Should the USA ban guns?

[Kanzler]

Violate, not break haha. How can an entity that violates property rights to "guarantee" property rights uphold property rights?

I just said that in my last post. The government guarantees rights to a certain extent. You don't agree with that, so you see it as a violation. But just because you see it as a violation doesn't mean that the government doesn't guarantee your rights within certain parameters.

I recognize that as the labour theory of property, but I don't know if that carries any weight legally speaking. Furthermore, I think this:

Rather than simply labor theory of property, property is an extension of ourselves. We own the effects of our actions (by replying to me you affirm this), and property is the mixing of our labor with the land. Legality has nothing to do with this because, like I said above, that is fallacious.

Is excessively narrow. You could conceivably violate somebody's rights, but that wouldn't necessarily involve violating someone else's property. That too would be wrong, wouldn't it?

No one has any rights outside of self-ownership or property. Any other "right" cannot be delegated by any individual or majority of individuals, and it violates either of these two rights. Self-ownership means freedom of speech, what you can do with your body, etc.

What other rights are you talking about that can be violated? And can you expand on how this is excessively narrow?

I think you're talking some philosophy which is quite removed from the legal reality. I don't know if your conception of property is recognized by the US government, or any other government for the matter. I really don't know how to respond to this. You'll have to do some explaining and I think this is probably best served in a separate thread at this point because this will lead into a discussion of property rights per se which is not what I intended.

You deserve a response, though, and it's this. The government protects our rights to a certain extent. It makes this clear through the constitution, statute, and common law. I guess you disagree with the way your government conceptualizes rights and property.

 

[Somewhere_]

I just said that in my last post. The government guarantees rights to a certain extent. You don't agree with that, so you see it as a violation. But just because you see it as a violation doesn't mean that the government doesn't guarantee your rights within certain parameters.



I think you're talking some philosophy which is quite removed from the legal reality. I don't know if your conception of property is recognized by the US government, or any other government for the matter. I really don't know how to respond to this. You'll have to do some explaining and I think this is probably best served in a separate thread at this point because this will lead into a discussion of property rights per se which is not what I intended.

You deserve a response, though, and it's this. The government protects our rights to a certain extent. It makes this clear through the constitution, statute, and common law. I guess you disagree with the way your government conceptualizes rights and property.

I agree with you. This deserves a different thread. Ill have to literally write an essay to properly explain how government cannot protect rights without violating others (i agree it protects many rights, but by violating others). And another essay explaining self-ownership and property. If ya want, I can link you to a download of "The Philosophy of Ownership" by Robert LeFevre (of course in a PM). its not even 100 pages.

My philosophy is removed from legality entirely because I do not believe legality equates morality, and the law cannot be synonymous with it. However, this does not discredit the philosophy because the philosophy is more consistent than the law. My conception of property is impossible to be recognized by the US government, or any other.

 

[gimmepie]

Ok, let's say you and your family live on the countryside. Where your neighbors are about a mile apart. You own an adequate size of property and a firearm. Federal law kicks in and prohibits the use of guns nationwide, your guns are now confiscated. Ok, it's for the greater good.

Now let's suppose a thief or a bear shows up at your property and your family is in immediate danger. The most you can use is probably a knife or a shovel. Most likely someone is going to be severely hurt or even possibly killed. Was it really for the greater good? Did this specific family benefit from the gun ban?

We can come up with so many scenarios but do you see how "protection" can mean life or death for some?

Have you missed what I've been saying through this thread entirely? A thief is not there to kill you. A thief is not necessarily a murder and the vast majority of thefts don't end in death, unless of course some idiot comes down stairs with their glock and headshots someone for stealing their wallet.

As for the bear, bears do not naturally predate on humans. Chances are if you stay inside the bear will eventually leave. Still, a bear is a lot more likely to kill you than a common petty thief.

How many people have you pissed off to be living with the state of mind that anyone who breaks into your house probably wants you dead?

 

[Ivysaur]

As Kanzler said, the point is that what it would be banned is the ability of normal people to walk into a shop and obtain a gun 5 minutes later. You wouldn't be banning the idea of "guns", it's just that, in order to get one, you'd need to a) explain why you need one (so people who really need a gun for self-protection because they live in a black hole in the middle of nowhere should be fine in this regard) and b) pass an ability test similar to the one you are required to when asking for a drivers' licence. In short, if you need and can use guns, you'll still be able to. It's just that, as guns become less and less common, normal people living in populated and well-policed areas have less and less of a need to apply for one, reducing the overall amount of people carrying them and therefore the risk of being shot dead by one of them for whatever reason. A test also means that mentally unstable people will be automatically locked out of gun ownership, also cutting one of the biggest causes of the monthly mass shootings.

I do agree though that there is a very serious problem of education and mindset in the US. People like ShinyUmbreon189, who don't understand what the Government is and instead are absolutely paranoid of anything "public", distorting it into some sort of dictatorial clique, and need to carry weapons in case they decide it's time to start a bloody revolution, are a very obvious example. If you breed a group of angry and afraid citizens, they'll eventually have to resort to violence to "defend" themselves from the perceived "attacks". And this is something caused by the Government itself (not for "being evil", but for allowing this mindset to grow), the media (especially the cranky right-wing one, for fostering it) and the educative system.

Also, @Badsheep: It's perfectly fine to have personal philosophies of how X should work. But, when discussing how the law works, introducing your own, personal vision can be very confusing to everybody else, haha.