4 ms·

Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. Communal goals must maintain freedoms that our battle tested constitutional rights guarantee. I am fin

Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. Communal goals must maintain freedoms that our battle tested constitutional rights guarantee. I am fine with such analysis. But, we must keep above guidelines in mind when looking at pros/cons that the analysis reveals. You may say 500 accidental deaths are not too many and we should take away rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States Each homicide is where the victim could have availed the option of defending self with guns. Whether such attempt to defend was successful or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that we as society didn't stop that person from having that option. 4.9 homicides per 100k people, that's 16,170 opportunities where a person could have used that option but failed. Then there are incidents where threat of gun stops a homicide. Is 500 accidents are OK as a cost? First of all, I don't agree that gun accidents are a cost that we are paying for having gun rights, there could be knife accidents or bow/arrow accidents if guns are banned. I look at it differently, imagine if you can go to each of those homicides as it is in progress, hit stop button on the time machine and tell the victim that please realize that you use to have an option to defend yourself in this situation with a gun, but we intentionally took it away because few other people were careless in their use of guns. Do you find it ethical to do that? I don't. And therein lies my stand on this. Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones. Using time machine, do you feel comfortable going back to each such incident, take the gun away from the victim and ask them to use the phone instead. If you go back enough in time, then there wouldn't be phone, you would have to ask them to fight with frying pan. Can you do that? If not, how is the situation different today? How can we ask someone to not defend themselves and face a more powerful adversary with bare hands? Are you ok with people dying or being raped or looted where they had used guns successfully to avoid those outcomes? If you are ok with it then how are you not the enemy of those people?

maxerickson 9y ago
Yeah, modifying the Constitution is the way to really get it done. As far as whether I am okay designing policy using statistics, even if there are two sides to those statistics, with horrible anecdotes on the side the policy impacts negatively, the answer is yes.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Welcome to Eugenics!
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Do you think this is a good argument? I didn't say that policy should exclusively consider statistics, I just meant that one sided anecdotes don't invalidate statistics.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      I think it was a very valid argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You can take time to re-read and think about it more. Let's try one more way... We may know all the statistics of every baseball player that make up both teams. But, we can't declare winner based on stats alone. We still have to go out there and play the game. If we ban guns based on stats, then it would be equivalent to asking baseball players to not use bats during the game... because stats!!! What's the point of taking bats to the game, you are going to lose anyway. Right? I may not take on a professional baseball team, my decision. Someone may decide to do just that, they may succeed, they may not. Should they not play because of stats? Should they not carry bats to the ballpark because of stats? Should the society stop the game from happening, outlawing it but declaring winner at the same time, because of stats? That is the equivalent of society banning guns from citizens. You declare the criminal who carries gun anyway an automatic winner, you don't let the citizen have a chance at the game, you use force (police) to stop citizen from attempting to play.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Sports leagues have competition committees. They do things like look at statistics related to specific rules and, as they see fit, make changes to the rules. So for instance, professional baseball players play exclusively with wooden bats, they don't allow the very best bats that can be constructed because it changes the game in ways they don't like.
InitialLastName 9y ago
> Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. They can and do, and in ways I'd be willing to bet you support. The entire function of government in society is to restrict individual freedoms in favor of communal goals: - the freedom to harm others in body or property - the freedom to keep your entire income earned in the United States - the freedom to move across political boundaries without restriction - ... Everything a government does can be framed as "restricting individual freedoms in favor of communal goals". In the case of guns, I happen to be convinced that one of the essential functions of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force [0]. > Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones I can tug heartstrings too! Let's imagine each successful use of a gun to hurt oneself or someone else. How about each instance where a woman was raped at gunpoint, or a child killed himself or a friend with their parents' gun, or somebody killed themselves on a whim (it frequently is, when guns are accessible). How am I not an enemy of those people if I say "It was ok for those people to have guns"? Let me clarify, I'm not really in favor of a total ban on guns, I'm just not willing to rule out restricting them in the same way we restrict the other dangerous things our society has created. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Does one have freedom to enslave another? Do I have freedom to get into a slavery contract (sale myself into slavery) with another person? Do I have freedom to commit crime without repercussions? Of course not. I have freedoms as long as they don't impede on freedoms of another fellow citizen in broadest sense, and fellow human being in restricted sense, in their pursuit of happiness and liberty. Freedom to protect oneself from aggressor is basic human right. Guns is an extension of that right in modern era. Of course, nukes are not OK as individual weapon of choice. Without guns, basic human strength plays a disproportionate role in ensuring individuals right to self preservation against aggressor. >Let's imagine each successful use of a gun to hurt oneself or someone else. Let's. Improper use of a tool hurt people and bystanders all the time. Guns are no different than cars, book shelves, swimming pools, knives, electricity and chemicals in this regard. >How about each instance where a woman was raped at gunpoint What's your point? Is he criminal in your mind because he has gun or because he is raping someone? Can you ensure in your gun-free world even criminals won't have guns? I don't understand this obsession to stand up for law abiding criminals. Ha raped her, but at least he wasn't at gun point. Whew! that was close. >child killed himself A gun hating friend of mine has a Shepard dog that my friend openly says is for protecting house and house members. The dog has hurt couple of kids but that's fine in his book, but a gun, oh, no, we must say no to guns. If guns have to go then all dogs above one feet height must go as well, each car must drive at 5 miles an hour and must come with padded cushions on the outside, each knife must be wooden, no metal knives. >I happen to be convinced that one of the essential functions of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force [0]. Which state isn't? The right to bear arm by common citizenry is hard fought and hard won right. I am not willing to outsource it to government because it makes it feel good. You could depend on police to save you in each and every situation, your call, I won't force you to own guns. But, you saying no one else should be able to defend themselves either is attack on those who want to. You are worse than the criminals who attack their victims. For abortion, the right wing makes same arguments. They don't want to avail abortion in any situation and they want to remove that as a option from all other humans beings as well. I am for abortion and for guns. Let people, individuals, decide what they want.

maxerickson 9y ago

Yeah, modifying the Constitution is the way to really get it done. As far as whether I am okay designing policy using statistics, even if there are two sides to those statistics, with horrible anecdotes on the side the policy impacts negatively, the answer is yes.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Welcome to Eugenics!
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Do you think this is a good argument? I didn't say that policy should exclusively consider statistics, I just meant that one sided anecdotes don't invalidate statistics.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    I think it was a very valid argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You can take time to re-read and think about it more. Let's try one more way... We may know all the statistics of every baseball player that make up both teams. But, we can't declare winner based on stats alone. We still have to go out there and play the game. If we ban guns based on stats, then it would be equivalent to asking baseball players to not use bats during the game... because stats!!! What's the point of taking bats to the game, you are going to lose anyway. Right? I may not take on a professional baseball team, my decision. Someone may decide to do just that, they may succeed, they may not. Should they not play because of stats? Should they not carry bats to the ballpark because of stats? Should the society stop the game from happening, outlawing it but declaring winner at the same time, because of stats? That is the equivalent of society banning guns from citizens. You declare the criminal who carries gun anyway an automatic winner, you don't let the citizen have a chance at the game, you use force (police) to stop citizen from attempting to play.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Sports leagues have competition committees. They do things like look at statistics related to specific rules and, as they see fit, make changes to the rules. So for instance, professional baseball players play exclusively with wooden bats, they don't allow the very best bats that can be constructed because it changes the game in ways they don't like.

InitialLastName 9y ago

> Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. They can and do, and in ways I'd be willing to bet you support. The entire function of government in society is to restrict individual freedoms in favor of communal goals: - the freedom to harm others in body or property - the freedom to keep your entire income earned in the United States - the freedom to move across political boundaries without restriction - ... Everything a government does can be framed as "restricting individual freedoms in favor of communal goals". In the case of guns, I happen to be convinced that one of the essential functions of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force [0]. > Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones I can tug heartstrings too! Let's imagine each successful use of a gun to hurt oneself or someone else. How about each instance where a woman was raped at gunpoint, or a child killed himself or a friend with their parents' gun, or somebody killed themselves on a whim (it frequently is, when guns are accessible). How am I not an enemy of those people if I say "It was ok for those people to have guns"? Let me clarify, I'm not really in favor of a total ban on guns, I'm just not willing to rule out restricting them in the same way we restrict the other dangerous things our society has created. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Does one have freedom to enslave another? Do I have freedom to get into a slavery contract (sale myself into slavery) with another person? Do I have freedom to commit crime without repercussions? Of course not. I have freedoms as long as they don't impede on freedoms of another fellow citizen in broadest sense, and fellow human being in restricted sense, in their pursuit of happiness and liberty. Freedom to protect oneself from aggressor is basic human right. Guns is an extension of that right in modern era. Of course, nukes are not OK as individual weapon of choice. Without guns, basic human strength plays a disproportionate role in ensuring individuals right to self preservation against aggressor. >Let's imagine each successful use of a gun to hurt oneself or someone else. Let's. Improper use of a tool hurt people and bystanders all the time. Guns are no different than cars, book shelves, swimming pools, knives, electricity and chemicals in this regard. >How about each instance where a woman was raped at gunpoint What's your point? Is he criminal in your mind because he has gun or because he is raping someone? Can you ensure in your gun-free world even criminals won't have guns? I don't understand this obsession to stand up for law abiding criminals. Ha raped her, but at least he wasn't at gun point. Whew! that was close. >child killed himself A gun hating friend of mine has a Shepard dog that my friend openly says is for protecting house and house members. The dog has hurt couple of kids but that's fine in his book, but a gun, oh, no, we must say no to guns. If guns have to go then all dogs above one feet height must go as well, each car must drive at 5 miles an hour and must come with padded cushions on the outside, each knife must be wooden, no metal knives. >I happen to be convinced that one of the essential functions of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force [0]. Which state isn't? The right to bear arm by common citizenry is hard fought and hard won right. I am not willing to outsource it to government because it makes it feel good. You could depend on police to save you in each and every situation, your call, I won't force you to own guns. But, you saying no one else should be able to defend themselves either is attack on those who want to. You are worse than the criminals who attack their victims. For abortion, the right wing makes same arguments. They don't want to avail abortion in any situation and they want to remove that as a option from all other humans beings as well. I am for abortion and for guns. Let people, individuals, decide what they want.