VA Tech Shootings

I am not 100 % sure what the term "right" means as in we have our "rights", but, like a lot of people, I have a sense of what it means - some kind of fundamental value or condition that should be present regardless of whatever else changes in a society.

Freedom from discrimination on the basis of skin color is a right. Voting is a right. Driving a car is not a right, etc. The boundary between a right and a privelege seems to be hard to define, I admit

I do not think people in any society have a right to carry a gun. I think it is not a right precisely because its only real purpose is to deprive someone else of what we probably all agree is a right - the right to live. Please don't read any more into what I am saying - in this post, I am only saying that gun ownership should not be seen as a right. Perhaps gun ownership can be justified, but it shouldn't be justified by the specific claim that it is a right.

Here is the key distinction that I think needs to be made: I heartily agree that self-defence is a right. But it does not follow that gun ownership is a right.

 

At least the gun is blameless.....rock on the Gun Lobby :BangHead:

 

Andre, first let me thank you for your tone and respectful manner in which you conduct yourself. Even in disagreement, it's been amicable. Good job.

Let me make these assertions:

• Our "rights" are not given by government. No, you didn't assert this...but it is a critical point. As our Declaration of Independence says, our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are endowed to us by our Creator. In stating that, they showed that they value basic human rights on the highest plane.
• Self-defense is a right--it is tied up with "Life."
• Gun ownership is one way a person may choose to defend one's self. Should they misuse that means, they're in trouble. Should their instrument of defense, due to their carelessness, be misused by another, they're in trouble. But our courts, time and time again, have decided through the years that although there is potential for misuse with a gun (as there is with a knife, Taser, etc.), responsible ownership is still possible, and allowed in most areas. Now...if I had a live Tomahawk missle at my house and I said it was for "self-defense," the potential for misuse or harm is too great, and the army comes and gets it.

 

Clearly, the most dangerous thing about being a legal gun owner, if you are ever forced to use it, the liberals will try to destroy you. Blame the victim, first.

 

Well, you know what they say about we Canadians - "Born to be Mild" :laugh:

I certainly agree that "rights" should be understood as grounded in an understanding of how our loving God wants us to live, if we can agree on how to figure that out. Even for an atheist, I would think that rights should be seen as a property of humanity as a whole.

All I am saying is that I have serious doubts about whether citizens having guns is a really good solution to the self-defence issue (or even the "deter tyranny" issue). As you say, one could not push the "right to self-defence" argument to the point of having your own battery of missiles. I worry that even giving people just guns might be going too far.

I really am for whatever works - whatever system minimizes suffering and death (primarily for the "innocent" but also for the "guilty"). I have no emotional connection to either end of this debate. The nature of this issue is such that it is hard to provide solid evidence in support of a position since there are so many other variables to account for.

The one position that I would take serious objection to is the "I don't care if gun control has been proven to reduce suffering and death, a gun is a right, and I demand my rights!" position. I am not saying that anyone here holds this view and I am not saying that gun control has been proven to reduce suffering and death.

The important thing is to ensure that people are as free as possible from the threat of death or suffering inflicted by other human beings.

 

To add to this, our rights are to be protected by government.

Also, you're in Canada. The US Constitution specifically spells out particular rights, and the right to keep and bear arms is one of them.

Ironically, there were those who did not want to put in the Bill of Rights, because they were concerned that it could be interpreted as being our only rights. Yet, there are those who want to ignore even that list and ban guns.

Being a right, I don't have to have a "good reason" for wanting a gun. I do have good reasons, but even some don't accept those.

 

Thank you for sharing what you shared with us, ann.

 

I assume that you agree that the mere fact that a specific government enshrines a certain thing as a "right" does not elevate that thing to the status of some eternal truth. Obviously the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. However, the specific fact that something is "in the Constitution" has no bearing on its fundamental validity. If we are to subscribe to any document as being authoritative, it should be the Scriptures, not the US Constitution, or the Canadian equivalent etc.

I still see self-defence as a right, but not having a gun. I will repeat that my denying that access to guns should be a right is not a claim that people should not be allowed to have guns, just that it should be seen as a privelege, and not a right. I happen to believe that we should not have that privelege either, but I do not think the gun issue should be debated as a matter of "rights". We have the right to self-defence - it is a further question as to whether allowing guns is a wise decision.

 

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Should we have the right to own a sword? Jesus commanded His disciples to own one. You admit that we have the right to self-defence, but would deny us the privilege of owning the tools to exercise the right. How would we defend ourselves against someone with a gun? Throw a dictionary at them?

 

It is entirely legitimate to believe that we have a right to self-defence without believing that this creates "spin-off" rights for particular means. To take a ridiculous extreme: one can defend oneself with a heat-seeking missile - there are indeed situations where such a missile can take out an attacker and leave others unharmed. But no reasonable person wants ordinary citizens to have the right to own heat-seeking missiles.

We all agree on the right to self-defence. We have no right to a particular means.

 

You still haven't explained how I can exercise my right to self defense against an attacker with a gun if I don't have any means to do so.

 

An interesting observation is that these shootings nearly always occur in gun-free zones. Guns were banned at Virginia Tech. Boy, that did alot of good. What about the Amish killings? Does anybody really think that it's just a coincidence that these people attack others in places where they know there is little to no chance of anybody fighting back?

 

We do have a right to own a gun. That would be a particular means.

 

The reasons why our forefathers fled England are so easily forgotten nowadays. And, since then, that very nation has cracked down on guns and restricted them pretty heavily. Guess what? They have more crime than we do. Yeah that makes alot of sense.

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm


Even banning them totally didn't help England, they're worse than us. That was 10 years ago when they banned handguns. Look at the increases since then:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html

 

How many things in politics can be classified as an "eternal truth"?

We're discussing the law in the US, of which the US Constitution is the basis, and God has put governments in charge of us.

Since that is, at least currently, the "fundamentally vaild" governing control, then yes, it is truth, in at least that respect.

A privilege is something that you earn. You can earn the privilege of driving a car, or you can earn the privilege of flying a plane.

A right is something that is inherent (in this case by being a US citizen), but a right can be lost. You have the right to vote, but that can be lost.

Or do you think that voting should be earned as well? A lot of people use that vote very dangerously, as is evidenced by all the people who are in support of socialism and ignoring the Constitution.

Speech can be very dangerous as well.

So can religion.

 

http://www.americandaily.com/article/1340

Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.

Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.

 

We are talking about different issues - it may turn out, as the result of the appropriate analysis, that the gun is indeed a reasonable means for self-defence. But the use of a gun is not a right. Of course, you have the right to some means, but if it turns out that the gun is one of the "acceptable" means, it will be as the result of some determination - not because a gun is a right.

 

Whether you find guns acceptable or not, I don't know of any other means, unless you think I should carry a sword or an axe. I am asking you to provide an alternate means. And how effective would those means be in a situation where I face an intruder armed with a gun?