Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Adrift]

You are saying you aren't interested in the average risk of all actual usages. But your original claim was that if the quantity of ladder use was equal to the quantity of gun use (supposing we come up with some common unit of quantity), there would be more gun deaths than ladder deaths. Which is equivalent to saying that the average risk of all actual gun use is greater than the average risk of all actual ladder use.
Now, you don't have to be interested in those averages of the whole population. That's fine. But then you are abandoning your original claim.

I was referring to use in equally non-controlled environments. If you misunderstood that I apologize.

It is a fact that every law is backed by threat of physical force. Otherwise it is a suggestion, like anyone could make. Note that I didn't say physical force is never appropriate. That would be total pacifism (and I've not encountered many libertarians that are total pacifists). Most people agree that sometimes force is justified, as in defense of self or others or their property, and in requiring restitution to victims.

When you talk about banning guns, then you are no longer using force just against bad guys, but using force against millions of people not because of anything wrong they have done or might do, just for the goal of using force against the few bad guys.

Not everyone who refuses to buckle up will die in a car crash, a few may even die because they were buckled in, but sometimes the government makes the hard decision to enforce laws that they deem will save more lives than not. It sucks, but that's just part of living in a society with laws.

Can you at least see why people would view that as an injustice--an act of aggression--against millions of innocent people? Can you see why people might be inclined to engage in self-defense against such an act of aggression? (In this particular case, of a gun ban, there additionally is the element that if they submit this time, they are surrendering their means of self defense against such aggression in the future.)

Sure. But then, I can also understand why someone might justify their reason to rob a bank to feed their family.

It's not really a difference of object vs people. In both cases it is passing a law banning people from doing something (e.g. making/buying/possessing/using a gun, or migrating). In both cases it is the use of force on millions of innocent people just to reduce a (already statistically small) risk from a small number of bad guys. (I mean "innocent" in the sense above: that the point is not per se to use force against those millions who aren't the ones doing the wrong, but using force against those millions is included in the means to reduce the risk from the few bad guys.

Nah, it's just another apples and oranges argument. Possessing a weapon is not like migrating to another country. It's just a weird analogy to make, or at least, it's not one I find particularly convincing. I also don't buy the emotional appeal in using the word "innocent" you keep dropping. The intent to restrict guns isn't to hurt people (though I understand that's what you believe would happen), it's to help people.

[Sparko]

Since the 2nd Amendment acknowledges we have a natural right to have guns and prevents the government from infringing on that right, all arguments against us having guns are moot.

[Sea of red]

Since the 2nd Amendment acknowledges we have a natural right to have guns and prevents the government from infringing on that right, all arguments against us having guns are moot.

Do we have a right to machine guns and bazookas?

[Sparko]

Do we have a right to machine guns and bazookas?

Are they fire arms?

[Mountain Man]

I was also worried about buying a used handgun because you never know the history. I wouldn't want a gun that ended up having been used in a crime and have it tracked to me.

Shouldn't be a problem if you buy from a reputable dealer.

[Sea of red]

Are they fire arms?

Yup.

[Darth Executor]

Do we have a right to machine guns and bazookas?

Yes which is why the gun control crowd should show some common sense and not push the issue. if you force people to follow the letter of the law you might not like what you get. not that liberals have any self awareness whatsoever. it's like the idiots demanding that you be forced to join a militia to be allowed to carry firearms. literally pushing for right wing death squads

[Zymologist]

Do we have a right to machine guns and bazookas?

Yes, but only if we're employees of the government.

[Sparko]

Yup.

does the 2nd amendment have any exceptions for them?

[Sea of red]

does the 2nd amendment have any exceptions for them?

We have other laws passed by congress that now regulates them.

I asked you whether you thought we should have open access to them, so answer the question.

[Sparko]

We have other laws passed by congress that now regulates them.

I asked you whether you thought we should have open access to them, so answer the question.

No you asked if we have a right to them. Not what I thought. But I think we do.

The supreme court, disagrees.

Here is a fairly good article on the topic.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/04...erts-weigh-in/

From my point of view the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear and keep arms, it just recognizes that we already have the natural right to do so. It also says the government (which includes the supreme court) shall not infringe on that natural right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Joel]

I was referring to use in equally non-controlled environments. If you misunderstood that I apologize.

Fair enough. But you intended it to be an argument against Mountain Man's comment, "And think of how many lives we could save if we banned ladders!"

To which, you said, "I don't think that would be practical. Again, ladders are in far more common use than guns are," and then explained that you meant, "If we used guns as often as we used ladders, we'd likely see far FAR more gun deaths."

But now you are saying that what you meant was something like, "If we used guns as unsafely as ladders" or "If we used guns as often as we used ladders, but that that quantity of gun use did not include all the actual safe uses of guns such as at ranges and safe practices while hunting".

But then it's not clear how that is an argument against Mountain Man. The amount of lives actually saved/lost in each case would depend on how the things are actually being used. Which is why I interpreted your argument to be talking about that.

It sucks, but that's just part of living in a society with laws.

No, victimless "crimes" and the state trying to protect persons from themselves are not necessary to society with laws.

I also don't buy the emotional appeal in using the word "innocent" you keep dropping.

Do you have a more neutral term that I can substitute? It's inconvenient to say, every time, something like "the millions of people who have not committed and would not have committed the crime in question (e.g. murder) either way, but receive injury that is merely collateral to the goal".

Or what do you think they are guilty of?

Possessing a weapon is not like migrating to another country.

I didn't say they are like each other except in the general sense of them both being human actions. (We might add that neither is an act of physically injuring anyone) Their being similar actions wasn't relevant. It is the uses of force against them that are of the same kind: they both consist primarily of collateral force (i.e. against non-terrorists and non-murderers) to try to reduce a small risk from a small number of bad guys (e.g. murderers or terrorists).

The intent to restrict guns isn't to hurt people (though I understand that's what you believe would happen), it's to help people.

That's what everyone who proposes the use of force against people for humanitarian reasons thinks and/or claims. (it's really to help people. It's for the greater good) That was the reasoning used to justify the murder of millions in Russia. Isabel Paterson referred to this argument, in its logical conclusion, as the "Humanitarian with the Guillotine" (https://mises.org/library/humanitarian-guillotine ).

And similarly, the stated intent to ban/restrict Muslims isn't to hurt people, it's to save lives by reducing the risk of terrorist acts.

[Joel]

Do we have a right to machine guns and bazookas?

"The Right To Own A Bazooka, and Other Inalienable Rights"
http://reason.com/archives/2007/08/1...bazooka#slide1

[Sea of red]

No you asked if we have a right to them. Not what I thought. But I think we do.

The supreme court, disagrees.

Here is a fairly good article on the topic.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/04...erts-weigh-in/

From my point of view the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear and keep arms, it just recognizes that we already have the natural right to do so. It also says the government (which includes the supreme court) shall not infringe on that natural right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So you think rapid fire weapons should be legal? Please tell me I'm reading you wrong.

[Sea of red]

"The Right To Own A Bazooka, and Other Inalienable Rights"
http://reason.com/archives/2007/08/1...bazooka#slide1

Pure stupidity.