Pre-emptive warfare vs. pre-emptive crime control.

[OpSomBlood]

Here's one to debate on a Thursday afternoon:

If pre-emptive warfare is an ineffective tool against terrorism, then why should pre-emptive crime control (gun bans) be considered effective against crime?

To me, there is a very strong parallel. The invasion of Iraq has killed thousands of innocent civilians. People who had no interest in committing terrorist acts now have the motivation after seeing their childrens' heads blown off for no good reason. Similarly, in a utopian "gun controlled" society, wouldn't a person who would otherwise be steered away from crime become emboldened when they know their prospective victims will be unarmed?

Isn't there something inherently unconstitutional about a government assuming that a particular kind of gun is going to be used in a crime? Isn't that guilty until proven innocent?

[iverglas]

1. "similarly"?

To me, there is a very strong parallel. The invasion of Iraq has killed thousands of innocent civilians. People who had no interest in committing terrorist acts now have the motivation after seeing their childrens' heads blown off for no good reason. Similarly, in a utopian "gun controlled" society, wouldn't a person who would otherwise be steered away from crime become emboldened when they know their prospective victims will be unarmed?

Ya gotta tell me where you buy your spectacles. Or mushrooms.

Having one's children killed might indeed be motivation for engaging in violent actions against the perpetrators of the atrocity and their aiders and comforters.

Knowing that other people do not possess firearms is "motivation" for committing crimes?

The "similarity" just escapes me.

Isn't there something inherently unconstitutional about a government assuming that a particular kind of gun is going to be used in a crime? Isn't that guilty until proven innocent?

Well, since you asked ... NO. It is NOT "inherently unconstitutional" (except in the minds those who reject any and all restrictions on access to firearms, based on their own personal interpretation of their constitution), and it is NOT "guilty until proven innocent".

Legal principles and rules actually mean something, independently of whatever bizarre meaning someone might want to ascribe to them.

The principle of the presumption of innocence -- "innocent until proved guilty" -- MEANS that a person may not be PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENCE unless it has been proved, to the appropriate standard and to the satisfaction of the appropriate tribunal, that s/he committed it.

OJ Simpson was not "innocent" of murder simply because he was not proved to have committed it to the satisfaction of a jury. He simply was not "found guilty" and therefore could not be PUNISHED for committing it.

Laws that prohibit certain conduct do not presume the guilt, or innocence, of anyone. A law that imposes a speed limit does not "assume" that anyone is a dangerous driver. No more does a law that restricts access to firearms "assume" that anyone is a criminal.

And it's nothing but abject nonsense to say that it does.

.

[OpSomBlood]

2. Okay.

>> The "similarity" just escapes me. <<

The similarity is that both forms of pre-emptive action drive people who otherwise had no desire to commit terrorist acts or commit violent crime (respectively) to do so.

>> Laws that prohibit certain conduct do not presume the guilt, or innocence, of anyone. A law that imposes a speed limit does not "assume" that anyone is a dangerous driver. No more does a law that restricts access to firearms "assume" that anyone is a criminal. <<

Here you're wrong. If there's a speed limit of 55 miles per hour, the government does assume that driving 60 there is unsafe. If you are caught going 60, you will be punished regardless of how safely you were actually driving. There need not be proof that you were actually putting other drivers in danger.

Similarly, when enforcing gun bans, the government assumes that the gun will be used unsafely or in a crime. If that weren't the case, then why ban them?

[iverglas]

3. "similarity"?

The similarity is that both forms of pre-emptive action drive people who otherwise had no desire to commit terrorist acts or commit violent crime (respectively) to do so.

Still not seeing it. Which would be because it isn't there.

"Pre-emptive action"
-- victimizing people by killing their children
-- prohibiting people by law from engaging in certain conduct

Nope, no similarity there.

"Driving people to commit"
-- acts of retaliation against the people who killed their children
-- unprovoked acts of violence against people who are prohibited by law from engaging in certain conduct

Nope, no similarity there.

Just a whole lot of abject nonsense. I'm sorry if these things actually look "similar" to you; that would be evidence of a truly unfortunate disability. I'm disgusted if you're just saying they look similar to you; that would be evidence of a truly nasty disposition.

Here you're wrong. If there's a speed limit of 55 miles per hour, the government does assume that driving 60 there is unsafe. If you are caught going 60, you will be punished regardless of how safely you were actually driving. There need not be proof that you were actually putting other drivers in danger.

And all this makes me "wrong" ... how? There are reasons behind every law. You will be convicted of theft even if you stole $5 from a millionaire, thereby causing him/her no appreciable loss whatsoever: there need not be proof that you actually caused any harm. Hell, the theft might even make the millionaire wake up to the reality of poverty in his/her society and prompt him/her to give a million dollars to charity -- a good thing, arguably prevented by the law against theft. What's your point?

There should be no speed limits? There should be on prohibition on theft? That would be consistent with "there should be no restrictions on access to firearms". If nothing else.

Similarly, when enforcing gun bans, the government assumes that the gun will be used unsafely or in a crime. If that weren't the case, then why ban them?

Because there is a risk that they will be used unsafely or in a crime -- to cause harm -- just as there is a risk that the highway speeder will kill someone -- cause harm.

The nature of the risk -- the seriousness of the potential harm, i.e. death -- when put in the balance with the other relevant considerations, and weighed according to the applicable rules, is regarded as justification for prohibiting or regulating the conduct that involves the risk.

The government does not "assume" that anyone in particular is going to cause harm by engaging in the prohibited behaviour, and is not punishing anyone pre-emptively. The government is regulating conduct that involves a significant risk of serious harm. That's what governments do, where the risk and the other factors to be considered justify doing it. That's why we have them.

.

[OpSomBlood]

9. It's not ridiculous.

"Pre-emptive action"
-- victimizing people by killing their children
-- prohibiting people by law from engaging in certain conduct

Or one could interpret your second bullet point as, "victimizing people by preventing them from arming and defending themselves."

-- acts of retaliation against the people who killed their children
-- unprovoked acts of violence against people who are prohibited by law from engaging in certain conduct

The only people who disobey the prohibitions of law are criminals. So the only ones affected by gun laws are victims who weren't legally allowed to arm themselves.

Just a whole lot of abject nonsense. I'm sorry if these things actually look "similar" to you; that would be evidence of a truly unfortunate disability. I'm disgusted if you're just saying they look similar to you; that would be evidence of a truly nasty disposition.

Disagree with me all you want, I honestly welcome it. But when you engage in personal attacks like these, it only makes you look like a buffoon who is unable to stick to the topic.

And all this makes me "wrong" ... how? There are reasons behind every law. You will be convicted of theft even if you stole $5 from a millionaire, thereby causing him/her no appreciable loss whatsoever: there need not be proof that you actually caused any harm. Hell, the theft might even make the millionaire wake up to the reality of poverty in his/her society and prompt him/her to give a million dollars to charity -- a good thing, arguably prevented by the law against theft. What's your point?

Stealing $5 is undeniably a crime. Choosing to own a gun is not.

There should be no speed limits? There should be on prohibition on theft? That would be consistent with "there should be no restrictions on access to firearms". If nothing else.

There is absolutely no consistency in this argument. Stealing is a crime. Owning a gun is not, unless legislators decide to make it one, which would infer that the gun is the cause of the crime the owner decides to commit.

Because there is a risk that they will be used unsafely or in a crime -- to cause harm -- just as there is a risk that the highway speeder will kill someone -- cause harm.

The nature of the risk -- the seriousness of the potential harm, i.e. death -- when put in the balance with the other relevant considerations, and weighed according to the applicable rules, is regarded as justification for prohibiting or regulating the conduct that involves the risk.

This is a good point which should be examined closely. There is undeniable and overwhelming evidence that supports the idea that driving at an excessive speed is inherently dangerous. Spinning a loaded pistol like a cowboy is also dangerous, as is shooting into the air on New Year's Eve.

But you are equating irresponsible driving to mere ownership of a gun, as though the ownership is what makes the gun dangerous. But it's not...it's the failure to handle the gun safely and legally that makes it dangerous.

Just as with an automobile, the way the owner chooses to operate it is what makes it dangerous or safe. We have laws to regulate safe ownership of a car...this is not logically equal to reglate any ownership of a gun.

[iverglas]

12. "who is unable to stick to the topic"

That's a good one! Do you ever consider following your own advice? Or hear the words "pot, kettle", "mote, log", "mirror, mirror" echoing in your mind?

-- acts of retaliation against the people who killed their children
-- unprovoked acts of violence against people who are prohibited by law from engaging in certain conduct
The only people who disobey the prohibitions of law are criminals. So the only ones affected by gun laws are victims who weren't legally allowed to arm themselves.

YOU are the one who said that laws restricting access to firearms provided MOTIVATION for people to commit crimes.

*I* am the one saying that what you said is actually too absurd to need addressing ... but doing it anyway.

YOU are the one who said that

killing people's children : being the target of terrorist attacks

is as

restricting access to firearms : people committing crimes.

If you'll forgive my repeating myself, killing people's children DOES arguably cause them, or others, by giving them a motivation, to commit terrorist acts against the killers.

Restricting some people's access to firearms DOES NOT, even in fairyland, cause other people to commit crimes. It is not a motivation to commit a crime.

In your initial formulation, wouldn't a person who would otherwise be steered away from crime become emboldened when they know their prospective victims will be unarmed?, there is a semblance of reality -- although it is NOT the same reality as might be expressed by wouldn't a person whose children had been killed by a group of people be motivated to attack those people?

Your "similarity" DOES NOT EXIST. So let's just get over it, 'k?

I am indeed seeing a similarity to something else, though.

-- a person who would otherwise be steered away from crime becoming more likely to commit a crime when s/he knows that his/her prospective victims will be unarmed

and

-- a person who would otherwise never have killed his/her spouse/children/neighbour becoming more likely to do so when s/he knows that his/her prospective victim(s) can be easily dispatched with a single trigger-pull.

Yes indeed. The impulse-means thingy. The impulse may go all unacted on for various reasons: if a safe and easy means is not available for acting on it, or if there are effective counteractive considerations.

In your scenario, I just figure that means for acting on the impulse, with a reasonable expectation of success, are readily available, and the counteractive considerations are not particularly effective, especially when we consider how lacking in strategic planning skills those criminals are.

A readily available 2x4 upside the head, or just drawing the first gun, is pretty likely to counteract the counteractive consideration that the victim may have a gun in his/her pocket/purse, in any event.


Stealing $5 is undeniably a crime. Choosing to own a gun is not.

Now, here's where we try to get you to stick to a point.

Stealing $5 is a crime because there is a law that says so. That is the only reason that it is "undeniably" a crime.

If the law said that owning a particular firearm, or a particular person owning a firearm, were a crime, then it would "undeniably" be a crime because there was a law that said so.

What earthly point do you think you were making?

The actual issue being addressed was whether, in prohibiting certain conduct, the government was "assuming" that people who engaged in it were doing something unsafe. The government, in fact, would have no more reason for "assuming" that if I drive at 120 km/h I am doing something unsafe than it would for "assuming" that if I wake up in the morning I am going to fly to Paris.

The conduct is prohibited because of the elevated RISK of harm that it creates.

There is absolutely no consistency in this argument. Stealing is a crime. Owning a gun is not, unless legislators decide to make it one, which would infer that the gun is the cause of the crime the owner decides to commit.

So, are the neurons firing? Stealing is not a crime unless legislators decide to make it one.

Even if I substitute "imply" for "infer" so that the rest of your statement is at least coherent if not meaningful ... well, it still isn't meaningful.

If a law is made prohibiting the possession of firearms (certain firearms, or by certain people or in certain circumstances, the only kind of "prohibition" anyone we know of is proposing), it would not be because "the gun is the cause of the crime" and no such inference could be drawn. (For one thing, "crime" IS NOT the only kind of harm that such prohibitions are meant to reduce the risk of.)

It would be because the possession of certain firearms, or the possession of firearms by certain people or in certain circumstances, EXACERBATED the risk of harm occurring -- just exactly as driving over a certain speed EXACERBATES the risk of harm occurring.

Don't bother responding to this if you're just going to fling more herring and straw. Either respond to what is said in the preceding paragraph in a meaningful way or give up.

But you are equating irresponsible driving to mere ownership of a gun, as though the ownership is what makes the gun dangerous. But it's not...it's the failure to handle the gun safely and legally that makes it dangerous.

It's always kind of people to try to explain to me what I am doing, I suppose. Even if they're so appallingly confused.

First, no one is talking about "mere ownership of a gun". NO ONE is proposing to prohibit the ownership of all firearms by all people.

YOU are defining speeding as "irresponsible driving". Driving at a speed in excess of some legislated maximum is no more inherently dangerous than owning a firearm. When you say that it is, YOU are doing exactly what you are accusing ME of doing, and *I* am not doing it.

*I* am not saying that "ownership" is what makes a firearm dangerous. I am saying that access to certain firearms, or access to firearms by certain people or in certain circumstances, elevates the overall risk of harm.

That is exactly what speeding does: elevates the overall risk of harm. If the person who is speeding is as good a driver as me, then there is very little chance that the risk associated with speeding will materialize -- that harm will be caused.

If the person with access to firearms is Dudley Doright, then there is probably very little chance that the risk associated with access to firearms will materialize.

But laws are not made for me and Dudley Doright. I don't get my own personal private speed limit, much as I would like it. Dudley Doright doesn't get his own personal private firearms laws.

It is no more "fair" to require that *I* drive at some ridiculously low speed than it is to limit Dudley Doright's access to firearms.

We have laws to regulate safe ownership of a car...this is not logically equal to reglate any ownership of a gun.

And now you make absolutely no sense at all. You're just throwing words together willy nilly with punctuation.

Ownership is not an issue with cars. An individual can own a car and never use it. If s/he uses it, s/he does so publicly and notoriously -- by driving a great big object around in public. If ownership of cars by persons disqualified from using them were a serious problem, certainly it would be reasonable to address it; apparently it isn't. The situation is entirely different for firearms. Ownership confers the ability to have access to, and use, them secretly.

The issue is use, not ownership. In the case of cars, use can be monitored without controlling ownership. In the case of firearms, it cannot.

We require that people obtain licences to use cars. Why anyone would not want to require that people obtain licences to use firearms is beyond me.

We require that people meet certain qualifications in order to use cars, and deny or take away their legal access to cars if they fail to meet them. Why anyone would not want to do this for firearms is beyond me.

When people use cars on the public highways, it is apparent to the world in general. This is not the case for firearms; they can be taken out in public without a soul, let alone the authorities, having a clue. Cars, when sitting idle, are not an instant away from being used to cause harm, and are not commonly used impulsively or intentionally to cause harm, particularly when, until that moment, they were not "in use". Firearms, quite the opposite. Why, then, anyone would not want individuals' possession of firearms to be registered so that their firearms can be taken away if there are reasons to do that is beyond me.

We regulate the types of cars that may be driven on the public highways, and impose all sorts of requirements on cars to reduce the risk of harm resulting from their use. Why anyone would not want similar regulations and requirements for firearms is beyond me.

But then, it's undoubtedly a lot easier on the brain, if one hangs out here long, if one is able to believe six absurd things before breakfast.

.

[OpSomBlood]

13. You really ought to write some more about this.

Restricting some people's access to firearms DOES NOT, even in fairyland, cause other people to commit crimes. It is not a motivation to commit a crime.

You don't think that a person won't be more likely to commit a crime if they can be reasonably sure that their victim can't defend themself? Who's living in fantasyland? An environment where guns are illegal would be a violent criminal's dream come true.

Yes indeed. The impulse-means thingy. The impulse may go all unacted on for various reasons: if a safe and easy means is not available for acting on it, or if there are effective counteractive considerations.

In your scenario, I just figure that means for acting on the impulse, with a reasonable expectation of success, are readily available, and the counteractive considerations are not particularly effective, especially when we consider how lacking in strategic planning skills those criminals are.

A readily available 2x4 upside the head, or just drawing the first gun, is pretty likely to counteract the counteractive consideration that the victim may have a gun in his/her pocket/purse, in any event.

You again make the claim that guns somehow make otherwise innocent people violent. And the irony here is that in the previous paragraph you claimed that the lack of guns in the hands of the innocent doesn't make a criminal more violent.

So let me get this straight...guns make all people violent. So taking guns away from citizens will make criminals with guns less violent? I don't see it.

Stealing $5 is a crime because there is a law that says so. That is the only reason that it is "undeniably" a crime.

If the law said that owning a particular firearm, or a particular person owning a firearm, were a crime, then it would "undeniably" be a crime because there was a law that said so.

What earthly point do you think you were making?

No, you are dead wrong here. Stealing $5 is undeniably a crime because by my will I am inflicting harm on another person. I have chosen to take something that does not belong to me.

Crimes are not established based on what mood the legislators were in that week. They are established by social norms that are developed over generations.

It is undeniable that stealing from another person is wrong and should be punished by society. Such a correlation can not be drawn with mere ownership of a gun.

It would be because the possession of certain firearms, or the possession of firearms by certain people or in certain circumstances, EXACERBATED the risk of harm occurring -- just exactly as driving over a certain speed EXACERBATES the risk of harm occurring.

Don't bother responding to this if you're just going to fling more herring and straw. Either respond to what is said in the preceding paragraph in a meaningful way or give up.

Well at least you've exposed your strategy. You type page after page in the hopes that the person you are debating will just "give up." You say the same things over and over, conveniently disregarding the instances where your logic is shown to be suspect.

But I won't give up. Not because I have any interest in changing your mind, but because I like watching other people type long dissertations to the point of carpal tunnel syndrome in an attempt to counter my brief but cogent points.

You equate driving dangerously to owning a gun. This is the second time I am pointing out this flawed reasoning. You don't think that owning a car is inherently dangerous, but driving it in a proven unsafe manner is. But on the other hand, simply owning a gun is inherently dangerous.

You seem to sidestep the whole "safe operation" part of gun ownership, and just paint the mere ownership as dangerous. Why can't you apply the same standards to guns as you do to cars? Cars kill more people each year, but you are seemingly more lenient in your handling of how the privilege to drive should be legislated.

You want the state to not enforce driving laws until after unsafe operation is witnessed by a police officer. Why do you take this retroactive stance on cars, but a pre-emptive stance on guns? Why are you inconsistent in your handling of potentially dangerous consumer items?

*I* am not saying that "ownership" is what makes a firearm dangerous. I am saying that access to certain firearms, or access to firearms by certain people or in certain circumstances, elevates the overall risk of harm.

What, pray tell, are these "certain" firearms that elevate the risk? Semi-automatic assault weapons? The ones used in 3% of gun crimes?

If you can present the statistical support for your claims, I'm all ears. Please demonstrate how one kind of semi-auto firearm is more lethal than another kind of semi-auto firearm.

Really, I'd like to see some concrete support for these claims about assault weapons. Because so far, all I've heard is VPC and Brady demonization of how scary they look.

We require that people obtain licences to use cars. Why anyone would not want to require that people obtain licences to use firearms is beyond me.

We require that people meet certain qualifications in order to use cars, and deny or take away their legal access to cars if they fail to meet them. Why anyone would not want to do this for firearms is beyond me.

I don't at all disagree with state licensure and safety training. I wish the background check system were more effective.

But how do we prevent a slippery slope? How do we keep licensure from turning into buying limits and gun registration? I don't see how we can, unless such text is written into the licensure laws.

We regulate the types of cars that may be driven on the public highways, and impose all sorts of requirements on cars to reduce the risk of harm resulting from their use. Why anyone would not want similar regulations and requirements for firearms is beyond me.

I don't mind safety training. In fact, I am constantly re-training myself in gun safety, even though I consider myself an expert. And the way to do this is with rote repetition of safety rules...like "Never point a gun at another person" which you seem to think is absurd to follow when a gun is "safely unloaded".

I do, however, want a little clarification about the "certain types" of guns you think are more dangerous than others. I would like to know how you reached this conclusion.

[enfield collector]

4. there's no doubt that the AWB has massively increased

the sales of "post-ban" copies of the banned weapons and massively inflated the price of banned ones.
so in this case a pre-emptive strike on ownership of guns of a certain type resulted in a great increase in the supply of those weapons. funnily enough their use in crimes decreased.

[OpSomBlood]

6. Excellent point.

One might even draw parallels between the AWB and the "War on Drugs." The market value of pre-ban weapons and accessories has increased significantly due to the public's impression that they have to "get 'em while they last."

So while the black market for guns has always been cost-prohibitive, now the legitimate legal market faces the same climate.

[MrSandman]

7. Pushed development of...

Small handguns greater than 9mm. Why take 11 9mm when you can, in a similar sized package, have 11 45's.

[Something Blue]

5. No functional difference

Pre-emptive gun control vs. pre-emptive warfare.

No difference.

Good call.

[iverglas]

8. Solomon is among us

The question has been answered. We fall at Solomon's feet in gratitude. And of course we would never dare to expect that Solomon might actually address the arguments that have been laid out before him by the likes of moi.


No difference.

There we have it.

May I request the benefit of this wisdom too?? I have a question.

What, oh great one, is the difference between

- a government that "pre-emptively" regulates or prohibits conduct by members of the public, in order to reduce a risk of harm that the government perceives to be present

- an individual who "pre-emptively" totes a gun around in his/her pocket/purse, in order to reduce a risk of harm that the individual perceives to be present

?


May I presume to answer the question myself?

No difference.

Well, except that, of course, there are differences.

The government in question is required to act in the public interest ... the individual in question is acting in his/her self-interest and may have no regard whatsoever for the public interest.

Governments are elected to act in the public interest ... nobody elected the individual in question to do anything.

I have a reasonable amount of faith that the government I elect will decide how to regulate conduct in the public interest in a way that is actually in the public interest (and even more faith that my courts will properly assess the government's decisions in a way that is in the public interest) ... and I have precisely zero faith that some individuals will decide how to act in their own self-interest in a way that is not contrary to the public interest.

So ... I see "pre-emptive action" by the government, in the public interest, that is subject to public debate and control ... and "pre-emptive action" by individuals, in their own interests, that is (if some people had their way) subject to no debate or control whatsoever.

But hey, that's just my guess. I await Solomon's wisdom (although of course I don't expect to be told any actual reasons for his pronouncement).

What is the possession of firearms for self-defence, if not pre-emptive action? What is the difference between toting guns around and killing Iraqi children?

If there's no difference between killing Iraqi children and regulating the possession of firearms, I'm just damned if I can see a difference between killing Iraqi children and toting guns around.

.

[Something Blue]

10. Hmm.....

"we would never dare to expect that Solomon might actually address the arguments that have been laid out before him by the likes of moi."

You're right! :)

[OpSomBlood]

11. Let's pre-emptively confiscate cars then.

Because it is obvious that the public can not be trusted with the lethal power that an automobile provides.

If you really want to protect the public, take away the cars first. Then go after the cigarettes. They are killing a whole lot more people than the guns are.

Or are guns just easier prey?

[natasha1]

14. Easy to answer...

- a government that "pre-emptively" regulates or prohibits conduct by members of the public, in order to reduce a risk of harm that the government perceives to be present

- an individual who "pre-emptively" totes a gun around in his/her pocket/purse, in order to reduce a risk of harm that the individual perceives to be present

?


May I presume to answer the question myself?

No difference.

I disagree.

A government "pre-emptively" preventing me from doing something is affecting me.

My "pre-emptively" carrying a gun in my pocket or purse doesn't affect anyone.

Nat

[iverglas]

15. nah

A government "pre-emptively" preventing me from doing something is affecting me.
My "pre-emptively" carrying a gun in my pocket or purse doesn't affect anyone.

A government "pre-emptively" preventing me from carrying a gun around in my pocket doesn't affect me an iota. Not a shred, not a whit, not a morsel, not a hint of a sausage.

Not if I don't want to carry a gun around in my pocket. Which I don't. So this affects me exactly as much as the government "pre-emptively" preventing me from eating road apples, and I care exactly as much. I anticipate no situation, ever, anywhere, when I would want to carry a gun around in my pocket. Or eat shit.

Now, your "pre-emptively" carrying a gun around in your pocket doesn't affect anyone ... unless and until you do something with it. And if you didn't anticipate a situation arising in which you *would* do something with it, you wouldn't carry it around. It'd be annoying and potentially worrisome dead weight.

So if you anticipate such a situation arising, why on earth wouldn't *I* anticipate such a situation arising?? And if it does, some "I" somewhere is obviously going to be affected.

Funny how perspective alters all, ain't it?

Someone, somewhere, is potentially but not necessarily affected by both "pre-emptive" thingies.

In the first case, me 'n all the other voters get to decide, for everyone, what level of risk of untoward results we are comfortable with. In the second case, you 'n all your fellow <insert your favourite name for yourselves> get to decide, for everyone, what level of risk of untoward results *you* are comfortable with.

Yup, there's a difference alright. Like I said.

.

[FatSlob]

16. Hell, I don't anticipate anything bad happening to me.

But I carry anyway. "Be Prepared", is what they taught me many years ago. The Boy Scouts got a few things right. I don't anticipate my boat sinking, but I have life jackets. I don't anticipate a wreck, but I wear my seatbelt. I don't anticipate a criminal attack, but I arm myself. You know, I don't anticpate myself eating shit either, but I have some bottled water in the trunk to wash it down with!:D

[natasha1]

17. And...

In the first case, me 'n all the other voters get to decide, for everyone, what level of risk of untoward results we are comfortable with. In the second case, you 'n all your fellow <insert your favourite name for yourselves> get to decide, for everyone, what level of risk of untoward results *you* are comfortable with.

And guess who's going to win?

Nat

[iverglas]

18. well hey

I already said it: your approach to voting in a liberal democracy is "might makes right". Congratulations, and I'm sure you're very proud. As I'm sure that that the people who voted against removing the prohibition on interracial marriage in the Alabama constitution a couple of years ago were, for instance.

Some people wouldn't know "liberal democracy" if it smacked them in the gob, not that liberal democracies are likely to do such things.

As to who's going to win, I know who has won where I'm at. The people who place the public interest and the interests of vulnerable individuals above their own selfish and short-sighted desires. The proportion of firearms owners in Canada who behave the way you tell us you do/would, in terms of opposing sensible firearms control and refusing to comply with the rules democratically and constitutionally adopted, is minuscule.

.

[OpSomBlood]

19. Sometimes right must be defended with might.

And I'm not talking about armies or militias, either.

[iverglas]

20. and if only

That had the least thing to do with anything I was talking about.

The conversation went like this:

me: In the first case, me 'n all the other voters get to decide, for everyone, what level of risk of untoward results we are comfortable with. In the second case, you 'n all your fellow <insert your favourite name for yourselves> get to decide, for everyone, what level of risk of untoward results *you* are comfortable with.

natasha1: And guess who's going to win?

to which I replied: your approach to voting in a liberal democracy is "might makes right".


Which is just exactly what I would say to someone who proposed to maintain or enact legislation to impose segregation on racial minorities, for instance, or protect his/her own interests at the expense of any other group in any other way. Mature liberal democracies depend on voters recognizing the legitimacy of other people's interests and respecting those people's interests when they go to the ballot box. "Might makes right" is the precise opposite of liberal democacty, which may be summarized, as we all know, as "majority rule with protection for minority rights". That's what those charters and bills of rights are all about.

Voters in a democracy may indeed vote in a way that benefits them and significantly harms others who are more disadvantaged and more vulnerable. It's their right. It's also disgusting.

The "right" that you claim to be "defending" in this instance (which is an adjective performing the function of a noun, please try to remember: "what is right") isn't right, it's right-wing. It's the exaltation of self-interest at the expense of the disadvantaged and vulnerable. And that's the very definition of right-wing.

Nothing is being "defended" with might by voting for self-interest at the expense of others. The will of the privileged and strong is being imposed on the disadvantaged and weaker by force of numbers, and of course manipulation. The only people being "defended" against are the victims of the privilege and power being "defended".

And what any of that has to do with armies or militias, I don't have a clue.

.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DavidMS]

21. I don't claim the wisdom of Solon

http://www.e-classics.com/solon.htm

But a just goverment is nothing more that the restrained will of the people. It acording to the cultural, political and religious temperment of populace rules in their name and for their benifit. A good and virtous goverment is arranged so that political power is distributed so that no one faction tramples the rights of others.

An individual (from a Kantian perspective) has duties to themself and their nation to act to the greatest extent possible in the public intrest.

Unfortunately many people believe their own private intrests trump those of society in general.

If a responsible person owns and caries a firearm about on their person, that is not a problem. Iverglas, I think we can agree on that. What we disagree on what perporiton of the population is composed of responsible people.

I also beleive that irresponsible people will be by and large known to the poliece through their rap sheets by the time they are 21 and legaly able to purchase a handgun (in the US). If someone does not get started young in a life of crime, it is unlikely they ever will.

I do not believe that its about "preemption" its about basic decisions on how we order the socity we live in. And the role of the individual in it.

Just as in cases of the murder of intimate partners the poliece are called before the act somthing like 90% of the time, and one partner is arrested 50% of the time. I don't remember which article I got this information from. There are many oppertunities to socialy interviene in such sitiations.