Article

2016-09-30 -Land of the Free

Self-defense is a questionable argument for owning a gun

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by badanov 2016-09-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 Why do you keep posting these things? We know the self appointed "intellectual elites" are not just crazy as a bat but dumb as shit as well (except when it comes to feathering their own nests).

In his discussion of the new, Soviet, "intelligentsia" in Archipelago Gulag, Solzhenitsyn states "If the fact that a circle has 360 degrees impacted these people's well-being, they'd make calculations in anything but radians, a felony." Well, the current western "new class" would do one better - they would make the word 'circle' a hate speech.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2016-09-30 03:03|| 2016-09-30 03:03|| Front Page Top

#2 This twit of a professor needs to confine himself to asking his students about treees falling in forests

Posted by John Frum 2016-09-30 06:40|| 2016-09-30 06:40|| Front Page Top

#3 Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights.

Straw man argument. The 2d Amendment clearly shows for the militia, to which the founders put trust in rather than a standing army to guarantee their rights. Having just rid themselves of the Kings army and decedents of the rule of Cromwell, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Posted by Procopius2k 2016-09-30 06:52|| 2016-09-30 06:52|| Front Page Top

#4 Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights.

The "basis" won't mean a great deal of the Beest is elected.

Posted by Besoeker 2016-09-30 06:57|| 2016-09-30 06:57|| Front Page Top

#5 I believe there was a Supreme Court decision some years ago that stated you do not have an expectation of protection by the police. Some guy got mugged and sued the police. He lost.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2016-09-30 08:15|| 2016-09-30 08:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Found it.

Posted by Punky Jeatch4693 2016-09-30 08:18|| 2016-09-30 08:18|| Front Page Top

#7 These questions raise complicated issues in the social sciences, political philosophy and ethics.

Get back with me after I'm done defending myself when the police are not around. As well as self-defense, the purpose of the 2nd is to defend against a tyrannical government. We can sort out the intellectual arguments after the shooting stops. As it is said better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Posted by JohnQC 2016-09-30 08:33|| 2016-09-30 08:33|| Front Page Top

#8 but, but he's a Professor! Of Philosophy! At George Washington University! Author of SEVEN books! Ultimate Moral Authority!

George himself would say: "Shuddup, punk. Get me my slippers"

Posted by Frank G 2016-09-30 08:56|| 2016-09-30 08:56|| Front Page Top

#9 Self defense against a 500 pound bear will get you arrested.

Posted by Glenmore 2016-09-30 09:21|| 2016-09-30 09:21|| Front Page Top

#10 ...gun ownership is associated with an increased likelihood that someone in the household will die a violent death.

This is an absolute favorite logical falicie arguments amongst gun control advocates. And it's even more absurd in the context of self defense. A large portion of this raw data includes illegally possessed firearms. Furthermore, it conflates possession with action. Even if one was to make an ipso facto argument regarding degree (domestic violence with a gun vs blunt object) it offers only a reaction to a symptom without a solution to the primary affliction. Burning candles in the home may increase the likelihood of an accidental fire but doesn't increase the likelihood of arson.

Posted by DepotGuy 2016-09-30 09:31|| 2016-09-30 09:31|| Front Page Top

#11 Oh, a big britches philosopher writer.

Know who really was?

Socrates, that's who.

He served his call to duty as a hoplite.

A hoplite was responsible for purchasing his own weapons and armor. The government expected its citizens to do so.

No absolute right to self defense is the damn tardest thing I have ever heard, and I mean that. How far removed from reality does a person need to be to even think that, never mind sharing it as some grande epiphany.

Zombie flicks - do the main characters just sit there and wait their turn to be eaten? Sports - do football players and boxers just let themselves get hit or do they try to protect themselves? Do people not swat mosquitos? Do we not shoo flys from our food?

Do we not get inoculated as a defense against disease? Do we not recoil from fire so not to get burned?

Thank you, I will take my advise from Xenophon, who would laugh at this guy's silk stockings.

Posted by swksvolFF 2016-09-30 11:33|| 2016-09-30 11:33|| Front Page Top

#12 Spoken like a 'man' who's never been in a fistfight, or got mugged.

Posted by Raj 2016-09-30 11:46|| 2016-09-30 11:46|| Front Page Top

#13 DepotGuy, reminds me of the stats on children killed by guns. Children of course includes 18-19 year old gang-bangers. When you remove them from the stats the number of children killed by guns is very low. But they want the image of a toddler to really push the emotional message when they know logic doesn't serve them.

Scoundrels all.

Posted by rjschwarz 2016-09-30 11:47|| 2016-09-30 11:47|| Front Page Top

#14 they always include suicides in the "deaths in the home" count to have a much higher toll

Posted by Frank G 2016-09-30 15:03|| 2016-09-30 15:03|| Front Page Top

#15 Has the good professor noticed that gun free zones are the favorite spots for mass murderers?
Criminals have a tendency to avoid attacking places where they have a good chance of being killed. Guns in the hands of law abiding people deters crime.
Home invasions are far more common, for example, in Britain than here.
Facts do not bother this guy.
Anyway the standard sequence is
crime occurs
police investigate
with luck a perpetrator is arrested
a trial

police do not protect individuals
defense of individuals is not a part of this process.

the government is not a substitute for self defense.
example: the dead marathon bomber was reported by Russian intelligence to the FBI; he was interviewed and apparently cleared.
another recent terrorist was reported to the FBI by his father, with no intervention.
Great government protection!

Posted by Grins Snese4215 2016-09-30 17:04|| 2016-09-30 17:04|| Front Page Top

#16 They say that an NRA sticker on a vehicle parked on the street effectively protects the entire block.

Posted by rjschwarz 2016-09-30 18:09|| 2016-09-30 18:09|| Front Page Top

23:04 Grins Snese4215
22:49 Blossom Unains5562
21:59 Frank G
21:56 Frank G
21:53 DarthVader
21:47 USN, Ret.
21:44 Lone Ranger
21:34 USN, Ret.
21:33 DarthVader
20:53 Black Bart Glutch4583
20:47 Black Bart Glutch4583
20:18 Alaska Paul
20:10 Sgt.D.T.
19:52 Procopius2k
19:46 swksvolFF
19:36 Blossom Unains5562
19:32 Blossom Unains5562
19:05 Thing From Snowy Mountain
18:58 swksvolFF
18:51 DarthVader
18:44 swksvolFF
18:22 Abu Uluque
18:19 swksvolFF
18:10 rjschwarz