that there is a legitimate threat to my life, regardless of how that threat manifests itself, creates the "need" for automatic weapons.

To which I respond: No it doesn't. As I just pointed out, the law requires a proportionate response. You can't kill someone because they belt you in the face in a bar.

If you're fighting for your life you do need every advantage you can get. Now I just need to know where full autos come in there.

 

[Diuretic]

You are amazing. Your totally devoid of LOGIC. READ your argument. You are arguing that a rifle, a shotgun, or a pistol that are not fully automatic can be a need just for FUN, but that somehow only a fully automatic suddenly becomes ONLY for killing.

You are aware that most non tripod mounted autos were originally intended just to spray the area and force the enemy to seek cover? Read up on the function of the Thompson submachine gun and same types of automatics in WW1.

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.

Regarding the history. That's interesting but not relevant to the discussion.