Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA - The duty of self defense (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who's preventing you from defending yourself? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas

    Another strawman argument...Really. Are logical fallacies the only arguments you're going to use?

    I SAID that you can have all the guns you care to own...IF you register the GUNS, license YOURSELF, and buy INSURANCE for the potential damage you might cause with the either accidental or deliberate use of said self-defense system.

    In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.

    So, 30,000 to 360. I'd say that was cause for an intervention.

    But YOU think you're so special that no regulation should apply to you?

    Meh.

    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

    by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:09:16 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why are you counting suicides? (8+ / 0-)

      Also, what about the defensive gun use estimates that run from 108k to 2.5 million (depending on who's doing the estimation)?

      MF and RKBA Member. It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies. -9.00, -4.05

      by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:10:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BECAUSE (0+ / 0-)

        If someone in YOUR household (not you) or someone familiar to you NOT in your household (not you) obtains and uses YOUR gun to shoot themselves in the head, that's a liability issue?

        Really, do you think suicide by gun is only performed by the owner of said gun?

        And contra the self-defense argument:

        Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

        by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:14:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Link? (9+ / 0-)

          I think that you should have the right to commit suicide however and whenever you want. So no, I wouldn't subscribe liability to the gun owner.

          MF and RKBA Member. It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies. -9.00, -4.05

          by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:16:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Quite low likelihoods (7+ / 0-)

          of the scenarios you offer.  There are other control methods that would be more effective.

          Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

          by oldpunk on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:18:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And again... (0+ / 0-)

            the likelihood of something happening or not happening is an actuarial matter.

            I wear my bicycle helmet every single time I ride.

            ONCE, I had an accident that split the helmet (and not my head) in half.

            The thousands of safe bike rides in no way eliminated the need to wear a helmet for that one time when it saved my life.

            That's why car insurance is mandatory. That's why health insurance is going to be mandatory. Because it's NOT about all of those times when you don't need it.

            The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

            by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:21:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's actually why I carry. (8+ / 0-)

              I've never had to clear leather. I hope I never do. But there's a non zero chance I might need it, so I carry.

              With health insurance being mandatory, we probably won't need 'firearm insurance' then eh?

              MF and RKBA Member. It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies. -9.00, -4.05

              by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:23:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Likelihood is not solely related to (5+ / 0-)

              insurance.  In my field of work likelihood is a function of risk which is a combination of the probability of an incident occurring and the severity of the consequences.  To manage risk controls are developed and implemented to prevent, mitigate and recover from an incident.  Too many controls are self defeating and not cost effective because they over manage the risk.  Not enough or weak controls leave us with too much exposure and result in a higher incident rate.  So what kind and how many controls should we use to manage the risk that freedom and the right to keep and bear arms presents?

              Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

              by oldpunk on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:57:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  AGAIN, please read what I said... (0+ / 0-)

                Not what you ASSUME I said, or what you WANT me to have said so that you can argue against a position I didn't take. That's a strawman argument, and it's a logical fallacy.

                I said:

                You can have all the guns you want IF you 1) register those guns; 2) license yourself by demonstrating a competence to safely load, unload, and fire your gun(s); and 3) obtain liability insurance for the 22-to-1 odds that that firearm will be used in a situation where you may be liable for its use in a way not intended by you that harms an individual unrelated to self-defense (which, as pointed out, is a canard anyway).

                The "too costly" argument is the same argument used against car insurance and the new mandatory health insurance.

                The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

                by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 08:47:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Now, where do you want the country to go (6+ / 0-)

                  while the Republicans are in control?

                  Pushing more gun control, especially that licensing of the gunowner, will put them back in power.

                  Republicans in power do more damage than firearms do.

                  MF and RKBA Member. It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies. -9.00, -4.05

                  by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 08:48:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Red herring argument...another logical fallacy. (0+ / 0-)

                    When you've lost the argument, you change the subject. "LOOK OVER THERE!!!"

                    We were talking about reasonable expectations for gun ownership.

                    Again, who is pushing "gun control"?

                    I SAID "have as many guns as you like"...

                    What part of "have as many guns as you like" do you not understand? Have I used too many words? Are they too long?

                    I believe the Second Amendment entitles US citizen to have firearms for personal use. I do not believe that the Second Amendment REQUIRES unfettered, irresponsible, dangerous use of that right. And I believe no court (even the Roberts court) would rule that the Second Amendment does not allow reasonable requirements for gun ownership. For example, prohibiting gun ownership by convicted felons, not allowing guns to be carried into schools or government buildings, etc.

                    The issue before the current court is whether local rules can be more restrictive than national laws. Not whether no laws can exist.

                    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

                    by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:02:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Pretty creative interpretation of the text. (6+ / 0-)

                      Your argument has, in this sub-thread, shown to be pretty weak -- to the point of being empty.

                      So, even after dismissing your claim to have won the argument, without really having one, you now insist that mentioning an additional point that you didn't consider is a red herring.

                      You see, more than one point can be considered at one time by lots of people.  There are more aspects to the argument than the one you apparently allow.

                      •  Oh really? (0+ / 0-)

                        Weak?

                        Why is it then that you didn't pwn me? You only claim my argument is weak without refuting any of it.

                        A red herring argument is one that is not germane to the discussion. Whether or not reasonable requirements can be instituted for gun ownership has exactly squat to do with the political ramifications.

                        So. Do you have a point to make?

                        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

                        by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:00:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I didn't have to refute it. (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sharoney, rockhound, oldpunk, KVoimakas

                          Everyone else in the discussion already did that.  No need to reinvent the wheel, there.

                          My point has already been made, as you would know if you'd actually read and/or comprehended my comment.

                          •  So, you don't have an argument... (0+ / 0-)

                            I thought so.

                            The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

                            by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:36:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What are you going on about? (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharoney, rockhound, oldpunk, KVoimakas

                            You're just not keeping up with the discussion, I guess.

                            I'll sum up:
                            --Other commenters here have shown your argument to be weak to the point of being empty.
                            --You claim that adding another pertinent point to the discussion is a "red herring."
                            --I pointed out that it is not, as it is pertinent to the discussion, and there is nothing fallacious in adding such a point.

                            So, not only are your previous arguments weak to the point of being completely empty, the claim I addressed is empty as well.

                          •  Heh... and again with the content-free post... (0+ / 0-)

                            Let's review:

                            1. I said I was in favor of a system whereby people would have to register their guns, license themselves, and purchase appropriate liability insurance.
                            1. I also pointed out the fallacy of "self-defense" as a reason to own a gun. Because A) you're almost 5 times more likely to have your gun used against you in a self-defense situation as you are to use it against a legitimate target, and B) there is about a 22-to-1 ratio of of guns being used against human targets inappropriately compared with self-defense.
                            1. In response, the commenters suggested that gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, wrongly inferring that the Constitution says that the 2nd Amendment requires that we not regulate weapons. I pointed to the fact that EVERY US Supreme Court decision on 2nd Amendment issues agrees with me. I also pointed out that the current case before the court is whether local jurisdictions can require additional restrictions over and above federal law; NOT whether ANY restrictions are legal.

                            And in response -- I get a comment that I'm helping elect Republicans.

                            Well, color me unimpressed.

                            So, do YOU have a point to make?

                            I won't hold my breath.

                            The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

                            by kmiddle on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 11:44:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are wrong. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharoney, rockhound, oldpunk, theatre goon

                            I did not say unregulated.

                            I also explained how and why your system for registering people and guns would fail. It's called a Republican takeover of Congress (at least the House, like '94.) Americans love their guns.

                            As to your point 2, I would disagree. First of all, I'm not your average owner; most CPL holders aren't. On top of that, I'm a certified firearm instructor who takes LEO training when he can. I'm all for improving that ratio (of 5 time more likely to have your gun used against you, if I took that at face value) by educating and training.

                            MF and RKBA Member. It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies. -9.00, -4.05

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:22:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, by ignoring every actual point I made... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharoney, rockhound, oldpunk, KVoimakas

                            ...you try to argue against a set of point no one made.

                            That's one way to go about it, albeit a completely intellectually dishonest one.

                            But, that seems to be your bailiwick.

                    •  Have as many guns as I like? (5+ / 0-)

                      That's awesome! I thoroughly enjoy that idea.

                      Oh wait, I can't afford liability insurance? Guess I can't own them then can I?

                      Oh, licensing of firearms has led to confiscation in the United States? Guess we should just ignore that and hope it doesn't motivate the independents to say "fuck those guys, I'm voting Rep."

                      MF and RKBA Member. It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies. -9.00, -4.05

                      by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:13:52 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I was responding directly to this comment: (5+ / 0-)

                  And again...the likelihood of something happening or not happening is an actuarial matter.

                  From Dictionary.com actuary:

                  Insurance . a person who computes premium rates, dividends, risks, etc., according to probabilities based on statistical records.

                  So there was no assuming or wanting of anything in my response of:

                  Likelihood is not solely related to insurance.  

                  Because likelihood is not necessarily an actuarial matter when it comes to risk.

                  As for "logical fallacy", would equating rights with privileges be one?

                  Don't believe what the politicians do, don't believe what they say, all they want to do is fuck you and get fat on their pay.

                  by oldpunk on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:10:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, to butt in, I have to point this out (6+ / 0-)

          Suicide rates are not any different nor are murder rates in countries which ban guns outright.

          See this Harvard study comparing Murder rates:

          So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them.5  Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
          Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world.6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
          steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States.

          And for suicides, the rates are the same, meaning if someone is "hell bent" on killing themselves, they will find the means, guns or no guns.

    •  Question (7+ / 0-)

      Do I have to register and buy insurance for my super duty knife that I keep near my door? How about the aluminum baseball bat? WD40 spray (way effective)?

      "Take it back, take it back. Oh no you can't say that. All of my friends are not dead or in jail." John Prine

      by high uintas on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:23:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  May I see your 13th Amendment permit, please? (5+ / 0-)

      And the receipt for the fees?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site