Guns As A " God-given Right"

[4LoveofJMJ]

 

I'm just not certain guns are the only way to defend yourself.

 

It is when the people doing the crimes own them. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"? There is a reason for that.

 

This is taken from the Modern Catholic Dictionary:

SELF-DEFENSE. The right to use force against an unjust aggressor. The moral premises on which justifiable self-defense is based are the fact that the possession of life includes the right to use the means necessary to protect one's life, provided such means do not violate the rights of others. In the case of unjust aggression, the use of force and even a deathblow may be the only means of saving one's life. The rights of others are not thereby violated, for the assailant's right to live is suspended during the unjust attack. Moreover, the attacker can easily protect his or her life by merely ceasing from the attack.

[NotreDame]

I do believe in the right to self-defense. I'm just not certain guns are the only way to defend yourself.

 

You are right.  German Jews circa 1938 were big into Judo and Akido.  It's just too bad they didn't have MMA back then.

 

(...And thanks for allowing me to put Godwin's law into effect)

 

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold viewed their getting guns as a "God given right". 

 

Of course, they were both underaged and used people to get them, though, so.

 

Also they killed people.

 

Thankfully that will never happen again since we've passed laws making all schools gun-free zones. 

[4LoveofJMJ]

And what do you do when someone breaks into your house and threatens the lives of your family? Call people who have guns! And what if they can't come in time? Well I guess you are outta luck because there are times where baseball bats just don't cut it.

 

 

Thankfully that will never happen again since we've passed laws making all schools gun-free zones.

 

I really hope you are being sarcastic...

[CrossCuT]

Thankfully that will never happen again since we've passed laws making all schools gun-free zones. 

 

Good point! Just like prisons are drug free zones.

[NotreDame]

Good point! Just like prisons are drug free zones.

 

Or like the whole country is a drug free zone.

[CrossCuT]

Or like the whole country is a drug free zone.

 

Even better!

[NotreDame]

 

I really hope you are being sarcastic...

 

No, I'm being totally serious.  Quit being so racist.
 

[blazeingstar]

 

Thankfully that will never happen again since we've passed laws making all schools gun-free zones. 

 

Yes, but if authorities in the school had guns, than maybe the kid in PA who managed to stab 22 people before being subdued may not have done as much damage.

 

Now one may speculate that it's great he didn't have a gun, but the point is that people don't need guns to be violent.  Fact is, even the tragedy of Sandy Hook, dosn't come close to the most fatal school attack which was in Bath, Michigan and involved a bomb.  It killed 38 children, 6 adults and injured 58.

 

We now have very basic measures...like locking the school...that prevents such a disaster from occurring again.   If only people thought as logically about guns as they do about bombs.

[havok579257]

Yes, but if authorities in the school had guns, than maybe the kid in PA who managed to stab 22 people before being subdued may not have done as much damage.

 

 

 

 

although what's more likely is an authority figure leaves their gun somewhere and a child picks it up and kills themselves or another with it.  The law of averages says someone would leave a gun somewhere unattended or over react and a child would die.  

 

If you want guns in school then hire security guards for the school's who have no other job then patroling and keeping other safe.  You give guns to administrators who have a million other things to do, the law of averages says someone will make a mistake or get careless and a child will die.

[havok579257]

the question i have is if you believe you require them for self protection, then are there any restrictions on this idea?  Realistically if your needing guns to defend yourself against a corupt government, guns ain't doing squat.  Your going to need missle launchers, bazooka's, surface to air missles, tanks, gernades and in some cases weapons of mass destruction.  So should citizens all over be allowed these things?  Any weapon they deem they need for self defense?

[Winchester]

although what's more likely is an authority figure leaves their gun somewhere and a child picks it up and kills themselves or another with it.  

That's not borne out by reality. The number of deaths by gun (justified or not) is very small. What's more likely is that someone confronting such a person with a weapon will cause the aggressor to kill himself. Mass killings by deranged individuals often end in suicide when confronted by an armed individual. What's most likely is that nothing at all will happen, and that no one will die. Violent crime is decreasing.

 

Some numbers on mass shootings: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

 

 

None of this, of course, grants you or anyone else (including people you appoint through popularity contests) the right to aggression.

[blazeingstar]

although what's more likely is an authority figure leaves their gun somewhere and a child picks it up and kills themselves or another with it.  The law of averages says someone would leave a gun somewhere unattended or over react and a child would die.  

 

If you want guns in school then hire security guards for the school's who have no other job then patroling and keeping other safe.  You give guns to administrators who have a million other things to do, the law of averages says someone will make a mistake or get careless and a child will die.

 

That makes absolutely no sense.  Administrators do have other duties, however, that doesn't turn them into blathering idiots. I grew up in a military town where everyone carried guns because it was part of their uniform.  When did we start having shootings on bases?  When they took away guns.

 

I'm not sure that I've ever heard of "the law of average"  I've heard of complacency.  However, I also know that a bank teller has to handle thousands in funds and can be fired over a 1 cent discrepancy in her drawer.  Yet, this same person manages to do translations, sell mortgages, open accounts... all dealing with far more important data than little Johnny's art project cubby.  If your job hinges on something you pay attention.

Based on the student/staff ratio at most schools it wouldn't take that much to have an armed secretary or other sentries.  What is Judy  the 5'2" desk clerk really going to do when someone violent enters the school?  Hufff, puff and blow the house down?

[havok579257]

That's not borne out by reality. The number of deaths by gun (justified or not) is very small. What's more likely is that someone confronting such a person with a weapon will cause the aggressor to kill himself. Mass killings by deranged individuals often end in suicide when confronted by an armed individual. What's most likely is that nothing at all will happen, and that no one will die. Violent crime is decreasing.

 

Some numbers on mass shootings: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

 

 

None of this, of course, grants you or anyone else (including people you appoint through popularity contests) the right to aggression.

 

 

so your saying that throughout all the public, private and charter schools in america no one will ever make a mistake?  Yet, people make mistakes at home and leave guns unattended and children die or people mistake things as agression and shot innocent people.  Although by some magic, teachers and administrators are immune to making mistakes and no one will ever leave a gun unattended or shot the wrong person?  

[havok579257]

That makes absolutely no sense.  Administrators do have other duties, however, that doesn't turn them into blathering idiots. I grew up in a military town where everyone carried guns because it was part of their uniform.  When did we start having shootings on bases?  When they took away guns.

 

I'm not sure that I've ever heard of "the law of average"  I've heard of complacency.  However, I also know that a bank teller has to handle thousands in funds and can be fired over a 1 cent discrepancy in her drawer.  Yet, this same person manages to do translations, sell mortgages, open accounts... all dealing with far more important data than little Johnny's art project cubby.  If your job hinges on something you pay attention.

Based on the student/staff ratio at most schools it wouldn't take that much to have an armed secretary or other sentries.  What is Judy  the 5'2" desk clerk really going to do when someone violent enters the school?  Hufff, puff and blow the house down?

 

 

I guess you have some belief that administrators in schools can never make a mistake when people in the real world do it all the time.  I guess they are magically immune to mistakes.  

[Winchester]

the question i have is if you believe you require them for self protection, then are there any restrictions on this idea?  Realistically if your needing guns to defend yourself against a corupt government, guns ain't doing squat.  Your going to need missle launchers, bazooka's, surface to air missles, tanks, gernades and in some cases weapons of mass destruction.  So should citizens all over be allowed these things?  Any weapon they deem they need for self defense?

 

This was covered above.

 

You seem so concerned about the theoretical atrocities Mundanes will commit if prohibitions are removed, but remarkably tolerant of the millions of innocents killed by government owned weapons. It's almost like it doesn't matter how many people government employees kill in the name of political ends. Incinerate cities filled with non-combatants? No evidence that perhaps government shouldn't have bombs, or even a limit on its power to force people to participate in war in some way (whether by the draft or by taxation). But some private individual kills people and then himself? Well this means all private individuals should be subject to the power that incinerates non-combatants in order to test weapons systems. If you were trying to support mass murder, you couldn't pick a better position to take.