Is invasion a higher probability than being sick?
That's a great example of the double standards which are institutionalised in American society. Blindly support the military throughout any act of aggression, but go crazy when somebody proposes a tax-based, equal access healthcare system.
if you suppose that the right to bear arms stems from your right to defend yourself
But I don't suppose that at all brother. I suppose that to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and I think the reason many Americans disagree is because guns have been purposefully mythologised in the United States.
If we look at what guns are built to do then it is very easy to establish they kill living things. They were built to snub out life. To pretend then that guns are defensive items is to turn the very meaning of language upside down. They have no bias at all about who dies because their job is only to facilitate killing. Therefore, to pretend that their only potential use is to "defend" against aggression is just an appalling abuse of reason, because their entire purpose is to facilitate aggression.
What you actually do in reality when you arm everybody is simply give them the means to kill each other instantly, without even thinking about it beforehand. Guns are drawn in anger every single day and people are killed in domestic rows, arguments in the street and in countless other situations where tempers get heated.
Honestly, I just find it so stupid because guns are presented to Americans as mere tools to help you "defend" against aggression, but of course the reality is that when you legalise guns you simply give everybody else in society the means to instantly kill you, for absolutely any reason they like.
My point being, isn’t the point of allowing EVERYONE to bear arms a way to assure that everyone EQUALLY has a right to self defense ?
My apologies but this is simply ridiculous. It's absurd. Everybody has the right to defend themselves, but this has no relationship to the legality of guns one way or the other. Firstly, guns are used to kill people, not to defend. Secondly, since some people struggle to hold a gun, should we therefore arm everybody with nuclear missiles to make sure there is a fair and even playing field? Thirdly, not even your own state -- which pushes this insane sophistry to the public in the first place on behalf of the gun lobby -- subscribes to the belief that "EVERYONE" should be able to defend themselves equally!!! In fact, the US government has pretty much done everything in its power to make sure its enemies cannot obtain nuclear armaments.
I really struggle to understand how people can be fooled by these bullshit pro-gun arguments, which are all rooted in the abuse of reason and/or logic.
What qualifies as a lethal agression?
Exactly brother. Do you see the way he simply distorts language around the gaping holes in his own arguments? He doesn't mention that it is his determination he is relying upon to conclude there was lethal intent, and that this determination may very well -- as is so often the case -- fail to match the physical facts. He essentially just wants carte blanche to kill, and so you can bet on him having an extremely loose interpretation of the law.
Why the fuck would you want the primary determinant of a deadly encounter to be solely in the hands of bad guys?
I don't think you understand how this works bud. When you legalise guns, "bad guys" buy them first, because "bad guys" have the most use for them. Hence, your argument is literally that we should legalise guns because we have legalised guns (and now the "bad guys" have them). It's so stupid I honestly don't know why I'm even replying to it.
What the fuck do you think a gun would defend against?
I don't think a gun would defend against anything. Having a gun in my hand isn't going to stop me getting shot, so it is next to useless as a form of defence. A gun is a brilliant form of attack and a shit form of defence, but here's you pretending it's the other way around. Just like I began this conversation by pointing out to you, the paradigm you are selling is the precise opposite of factual reality.
When I talk about various uses for a gun, it's a red herring
And now of course you are simply misrepresenting your own history rather than mine. Your vast list of "various uses for a gun" didn't include murders, suicides, rapes, carjackings, armed robberies, executions, revolutions, hijackings, kidnappings or terrorism, was headed at the very top with the ridiculous idea that guns are synonymous with self-defence, and both of your "points" about hunting and civil war have already been covered anyway!!! You are simply trying to drag the conversation around in circles because that is what idiots like you do. You have no valid argument. You have no valid points. Everytime I ask a question you can't answer you ignore it and come back with some kind of ruthless distortion of something I wrote previously. The fact is that you are just a bit of an idiot, my friend.
Here's a hypothetical for you.
I stumble into you drunk at a bar, get aggressive and threaten to kill you and your wife.
Calmly, nodding, you reach down behind the bar, pick up a potato peeler, and stab me wildly 47 times in the neck.
How many of those 47 strikes were defence?
How many were attack?
Think on it son. Take your time.
I swear we just had a long talk about hunting and civil war.
Lol. No we didn't. They were just the red herrings you used last time I pointed out that you are grossly misrepresenting the intended purpose of firearms. Firearms are built to kill living things, and so that is why you can use them to hunt (i.e. kill living things) or for "civil war" (why not just war??).
Any attempted defence of the legalisation of guns necessitates a pathology where a person feels they should hold ultimate power over life and death. Therefore, if we did a survey we would find that the most vocal proponents of the legalisation of guns are psychopaths.
You don't believe that any offensive action can be taken in self defense.
Somebody needs to take you to one side and have a serious word with you so that you can begin to grasp the concept of the strawman fallacy, and why telling another person what they think, believe, or want, is not a valid argument in a debate. I have never said, suggested or implied what you are accusing me of believing and indeed this entire conversation is a game where you purposefully misrepresent and distort the things I have said. I find that pointless. I find you pointless.
It's not merely the law that recognizes the violence of self defense.
And here we are right back with you refusing to recognise any use for a gun except "self-defence". It's so stupid.
It's common language to all but you.
Then you won't have a problem directing me to a self-defence class which teaches me to shoot people, will you?
And everyone but you will know what it means to say they are defending the complex.
Everyone except you understands the difference between attack and defence. You cannot define your own actions on the basis of someone else's actions because that is the logic of abuse. That is the logic which says it's OK to rape the girl at the bar because she is being flirty. Would that be a defensive rape, Amarel?
You're stupid and you are laughably dishonest.
You want to pretend that hunting some kind of bad thing to do
I made absolutely no comment on the morality of hunting one way or the other. Explain to me the point of a conversation in which you simply tell barefaced lies?
Hunting is unnecessary. That's the point I actually made.
You can punch a person to get them to stop attacking you.
Of course. What you can't do -- unless you happen to be stupid -- is call punching another person in the face defence. That is ridiculous because it swaps the meanings of attack and defence around. Even under the American legal provisions you are hiding behind one is only permitted to use reasonable force to deter an attacker, so the circumstances where it is legitimately necessary to shoot someone in order to save yourself are exceptionally rare. Yet all you want to acknowledge are these exceptionally rare circumstances where a gun is necessary to save your own life, and absolutely nothing else. Your bias is so overt it is just simply comical.
It's interesting that you believe it is morally superior to imprison an animal in factory farm conditions
Where do you pull this insane, stupid, completely false rhetoric from?
My feelings and beliefs have zero relevance to the factual reality that civilisation has reached the stage of development where it does not need to hunt for sustenance.
Even if my feelings and beliefs did have some relevance, then it is not up to you to decide for me whether I have a moral problem with factory farming or not.
I just don't understand what you feel is gained by your stupid strawman fallacies and flagrant intellectual dishonesty.
My apologies. I really thought I mentioned hunting and civil war as well.
Perhaps, but your first line was so outrageously and offensively dishonest that I didn't bother reading any further. Let's just quickly cover those topics though.
A) Hunting.
Oh, so you only want to slaughter everything except other humans?? Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!! That's is of course perfectly OK and, after all, supermarkets have not yet been invented, nor have pizza parlors and Burger King. We must hunt to secure food and it is as simple as that. Let's just pretend that the last four thousand years have not occurred because of course that is a very strong argument worthy of lengthy consideration.
B) Civil War.
Not civil war. Killing people. Guns are useful in civil wars only because civil wars involve killing people. Stop twisting and distorting everything please. It's quite shameful.
At least not successfully.
It is not really possible to "successfully" debate someone who presents a paradigm which is the exact opposite of factual reality. The best you can do with that person is explain the logical fallacies they are using to manufacture their erroneous paradigm.
You've presented this goofy line of reasoning before where you believe an action can only qualify as self defense if the act is strictly defensive.
Again, that is the exact opposite of factual reality. I replied to your conclusion that guns (and therefore violence) are a paradigm of self-defence. You presented guns only as instruments of self-defence, and left out entirely every other possible use.
Since you are just sat here playing black is white, up is down, left is right, you aren't really worth my time.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms derives from the natural right of self defense.
It is not possible to debate you on this topic because you appear to be trying to force language into the conversation which is inaccurate to the point that it is simply bizarre.
It is a matter of fact that guns were invented to take life. They were not invented to give life. They were invented to take life.
And yet, your first line is a head-scratching attempt to turn this simple principle upside down. You have presented guns as something which preserve life rather than something which take life. It is such a gross distortion of language and reason that it renders discussion all but impossible. If you cannot even accept what the design purpose of guns is then how can you expect to have a discussion?
My "right" to self-defence does not stipulate that I should have a gun. It stipulates that everyone else around me should not have a gun, because that endangers my life.
