Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

Ah... whataboutism.
How about you go first admit that UK's tough gun laws curved the gun related crime downwards.
The UK also has a less violent crimes compared to the US. I don't see this as a coincidence, but that tough gun laws work.

 

The beauty of natural/human rights is that the argument for their existence is sound whether approached from a religious perspective or from an evolutionary perspective. There are few who ascribe to the theory a mosquito has equal rights to humans (if put that way). But that is essentially the argument BL is attempting to make. The problem with such thinking is it will slam you into a brick wall when you discover such an argument logically concludes Pol Pot was the moral equivalent of you or I (or a mosquito sucking your blood and giving you malaria) and he had every right to murder and destroy unopposed and without external criticism from Jello or myself.

Either way you look at it the human is unique among other animals in it’s ability to reason and philosophize. In it’s ability to be self aware and aware of it’s behavioral effects on other humans (and animals and environment).

No democratic or liberal government or society can exist under the notion human rights are a creation of government. Any government claiming to be the creator of rights is by definition authoritarian and anti democratic. And it will devolve into what we saw with Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler.

Anyone who is disturbed by the thought of a deity need look no farther than the document I presented from the United Nations to see what I’m saying is legitimate. The UN that goes out of its way to avoid reference to or association with religion of any kind is very specific about rights not being created by government. They understood an organization based on global human rights can’t claim to be the creator of rights and be legitimately democratic or liberal (classically liberal). Nor could they be opposed to nation against nation conflict or make comment on which country was in the right or wrong because both warring nations would be morally equivalent. Without recognition of innate human rights the UN could not be critical of nations practicing slavery or genocide because those countries would be the moral equivalent of countries not practicing genocide or slavery.

I understand many wish to throw the baby (natural rights) out with the bath water (religion), but it is neither logical or desirable from a secular humanistic standpoint to do so. Because in doing so, secular humanism itself is disposed of.

 

The point of firearm legislation is to reduce murder and violent crime (perhaps also suicides and accidental deaths). If it didn't reduce murder and violent crime, but instead just caused people to kill with knives instead of guns, it wouldn't have accomplished a worthwhile goal. I'm not taking a position here, except to say their question is fair.

 

Please quote where I have claimed any natural right is deity sourced. LOL

As I said, I’m uninterested in strawman arguments.

 

Forcibly disarmed?
Don't make me laugh.
After the Dunblane massacre the legislation to ban handguns was almost universally accepted with the only real opposition coming from competition pistol shooting organisations who were granted an exception from the legislation (until the Labour government came into power the same year and banned them too). Our pistol shooters now have to practice in France and we've not won an Olympic gold since but that's a small price to pay for zero mass shootings involving a handgun since 1996.

 

Sorry mate. You looked like you were digging yourself into a hole and I thought I could help.

 

Their firearm legislation was actually done because there was a mass school shooting.
It didn't have ANY since they put it in place. And they got like 1 mass shooting every 3 years.
It was like double before the legislation.

All in all. The UK is a far more safer country compared to the US.
Any western nation is far more safe compared to the US.
It's obvious you do not want to comment on how significant this is.
It crusher your agenda.

 

Gawd....let's try:

Whether you exercise it or not is beside the point. Is the sanctity of property ownership one of these rights you hold (apparently) as existing outside government involvement?

 

Two mass shootings in 25 years both carried out with legally held shotguns by men who'd had nervous breakdowns. You can't really legislate against that but a mental health report from the licence holder's doctor is a part of the annual renewal process.
Mainly to avoid suicides but also covering psychopathic illness likely to be a danger to others, All carried out for free by a universal health system.

 

There is no reason an atheist can’t accept the concept of natural rights. It’s the inherent qualities of humans that set us apart from other animals that matters, not how we acquired those traits.

Anyone with an IQ over 75 who reads the United Nations source I presented can figure that out unless blinded by bias.

 

I’m uninterested in strawman arguments.

If you have a problem with the US founding documents, Australian founding documents, or the UN make an argument against THEIR claims.

I have substantiated my ONLY claim quite sufficiently.

Who is this Gawd you invoke?

 

I don't have one. I want to know what the data says. But as I say with many other issues, it's difficult to control for all relevant variables. Culture is different. The UK puts many public spaces on active surveillance. Still, it really does help to compare before and after for legislation. Do you simply not have data on violent crime in general before and after? Is that why you insist it doesn't matter?

 

Sorry 557 but that just reads as waffle to me.
My problem with the right to bear arms is that it ignores the rights of people to send their kids to school or go shopping in Walmart without fear of getting shot by a mentally unstable individual with enough firepower to start a small war,
It's unfathomable to me.

 

Well, all I can do is present information. There is a very good reason democratic governments don’t claim to create rights. I wish people would give those reasons more thought. I’m glad the shining stars of the Enlightenment did think such things through. We all owe them an un-payable debt.

The thing is, there are a plethora of examples of places with many firearms and firearm freedoms where there is no fear of getting shot. And I’ve pretty well established the laws many believe curtailed mass shootings (and firearm homicides in general) are not even correlated with changes in incidence.

I find it unfathomable that firearms are the scapegoat for all societal ills that lead to shootings I can’t understand how when the data clearly shows zero mass shoutings before implementation of licensing requirements and 100% of total mass shootings happening after implementation, people still believe it is that licensing requirement that “protects” them.

Honest question. Why do you think people are scared of getting shot at Wal mart? In the US over your lifetime you are over three times more likely to die of choking on food than in a mass shooting. Well adjusted individuals without media induced paranoia never give dying in a mass shooting a second thought. It’s illogical to do so.

 

You clearly are uninterested in being responsive so I'll give up.

'Have you not heard of 'Gawd?' Gawd is an Australian mythical beast, lives inside the pot of gold with the leprechauns at the end of every rainbow, right next door to the fairies at the bottom of our gardens where sometimes the occasional unicorn turns up at the end of the yellow brick road.

 

I'll concede your point that the media creates a self fulfilling prophecy feedback loop if you can answer why America is unique in the Western world in having so many of these massacres of the innocent.
Do you honestly see no link between the ease of getting your hands on a firearm and the difference in murders, suicides and mass killings between for example your country and mine?
I'll accept there is more than one reason (the 2nd) which includes things like cultural differences but as a good man with a gun (or several no doubt) would you not welcome fewer bad men with a gun through tighter restrictions, better enforcements of existing laws and a unification of regulations to reduce the ease of moving guns from a lightly regulated to a more strictly regulated State?

 

I’ve been quite responsive. I’ve provided copious amounts of evidence for my one and only claim. I’ve educated you on your Constitution, explaining things to you about your government you were completely unaware of and documenting those things with links and pull quotes from official government sources.

What I WILL NOT respond to is the strawman fallacy you keep presenting. Especially after you claimed I had attributed rights to a deity when clearly it is the founding documents of our countries that made that claim, not me.

LOL. Fascinating that you are the one invoking mythical beasts. Fascinating indeed.

 

The attitude is that guns should not be used to resolve disputes. And that is our problem here in the US. People think by wearing a firearm on their side shows "how tough" they are. I call that bull hockey because if you take the gun away from them, they do not know how to survive in a fight.

 

So...back to the beginning then. Sixth attempt.

If it is not your Constitution which creates 'our rights,' what does create 'our rights?'

Which of these rights 'of ours' do you have that I have? List them, and then say where these rights emanate from.

Please spend less time marking your home homework and try to answer those questions which arise from your post....which is...to remind you yet again:

 

what exactly do you want in terms of an answer. this appears to be rather tedious

 

my son packs almost all the time. he's not real big but he's plenty tough. He spent a night in jail over a mistake. No one messed with him. He's a black belt, has trained extensively with sticks and knives and "died" three times on the operating table. I suspect he'd survive the next fight he is in better than most

 

100% uncomplicated.

A direct answer to these questions which arise from the words of 557 himself, and not from any strawman as he keeps wanting to talk about.


1. If it is not your Constitution which creates 'our rights,' what does create 'our rights?' ("*Our rights" being the words of 557.)

2. Which of these rights 'of *ours' do you have that I have? List them, and then say where these rights emanate from.

 

the founders believed that the rights they recognized in our constitution and bill of rights came from the creator. basically a right is a just claim. thus you have the same rights as I do. The difference might be is that my constitution and many of my fellow citizens are there to enforce your just claim, while your government apparently does not trust you to exercise those rights

 

And what it did was nothing except kill people with a different item.

Congratulations on taking away people's ability to defend themselves to make yourself feel better about how many people were killed with an object you're ok with.

thanks for admitting it's not really about preventing crime.

 

It's nice when they admit that homicide isn't the point to what they want.