The Politics Test: #10

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I know that the "right to defend myself" argument is intuitive, but it is an emotional argument that doesn't jibe with the statistics. For every instance of a gun fired in self defense, there are 2 fatal unintentional shootings, 32 criminal homicides using guns, and 80 suicides with a gun (guns amount to over 50% of suicides). Never mind the fact that for the price of a gun, you can buy a home security system which is more effective.

The glut of firearms and the awful culture we have around guns in our country fuels crime. Over 200k guns are stolen ever year, 170k of them during burglaries. Every firearm we add to the equation makes us less safe. It's a higher probability that another gun ends up in crime through a theft or corrupt dealer or straw purchase, or another misfire, or another spur of the moment rampage, or another irrevocable suicide attempt. The only real solution is to reduce firearms, but that is so hard to obtain because despite all the stats, people just "feel safer," with a gun. And to top it all off, the whole problem is compounded by a sizable, irrational segment of our populace that has an insatiable gun fetish.

The great irony of the matter is that by arming our entire country, it only made us less safe.

[YaBoyNY]

Not to mention the utter fallacy of the "defense against tyranny" argument.

I'm sorry, but if the United States military wanted you dead, if the government were to ever become totalitarian, you're not going to stand a chance against them.

These guys aren't going to defend against this. Sorry.

[dead0man]

The great irony of the matter is that by arming our entire country, it only made us less safe.

2 incorrect facts in one line, typical for a gun control nut



strongly disagree

[Rockefeller GOP]

Not to mention the utter fallacy of the "defense against tyranny" argument.

I'm sorry, but if the United States military wanted you dead, if the government were to ever become totalitarian, you're not going to stand a chance against them.

These guys aren't going to defend against this. Sorry.

I've heard several gun control folks argue that "gun control not stopping gun crimes is NOT a valid reason not to implement it as law."  Well the same principle should hold for a people being armed.  There's something fundamentally F'd up about a government not allowing its citizens to own guns while it does.  Literally one of Hitler's early moves.

Also, it should be noted that most of the outspoken gun control advocates on this site are WELL to the left of anyone on that stage last night, and that doesn't make the Democrats "center-right" or anything on that issue; it makes you folks fringe on it.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Rights are not up for debate, regardless of what studies say.  The gun grabbers on this forum use data to justify their statism....scientism at its worst, where papers published lead to sacred rights stripped.  Jonah Goldberg describes it well:  liberal fascism.  My rights are not contingent upon the actions of the evil people.  Punish the murderer, not the law-abiding citizen.  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Rights are not up for debate, regardless of what studies say.

I don't know, a lot of Republicans seem fairly cavalier with far more important rights. Healthcare, for one.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Rights are not up for debate, regardless of what studies say.

I don't know, a lot of Republicans seem fairly cavalier with far more important rights. Healthcare, for one.

I believe in negative liberties firmly; positive liberties, not so much.  Granting positive liberties as "rights" necessarily means more government and higher taxes, taking even more of people's earnings by force, which I staunchly oppose.  Public services are not rights and to say they are is a huge distortion of the term.

[DavidB.]

I believe in negative liberties firmly; positive liberties, not so much.  Granting positive liberties as "rights" necessarily means more government and higher taxes, taking even more of people's earnings by force, which I staunchly oppose.  Public services are not rights and to say they are is a huge distortion of the term.

I don't like emptyquoting in an otherwise quite high-quality thread, so I'll just say that I really agree with this and that I'm glad to see there are more people making this distinction.

(That doesn't mean I'm not in favour of some form of universal healthcare - I am. But it's not a right. It's just the moral thing to do.)

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I believe in negative liberties firmly; positive liberties, not so much.  Granting positive liberties as "rights" necessarily means more government and higher taxes, taking even more of people's earnings by force, which I staunchly oppose.  Public services are not rights and to say they are is a huge distortion of the term.

I don't like emptyquoting in an otherwise quite high-quality thread, so I'll just say that I really agree with this and that I'm glad to see there are more people making this distinction.

(That doesn't mean I'm not in favour of some form of universal healthcare - I am. But it's not a right. It's just the moral thing to do.)

I agree, and it's not that I am opposed to any kind of social safety net - it's just that I don't think that it should be considered a sacrosanct "right."  I find it so weird how leftists somehow see "rights" that necessitate government taking other people's money and redistributing it as more fundamental than the right to bear arms, in which all the government has to do is get out of the way.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

That's my point ... you are arguing from the POV that gun ownership is a right, by definition; but fail to see that other people have sufficiently different philosophies that the "right to gun ownership" is itself a distortion on the definition of the word "right". To pontificate on "the rights of gun ownership" with me (just like myself waxing about "right to healthcare" to you) is meaningless to someone in a different context, like somebody arguing for the right to have the sexiest waifu, or something.

[DavidB.]

That's my point ... you are arguing from the POV that gun ownership is a right, by definition; but fail to see that other people have sufficiently different philosophies that the "right to gun ownership" is itself a distortion on the definition of the word "right". To pontificate on "the rights of gun ownership" with me (just like myself waxing about "right to healthcare" to you) is meaningless to someone in a different context, like somebody arguing for the right to have the sexiest waifu, or something.

No, it's not. Because the right to bear arms is not a positive right, it's something you can do regardless of any government intervention - you're free from government intervention. That's something entirely different from the supposed (positive) "right" to healthcare, which implies you have a right to government intervention to your benefit.

Or are you simply arguing that people have different conceptions of the word "right" so my POV doesn't make sense to you? Obviously, but that's like saying "we disagree so it's meaningless for you to say X". I might very well not convince you, but that doesn't change my argument.