RE: 6 Logical Fallacies to Look out for in the Gun Debate
The point is that the dynamics of gun violence in Australia is largely different than the majority of gun violence in America for a variety of reasons I've already mentioned. Sure, you can bring it up as a point of evidence but mostly when you see the example of Australia cited here there is this underlying assumption (or direct statement) that similar laws would have the same effects here. It isn't a good assumption.
Yes, guns do give people the capacity to do a lot of damage quickly. So do cars. So do bombs. So does poison. So does fire. Knives? Depends I guess. Sarin gas and knife attacks seem to be a thing in Japan - https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html
As far as the threat the 2nd Amendment was made for existing today... The point was to prevent the threat from existing. If the threat exists, it is already too late to worry about the right to bear arms. If you didn't have it you aren't going to get it. Will the threat exist again? Who knows.. But it would be foolish to think it couldn't ever happen again.
Rights are not fluid. My rights being where yours end. If you use violence against me (or vice versa) in a non-defensive matter, then rights are being violated. I am talking about natural rights. You seem to be talking about legal rights. Two different things and natural rights are more important. The United States was founded largely on the concept of natural rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Yes, gay marriage is legal where I live. But before it was "legal" you could still be gay and get married. You just didn't get a piece of paper from the government recognizing it. Nobody was using force to prevent you from marrying.
This is partially a semantics argument. I would say you have a natural right to take drugs if you so choose but that the government uses force to violate that right. Government does not grant rights. It is supposed to protect the natural rights that are yours by birth.
I'm sorry, I don't think you can assume that assumption! That's a pretty circular way of thinking. I would absolutely cite Australia in a debate like this, and it would be unfair of you to assume that I am suggesting the Australian model would work in America. If someone is explicit about that, then by all means pick them up on it.
And your point? One million Americans have died domestically at the hands guns in the last forty years. You're being very obtuse here - and I think you know it. If thousands of people starting dying because of poison, would you be an advocate for owning poison? Would you declare that it is your right? What about bombs? Should you keep one in your wardrobe, just in case? What is your point when citing those?
Ah, now, are you arguing that owning a gun is a "natural" right? You didn't say that in so many words, but I don't think I am taking a huge leap here.
Uh, homosexuality was only decriminalised in America 15 years ago! There are still states that allow discrimination against people based on their sexuality. Surely having consensual sex with an adult is a natural right? I can't believe the picture you are trying to paint here. I am genuinely insulted that you thought you could dismiss me so lazily.
I'm not assuming you are doing anything. I'm referring to how the debate is largely presented here in the U.S., particularly in the media which is what the original article was all about.
My point is there are lots of dangerous things in the world and there are lots of ways to kill lots of people that don't involve guns. More people die in car accidents than as a result of gun violence but we aren't going to ban them. Drunk drivers kill 28 people per day in the U.S. but we aren't going to ban alcohol. It was tried once a century ago and it didn't work out so well. Prohibition causes violence as the war on drugs clearly shows. People die as a result of gun violence because of violent people, mostly, as I've said before, in high crime inner city areas. I think we need to address the root cause. The root cause is not guns. I'm not being obtuse. Taking guns out of the hands of non-violent people (even if only certain kinds), in essence violating their liberty, is not an acceptable way to control violent people. Nobody should be punished for the actions of others.
Not sure what your point with poison is. Most people do have poison in their house. Bleach, cleaners, etc. Mix bleach and vinegar and you have chlorine gas. Then there are pesticides, rodent poison, lead and probably 100 things i have forgotten. I don't think people should stockpile these things but they can if they want. My point was that poison was another way you could kill lots of people without a gun. Those intent on killing a lot of people will find a way. Look at recent terror attacks where people have rammed their car into crowds of people.
Yes, I absolutely think owning a gun is a natural right. You are taking no leap at all. Anything that is not violence against another is a natural right. Natural rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pretty broad don't you think? If you prevent me from owning a gun then you are violating my liberty. This dovetails into your next point. I absolutely agree with you that having consensual sex with an adult is a natural right and I never said or implied otherwise and based on our conversation so far I don't know why you think I would believe otherwise. If the government is throwing you in jail for doing so then they are violating your natural rights. My only point was that most of the debate over gay marriage for the last number of years has been about government recognizing the marriage, not actually having one. I have no idea what picture you think I was trying to paint but I hope my statement above is explicit enough for you.