Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Depending on the circumstances, you are perfectly withing your rights to shoot someone attacking you with bare hands.

If you are threatened with deadly force, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. If you are threatened wit a knife, you have the right to shoot someone, and you have the right to do it with any sort of firearm you may have.

If you were right, that you only have the right to use a proportional response, then you could not shoot someone with a knife, nor use any weapon more effective than a knife to protect yourself. This is, of course, absurd on its face.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Flawed premise. Shooting is not all about self-defense.

Yes some people keep a weapon specifically because they are or believe themselves to be at risk. This is a case of need and the most compelling justification for the Second Amendment. At any time, any one of us might have such a need.

Some people keep a weapon because they have to hunt to put meat on the table or they want to put an injured animal out of its misery or otherwise use a gun as a tool. Again, this is a justification for owning a weapon out of need.

Some people are not experiencing any real or perceived threat at the present time and they buy their meat at the grocery store, but keep a weapon in case a threat might develop or as insurance against such a time when it would be necessary to hunt food or some other situation might develop requiring a gun. This is a case of prudence rather than need but is no less applicable to the Second Amendment.

There are those who hunt for sport when there is no intention or need to put food on the table. There is no way to qualify this as self defense; but it also does not suppose that a freedom to do this should be taken away.

And there are those who shoot at targets or shoot skeet or just enjoy owning and displaying and showing off a collection of fine weaponry. This is purely recreational use of a firearm that cannot be justified by any criteria other than it is just fun or satisfying to do. But there is also no compelling justification for taking away the freedom to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

THAT should be obvious, especially given your argument that the purpose of thesw weapons is to kill people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Flawed premise. Shooting is not all about self-defense.

The right to arms is.

 

[Diuretic]

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

That's entirely possible that example could be seen as a proportionate
response .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

It is most definately relevant. The weapons were in fact NOT designed to kill at all but to supress an area.

Your argument is that the wepon was designed to kill when in fact it was NOT.

Further if recreational shooting is a need, then my desire to shoot fully automatic weapons on a range for fun is JUST the same.

 

[Diuretic]

Depending on the circumstances, you are perfectly withing your rights to shoot someone attacking you with bare hands.

If you are threatened with deadly force, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. If you are threatened wit a knife, you have the right to shoot someone, and you have the right to do it with any sort of firearm you may have.

If you were right, that you only have the right to use a proportional response, then you could not shoot someone with a knife, nor use any weapon more effective than a knife to protect yourself. This is, of course, absurd on its face.

If someone attacks you with bare hands and you shoot them (as RGS has pointed out), yes it may be a proportionate response but as a general statement it's wrong. It's wrong because there are so many variables in play. The statement, self defence must be proportionate, is correct though.

If you're threatened with deadly force then the use of deadly force by you would, I think, be proportionate. Again, that's in the abstract but it's a reasonable statement.

If someone threatened me with a knife and I was armed with a gun I would shoot them. I think that's a proportionate use of force. Someone coming at me with a knife intends to use deadly force on me so I am entitled to use deadly force on them which is entirely consistent with my previous statements.

 

[Diuretic]

It is most definately relevant. The weapons were in fact NOT designed to kill at all but to supress an area.

Your argument is that the wepon was designed to kill when in fact it was NOT.

Further if recreational shooting is a need, then my desire to shoot fully automatic weapons on a range for fun is JUST the same.

So why did Kalashnikov invent his eponymous firearm?

I didn't characterise recreational shooting as a need. I said it's a want. The need appears when the want has to be satisfied and it can only be satisfied by a firearm, thus the want for recreational shooting needs a firearm to be satisfied.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So why did Kalashnikov invent his eponymous firearm?

I didn't characterise recreational shooting as a need. I said it's a want. The need appears when the want has to be satisfied and it can only be satisfied by a firearm, thus the want for recreational shooting needs a firearm to be satisfied.

The AK-47 came after , LONG after the Thompson Submachine Gun. The original intent of submachine guns was to provide supressive fire on an AREA. To force the enemy to seek cover so they could not react while your force DID react.

And you will find that the Soviets, the original uses of the AK-47 did not teach heavy marksmanship at all, The AK-47 provided a means to arm the masses with a weapon that could at least supress the enemy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If someone attacks you with bare hands and you shoot them (as RGS has pointed out), yes it may be a proportionate response ...

So, you agree that:
Depending on the circumstances, you are perfectly withing your rights to shoot someone attacking you with bare hands.

If you're threatened with deadly force then the use of deadly force by you would, I think, be proportionate. Again, that's in the abstract but it's a reasonable statement.

So, you agree that:
If you are threatened with a knife, you have the right to shoot someone, and you have the right to do it with any sort of firearm you may have.

Thus, you agree that in order to use X to defend yourself, you must be attaced with X, is a false premise.
Correct?

 

[Diuretic]

The AK-47 came after , LONG after the Thompson Submachine Gun. The original intent of submachine guns was to provide supressive fire on an AREA. To force the enemy to seek cover so they could not react while your force DID react.

And you will find that the Soviets, the original uses of the AK-47 did not teach heavy marksmanship at all, The AK-47 provided a means to arm the masses with a weapon that could at least supress the enemy.

So the original use was suppressive fire. That's a military tactic isn't it? And the AK-47 was intended to arm the masses so they could also use the military tactic of suppression?

So the use of full autos is bound with the military. Therefore only the military should have them as they serve military needs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So the original use was suppressive fire. That's a military tactic isn't it? And the AK-47 was intended to arm the masses so they could also use the military tactic of suppression?

So the use of full autos is bound with the military. Therefore only the military should have them as they serve military needs.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the original use was suppressive fire. That's a military tactic isn't it? And the AK-47 was intended to arm the masses so they could also use the military tactic of suppression?

So the use of full autos is bound with the military. Therefore only the military should have them as they serve military needs.

Wrong again. Once again you can not divorce the 2nd Amendment from an argument about weapons and need in the USA. The Supreme Court has in fact ruled one criteria for a weapon being protected by the 2nd Amendment is exactly that it IS used by the military.

Further just because the military uses a weapon does not then negate a need for civilians to own it. That is a false premise.

 

[Diuretic]

So, you agree that:
Depending on the circumstances, you are perfectly withing your rights to shoot someone attacking you with bare hands.


So, you agree that:
If you are threatened with a knife, you have the right to shoot someone, and you have the right to do it with any sort of firearm you may have.

Thus, you agree that in order to use X to defend yourself, you must be attaced with X, is a false premise.
Correct?

First point - Yes, it depends on the circumstances. If the use of bare hands amounts to deadly force, for example, if someone has you on your back on the ground and is choking you and apparently fully intends to choke you to death, shooting them would be proportionate use of force.

Second point - Yes I think that's reasonable.

Third point - yes, it's wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

Non sequitur. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

Why not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Third point - yes [in order to use X to defend yourself, you must be attaced with X, is a false premise] is wrong.

So then, your agree that your argument against the "need" to own automatic weapons:

[If] there was a very high probability of the average citizen (in Whereverland) being attacked by people armed with fully automatic weapons I would say that there's a need for someone to be armed with a fully automatic weapon in response. In other words there would be a need.

Is a false premise.

If not, why now?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not?

Actually, sonce its your conclusion, you need to show that it -does- necessariuly follow, if it is challenged.
I challenged it.

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong again. Once again you can not divorce the 2nd Amendment from an argument about weapons and need in the USA. The Supreme Court has in fact ruled one criteria for a weapon being protected by the 2nd Amendment is exactly that it IS used by the military.

Further just because the military uses a weapon does not then negate a need for civilians to own it. That is a false premise.

Oh, 2nd Amendment. Okay, I know you know it so cite me the case and I'll go and read it.

But on your final point, just because the military uses a weapon doesn't stop civilians owning it, I agree, there are quite a number of weapons used by the military which can be owned by civilians.

But I would think there are plenty that aren't permitted. Would that be right?

I wasn't actually saying just because the military uses a weapon civilians can't have one. I was looking at the purpose of full autos. You told me their original use was suppression. That's a military use. Here we go again - why would a civilian need to use a weapon for suppression?

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, sonce its your conclusion, you need to show that it -does- necessariuly follow, if it is challenged.
I challenged it.

I'm sorry we're not playing syllogisms here. You probably know that syllogisms don't require truth value, all that has to happen for a valid argument is that p1 and p2 must support the conclusion, the truth value of the premises is irrelevant.

In this discussion the truth value of every statement is very important. So, without reference to the use of Venn diagrams can you please tell me why my argument is invalid in truth value terms rather than in its structural validity?

 

[Diuretic]

So then, your agree that your argument against the "need" to own automatic weapons:

If] there was a very high probability of the average citizen (in Whereverland) being attacked by people armed with fully automatic weapons I would say that there's a need for someone to be armed with a fully automatic weapon in response. In other words there would be a need.


Is a false premise.

If not, why now?

I said if there was a high probability of attack on citizens by people with full autos then I accept there would be a need for citizens being armed with full autos as well.

What's wrong with that?