The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[bernie14]

So a woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term? "Rights" is a pretty meaningless answer without elaboration. Is a child conceived in the US a citizen then from the moment of conception? Or are the rights you speak about not the rights of USians?

rights AND personhood are pretty meaningless (as you said "We all get to chose what that means at a personal level") without laws. As to your question, i guess you did not read my previous link.

EDIT: it is a long read but makes sense to me.

 

[Birdjaguar]

rights AND personhood are pretty meaningless (as you said "We all get to chose what that means at a personal level") without laws. As to your question, i guess you did not read my previous link.

EDIT: it is a long read but makes sense to me.

I did read it all the way through.
Here is his opening:

The fields of biology, medicine, and embryology have described the developmental milestones of humans throughout gestation in great detail. It is less clear as to when humans are recognized as people, persons, or beings with rights that are protected by legislation.

He goes on to say that personhood is defined by human genetics and therefore personhood happens at fertilization. He also says that, therefore, there are no "persons" other than humans because our genetics are unique to humans. I wonder if he would allow Neanderthals to be people. He does go into counter arguments but mostly just dismisses them as wrong because his idea is better. There is no doubt that a new living thing happens at fertilization. That is not really a serious question any more. He wants full legislative rights at fertilization and implies that that means the mother's rights can be overridden. He just wants a new definition of personhood so he makes some new assumptions and then builds a case. Change the assumptions and one can build a case for dogs to be people too.

Several noted authors and works support the claim that the life of a new human being and the life of a person begin at fertilization. John Gallagher states that after “look[ing] at all of the likely evidence suggested in the literature … none of it gives reason to believe that the human person begins to exist at any other point than fertilization” (Gallagher 1984). Other works hold the similar simple and parsimonious economical explanation—one that is economical as it does not necessitate that exhaustive criteria be met for personhood. Specifically, human personhood is inherent in the zygote and does not only come to be at some arbitrary point later than fertilization...This statement equates basic human rights to the early developing human being and recommends that laws that govern the born also govern the unborn from the point of fertilization. By corollary, the burden of proof lies on those who oppose this view to provide sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that no human person is present.

He of course ignores the question of "standing" in any US court and who should represent a fertilized egg before the judge. He is just another anti abortionist dressed up as biologist to appear as if he has all the answers. He even dismisses the question of ensoulment as irrelevant, but only after praising the Pope for his support for unborn rights. It smacks of trying to hide his religious affiliations and look like he only following the science.

 

[Farm Boy]

Doesn't take a closet papist.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Corporations have enough personhood rights to have a major influence, if not the largest, influence on voting in America. In addition, their personhood can live "forever" without the natural death turnover actual people go through providing demographic refreshment.

They don't carry the same responsibility as actual people, however. Also, their ability to influence politics in even the broadest of senses is a major flaw in our country's design. If you're trying to run a republic, it does not make sense to move the incentives of the governor away from the governed.

So a woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term? "Rights" is a pretty meaningless answer without elaboration. Is a child conceived in the US a citizen then from the moment of conception? Or are the rights you speak about not the rights of USians?

Rights is a blanket term, you still have to define what is and is not a right. People have a right to life/liberty/property/etc, but not to the extent that it allows them to directly deprive others of those things.

While one might not conclude it perfect, we do define rights for people though. That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is when a person starts being a person. That's something we need to decide and put into law, probably at the state level based on the construction of the US constitution, if it hasn't been done yet.

There's no point in getting into the weeds about privacy in medical procedures, and there's no point in getting into the weed about specific rights. Everyone here would broadly agree that people, including young children, have a right not to be murdered (aka right to life). The only meaningful question is whether the life being destroyed is that of a person. Decades ago, the courts punted on that determination, and you could make a strong case that this is not for the courts to decide. But it is THE question that matters to this discussion. Without answering, you cannot reach the starting line for determining abortion policy, and you cannot make a coherent argument on the morality of abortion (either preventing or allowing them). You NEED to define this for the question of abortion policy to be functional. And by you, I mean individual voters in each state.

Given its causal inferences, it is also noticeably different from gun control. Gun control is increasingly about punishing/criminalizing possession, when it is generally not possession we should care about, but crimes committed. Depriving non-criminals of rights/property in the name of reducing crime has obvious pitfalls wrt constitution, but also some less obvious ones (inconsistent standard to other laws, or worse, using this new standard to shackle people more broadly).

 

[bernie14]

I did read it all the way through.
Here is his opening:

He goes on to say that personhood is defined by human genetics and therefore personhood happens at fertilization. He also says that, therefore, there are no "persons" other than humans because our genetics are unique to humans. I wonder if he would allow Neanderthals to be people. He does go into counter arguments but mostly just dismisses them as wrong because his idea is better. There is no doubt that a new living thing happens at fertilization. That is not really a serious question any more. He wants full legislative rights at fertilization and implies that that means the mother's rights can be overridden. He just wants a new definition of personhood so he makes some new assumptions and then builds a case. Change the assumptions and one can build a case for dogs to be people too.



He of course ignores the question of "standing" in any US court and who should represent a fertilized egg before the judge. He is just another anti abortionist dressed up as biologist to appear as if he has all the answers. He even dismisses the question of ensoulment as irrelevant, but only after praising the Pope for his support for unborn rights. It smacks of trying to hide his religious affiliations and look like he only following the science.

We are Neanderthals, it's part of our genetic diversity. As for me, i consider his arguments sound and i am not a religious person.

You previously mentioned possible personhood for great apes. I wonder why. Is it a genetic thing and/or a protection thing?. I would agree that those are factors to consider but the same can be said about the unborn.

Makes me think of mandates. The argument goes something like this...."The vaccine is out there and if people are not responsible, they should somehow be forced by the government to get it".... well, birth control is out there....

EDIT: guns and abortions ... isn't there also a quarantined abortion thread on CFC?

EDIT 2: to be fair, i did look up the authors. The first is a biologist, he has a phd in nutrition and metabolism, teaches at a school of pharmacology and has quite a few publications. The second guy is some christian dude

 

[TheMeInTeam]

EDIT: guns and abortions ... isn't there also a quarantined abortion thread on CFC?

To be fair, this discussion arose because California is copying Texas' bad law of false causal inferences on abortions in order to make false causal inferences about guns. It's bad law either way, because it makes false inferences to punish people.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Or, we could simply punish crimes and otherwise not unduly burden property because reasons.

Lots to unpack here, but in the interests of brevity, I'll just address the point that's most germane to the current discussion, which is that the California proposal to allow civil suits against gun manufacturers and distributors is about enforcing existing laws. Or at least, that's what it looks like to me. It's pretty short. What I copied & pasted above is really the whole thing.

3450. A gun industry member shall have created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

It doesn't appear to create any new laws about manufacturing or selling guns, it's only providing a new mechanism for citizens to enforce them. It doesn't appear to place any burden on gun owners in any way. I see nothing that law-abiding gun enthusiasts and retailers should object to. Heck, private gun owners who are completely irresponsible and violate every 'good practice' norm and break every law relating to owning a gun don't have to worry, because this is specifically aimed at the 'gun industry' (one caveat: it's not clear to me whether this applies to private gun sales - I suppose that'll come up in one of these lawsuits, eventually). I can easily imagine a pro-gun individual or group filing a lawsuit against a wholesaler or retailer, or even a manufacturer, who's being a donkey and making them look bad.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But wait, this might mean that gun dealers and manufacturers might be forced to leave CA!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A gun industry member shall have created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

Per this law, going after them for misuse of firearms is basically impossible, because you would have to prove "cause" for "death or injury". Unless one of their employees is the one running out there shooting up a place, that's not happening.

It doesn't appear to place any burden on gun owners in any way.

It's kind of amazing that people can make this case with a straight face. Let's give an oversimplified, extreme example to illustrate why adding arbitrary large costs to a company doesn't just impact that company:

Your favorite food? Your government just dropped a 10,000% markup on it via state tax. This is clearly no burden to you, because it is the food provider that suffers the consequences...

...

I see nothing that law-abiding gun enthusiasts and retailers should object to

There isn't a person alive who shouldn't be objecting to false attributions of cause in law, period. The subject matter doesn't matter.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Per this law, going after them for misuse of firearms is basically impossible, because you would have to prove "cause" for "death or injury". Unless one of their employees is the one running out there shooting up a place, that's not happening.



It's kind of amazing that people can make this case with a straight face. Let's give an oversimplified, extreme example to illustrate why adding arbitrary large costs to a company doesn't just impact that company:

Your favorite food? Your government just dropped a 10,000% markup on it via state tax. This is clearly no burden to you, because it is the food provider that suffers the consequences...

...



There isn't a person alive who shouldn't be objecting to false attributions of cause in law, period. The subject matter doesn't matter.

This isn't a tax. You're the one who wrote "Or we could simply punish crimes and otherwise not unduly burden property." Did I misquote you? Were you not talking about the California law when you wrote that? I don't know if you're a gun owner or not, but if you aren't, adopt that position for a moment: Do you want gun manufacturers and distributors to follow relevant laws? Do you want them to behave in ethical ways? Do you want those who refuse to be punished? If my favorite restaurant is ignoring labor laws and health codes, then yeah, I want them to go out of business (and maybe put in prison, if it's really egregious, like using forced labor or something).

I guess I should have written, "it doesn't appear to place any burden on gun owners who have half a brain and give a [hoot] about anybody about themselves - which is most of them, but sadly not all of them, particularly not the lobbyists and industry reps who like to gin up some kind of manufactured 'culture war' because it's good for their bottom lines", but that's a lot to type.

 

[Farm Boy]

They're weapons manufacturers. Define ethical ways. Does the company have a union floor and a statement condemning Blizzard's workplace culture?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Define ethical ways.

Yeah, I wondered about that myself. The text just says "or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices", but I haven't looked to see what that might be.

 

[Farm Boy]

Seems... fuzzy.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is it more fuzzy than taking me to court because I suggest my girl friend in Austin get an abortion and give her a number to call?

 

[Samson]

Yeah, I wondered about that myself. The text just says "or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices", but I haven't looked to see what that might be.

Surely they have to mean unlawfully unfair practices.

 

[Farm Boy]

Is it more fuzzy than taking me to court because I suggest my girl friend in Austin get an abortion and give her a number to call?

Things do not need to be congruent before they can both be wrong. Or right.

Though for this example, that would only apply if you knew she was further than, ungh, six weeks along. For whatever that matters here. Which it doesn't?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know if you're a gun owner or not, but if you aren't, adopt that position for a moment: Do you want gun manufacturers and distributors to follow relevant laws?

Relevant laws, yes. False attribution of cause should not be "relevant" to policy. If this liability causes extra cost, it's bad for the same reason that arbitrarily price-hiking your food is bad.

 

[Birdjaguar]

...False attribution of cause...

You mean like saying that there was massive election fraud and that democrats stole the election from Trump? Or saying that all the voting machines were rigged so Trump lost but all the republican candidates won? Or how about claiming that the CIA/FBI planned and executed the Jan 6th insurrection?

 

[El_Machinae]

Relevant laws, yes. False attribution of cause should not be "relevant" to policy. If this liability causes extra cost, it's bad for the same reason that arbitrarily price-hiking your food is bad.

Depending on process, the lack of a cost can also effectively be a subsidy. The same laws that keep firearms cheap & easy to get are the same laws that make it easy to create illegal firearms (as in, moving a firearm into the 'illegal' category). Economists would at least nod to Coase at this point.

 

[Farm Boy]

Translating this stuff through the lens of economics by choice is sort of psychopathic to begin with, isn't it?