The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[metalhead]

If you're walking down the street and a stranger attacks you, do you first 'imagine' the right to defend yourself before doing so? You say its not a universal truth, but isn't nature replete with critters defending themselves with all sorts of weapons?

Nature is also replete with critters who flee when they are attacked. Defending oneself with force has no origin in nature as a fundamental right. You could properly frame self-defense as strictly a last resort - one is only permitted to defend with force if there is no reasonable means for escape, and cite "nature" as the source for it.

 

[Berzerker]

Self defense cannot be more universal than instances of assault where self defense is needed. Are these assaults a right? The universality of something cannot be used as an argument for it being a right or moral thing. Surely you understand this?

Assaults aren't universal, defending against assault is.

To describe a natural instinctive reaction as a right seems a bit odd. If I tip up a glass of water, does the water first 'imagine' the right to pour onto the floor before doing so?

Thats why they're called natural rights, but the right is a valid claim of moral superiority. The universality found in nature helps identify these claims.

Nature is also replete with critters who flee when they are attacked. Defending oneself with force has no origin in nature as a fundamental right. You could properly frame self-defense as strictly a last resort - one is only permitted to defend with force if there is no reasonable means for escape, and cite "nature" as the source for it.

Fleeing is the best defense if you're faster than whatever is chasing you, but all critters will stand their ground if they cant run away. I'd agree self defense can become something else if its no longer necessary.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Thats why they're called natural rights, but the right is a valid claim of moral superiority. The universality found in nature helps identify these claims.

If you like. I disagree with the last sentence for reasons others have already given, but none of that is incompatible with anything I said as far as I can see.

 

[Samson]

Assaults aren't universal, defending against assault is.

Eating things you can overpower is pretty much universal in nature, and that is assault in many situations.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Eating things you can overpower is pretty much universal in nature, and that is assault in many situations.

Life itself is an unavoidable cycle of killing and consuming other living things in order to sustain your own life.

At the risk of derailing... thinking about it... it seems that the evolutionary process has yielded some plant species which have developed some very conspicuous, undeniably self-defense oriented features, thorns, poisons, etc., while some plants seem to have developed features that actually encourage assault... as a means to spread their seeds around.

So I'm a little dubious about the self defense being universal thing in nature...

 

[Broken_Erika]

.... while some plants seem to have developed features that actually encourage assault... as a means to spread their seeds around.

More victim blaming.....

 

[Phrossack]

Why are we discussing plant and animal defense tendencies in a thread about gun laws again?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because it's OT

 

[Berzerker]

Eating things you can overpower is pretty much universal in nature, and that is assault in many situations.

Life itself is an unavoidable cycle of killing and consuming other living things in order to sustain your own life.

At the risk of derailing... thinking about it... it seems that the evolutionary process has yielded some plant species which have developed some very conspicuous, undeniably self-defense oriented features, thorns, poisons, etc., while some plants seem to have developed features that actually encourage assault... as a means to spread their seeds around.

So I'm a little dubious about the self defense being universal thing in nature...

Not many people assault and eat other people

edit: you guys didn't mention cannibalism, that was someone else.

Rights are moral claims people have against each other, not other critters. If killing to eat is universal, then it might identify a right for people to do the same. It just isn't universal for people to do that to each other.

Why are we discussing plant and animal defense tendencies in a thread about gun laws again?

We're discussing whether or not self defense - and by extension, guns - is a right

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Rights are moral claims people have against each other, not other critters.

What about animal rights?

 

[Berzerker]

granted by society

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So the same as human rights then?

 

[Sommerswerd]

More victim blaming.....

Those grapes knew what they were doing when they went out in public all juicy and delicious like that... it they didn't want to be enjoyed succulently, they shouldn't have been dressed that way.

Why are we discussing plant and animal defense tendencies in a thread about gun laws again?

The connection is that there's an argument being made that gun rights flow from the right of self defense which is a "natural" right, and presumably therefore, inalienable/existing outside of/superior to law, in the conventional sense. The companion claim is that what makes it a "natural" right is that its "universal" in nature, meaning that all living things defend themselves when attacked/assaulted/threatened.

That argument is being probed/challenged/analyzed.​

 

[Sommerswerd]

Rights are moral claims people have against each other, not other critters.

I disagree. Even putting aside the "animal rights", problem with your position, which @Manfred Belheim has already pointed out... Don't people claim all kinds of moral rights against animals? Don't people claim a moral right to kill foxes that threaten their chickens and/or wolves who threaten their sheep? What about the moral right to slaughter "my" cows to sell to the supermarket? What about the moral right to swat flies in your house or at your barbecue? To quote that late, great, sage of wit and wisdom... George Carlin:

Spoiler :

Look at what we kill. Mosquitoes and flies, because they're pests! Lions and tigers, because it's fun! Chickens and pigs, because we're hungry. Pheasants and quail, because it's fun, and we're hungry. And people! We kill people... because they're pests... and it's fun!

And you might have noticed something else, the sanctity of life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You never see a bumper sticker that says 'save the tumors' or 'I brake for advanced melanoma.' No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, e. coli bacteria, the crabs, nothing sacred about those things. So at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole [effing] thing up! Made it up, the same way we made up the death penalty. We made them both up, the sanctity of life and the death penalty. Aren't we versatile?!"

Speaking of which...Does a death row inmate have a natural right to shoot/kill every guard in the prison to preserve his own life? If not, why? Because he forfeited his "natural" right to self defense? How? By virtue of some law? Doesn't that contradict the idea that the right was "natural" in the first place? If the right can be stripped by law, then the right isn't "natural", its legal.

 

[Zardnaar]

Guns here are a privilege not right. You can't use them for self defense. You are allowed reasonable defense which basically means if your life is threatened and you use one you have to convince a jury it was reasonable. In effect it's only to shoot an armed intruder in your home. Can't shoot burglars for example. Well you can put you can face charges for it.

 

[Berzerker]

So the same as human rights then?

Human (natural) rights dont come from society, civil rights do. Your right to life didn't come from me or society, it came from your individuality as defined by existence. Basically, you own you.

I disagree. Even putting aside the "animal rights", problem with your position, which @Manfred Belheim has already pointed out... Don't people claim all kinds of moral rights against animals? Don't people claim a moral right to kill foxes that threaten their chickens and/or wolves who threaten their sheep? What about the moral right to slaughter "my" cows to sell to the supermarket? What about the moral right to swat flies in your house or at your barbecue?

When I said people have no moral claims against animals I meant it isn't immoral for animals to kill us. I cannot accuse the lion chewing on my leg of violating my right to live. Morality and rights involve human interaction. If you were the only person in the world rights would become irrelevant.

To quote that late, great, sage of wit and wisdom... George Carlin

That was his rebuttal to the pro-life label used by people opposed to abortion.

Speaking of which...Does a death row inmate have a natural right to shoot/kill every guard in the prison to preserve his own life? If not, why? Because he forfeited his "natural" right to self defense? How? By virtue of some law? Doesn't that contradict the idea that the right was "natural" in the first place? If the right can be stripped by law, then the right isn't "natural", its legal.

Did Jews lined up at the gas chambers have the right to escape, even when that required killing guards? Yes... Does that hold true for a murderer being executed? No, they stripped away their victim's right to life. When society executes the murderer they do so partly on behalf of the victim, their moral authority to kill the would-be murderer in self defense transfers to society in the form of after-the-fact punishment.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Human (natural) rights dont come from society, civil rights do. Your right to life didn't come from me or society, it came from your individuality as defined by existence. Basically, you own you.

My desire for life comes from me. My right to life only exists if other people decide that it's wrong for them to kill me.

 

[Berzerker]

My desire for life comes from me. My right to life only exists if other people decide that it's wrong for them to kill me.

So if the Nazis murdered Jews because they decided it wasn't wrong to kill them, Jews dont have a right to live? A right is a valid claim of moral superiority, its wrong to kill you because you have a morally superior claim to live.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So if the Nazis murdered Jews because they decided it wasn't wrong to kill them, Jews dont have a right to live? A right is a valid claim of moral superiority, its wrong to kill you because you have a morally superior claim to live.

They obviously didn't have a right to live under a Nazi regime no.

 

[Berzerker]

Then the Nazis didn't violate the human rights of the people they slaughtered