pull down to refresh
295 sats \ 8 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb \ parent \ on: ABORTION and GUNS poll culture
You make some really excellent points and I'll do my best to address them as best I can.
You mentioned death penalty. I am also pro this, if the punishment is not to be feared then the crime will probably get commited anyway. And unfortunately the drain on resources that a life sentence in jail is on law abiding citizens is, at least in my book, too high. The killer, forfeited their rights to be treated any better than an animal when they behaved like one and took an innocent life.
It's about here where I feel we're going to differ, and it's on the definition of innocent life. Im really fuzzy on where I personally draw the line on the difference between life as an embryo and not life as an embryo, I'm not a "at the point of conception person". I do feel however that the needs of the mother should outweigh the needs of the featus where the two do not align. Babys are born still born all the time and some mothers still die in child birth. It wouldn't sit right with me if a mother was harmed or killed whilst in labour or even before only for child to be born a still born. To me the risk there to the undisputed living person (as we're not disputing the mothers alive) is too high. And however unfortunate for the unborn child, that's kinda just is what it is. (Awful choice of words I apologise but I couldn't think of any others).
I do agree with you on the mother's body is her own point. But I also think that within reason the mothers wants/needs for her body should come first. I don't think it's responsible to enforce a 16yr old to see to term a child they cannot themselves be responsible for because they foolishly had unprotected sex.
The other thing to consider is rape victims, although a small portion of sample size they still need to be accountable. I'd hate for my sister as an eg to have to carry and raise the offspring of whatever vile person chose her to be his victim in that time. I know I could never love a neice/nephew born under those circumstances (but I'm not exactly a shining example of a compassionate human being).
Euthanasia is a difficult one as youd always struggle to be able to nail down exactly when someone is actually cognitively incapable of making that choice themselves and if it's one they'd want, and I feel that more often than not, it's selfishly motivated from people who stand to gain financially (via a will) or because they're fed up of long drawn out diseases and would rather it was over and convince themselves that their dependent would prefer death.
I absolutely agree as you pointed out about gun laws and mental health. Guns are the symptom not the cause. A mentally unstable person with means to kill will do so. (Sweeping statement but you get my point). What I'm saying is that readily available military grade weapons shouldn't be readily available. There is no scenario in which a civilian needs military style weaponry. I really think you hit the nail on the head there about lack of enforcement. But I still find it hard to deny the relevance of how unnecessary top end military weapons is to any civilian. I also don't see them as deterrents. You see for me, I have been trained in military weaponry. Someone else having one to me (perhaps this is arrogance) is an opportunity, because I'd bet on my ability to disarm them and take control of the weapon over their ability to actually use it. Which would ultimately give me the advantage over them, without ever having had a weapon of my own. That's my issue, is they become available to people who you didn't intend to originally have them. Such as kids.
Thanks for your great points and I hope I've addressed some of them adequately.
Thanks, always appreciate civil discussion with someone with opposing views!
reply
You and me both. In learning a lot about the other side of the arguement all the time.
Knowledge is power, understanding your views allows me to better understand the whole very complex issue.
Disregarding your view as just wrong without working to understand your individual perspective is just ignorant really.
I can't expect civil debate/discussion without giving it. Respect works both ways, gotta give a little to get a little.
reply
There is no scenario in which a civilian needs military style weaponry.
Do you think is true across in all scenarios, or just in countries with minimally corrupt governments?
As a recent example, public opinion polls show that Ukrainians have become far more in favor of liberalizing gun laws since the war with Russia. I bet the Ukrainians with changing views wish they had more liberal gun laws prior to the invasion.
And in case someone responds with "citizens will never be able to defend themselves against a military," I would point out that terrorist groups with minimal technology in Afghanistan held their own against the US military over a ~15 year invasion. But even more fundamental, not being able to succeed in self defense does not imply one does not have the right to try.
What if the US government continually gets more and more corrupt over the next 50-100 years? Or what if down the road China and Russia team up and we go to war with them? Should we force future generations to be victims of corruption or other bad actors because we want a false sense of safety?
Finally, and this is my last point, since when does necessity govern civil rights? I am not sure a single thing in the bill of rights would be considered a need. Nay, rights are required for the things we do not need.
reply
That's a more complicated situation as Ukraine Vs the US. I was specifically talking about the US. But you bring up a really valid scenario. Ukraine boarders a known threat, the US has no enemies with the capability to cause problems inside the US on land in situations where civilians with assault rifles would be of benefit. Civilians in Ukraine having weapons wouldn't have helped because they remain untrained... NATO let Ukraine down by not sending troops rapidly enough. Trained and qualified personnel will always be of more benefit than some untrained civilian.
Those same terror groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qa'ida, etc etc were trained by the west, funded by the west with the intention of fighting Russia. They did that, then the Russians funded and supplied and trained them to fight us. They aren't civilian militia, they're a funded military with training they're just funded and trained by whoevers interests they currently align with.
As for the corruption of the US is that not what a democracy is supposed to do? Vote it's corruption away? If the corruption in the US gets so bad would it not be of benefit for any force (even Russia/china) to overthrow that govt? Like the US has done in multiple middle eastern countries? Or should the rest of NATO step in and remove the in power US govt and establish a less corrupt one? Surely that aligns with the overthrowing a tyrannical govt that the militia are there for? But also, is that not an invasion of a foreign power, whereby the militia are meant to be fighting in collaboration with the govt against foreign invaders? So which one would be preferable? Attempting to overthrow a tyrannical govt out manned and out gunned by the resources of that govt... Or defending against foreign aggressors who are trying to remove that very same tyrannical govt?
Necessity has always governed civil rights. It is illegal to kill right? That's due to civil necessity and the need to collaborate as a population for the overall betterment of the collective. Without necessity governing civil rights you just have chaotic nonsensical laws with no real place. Like as an example the illegality of recreational drugs, that's not done out of necessity, it's done out of someone's displeasure at someone else's choice.
reply
the US has no enemies with the capability to cause problems inside the US on land in situations where civilians with assault rifles would be of benefit.
Currently.
I fail to see how geography and/or time ought to govern whether something is a human right.
Civilians in Ukraine having weapons wouldn't have helped because they remain untrained... NATO
How can one become trained in a thing without a right to the thing?
Since when is training a requirement for a right?
What does it mean to help? Further, you have no evidence that it wouldn't have helped in some way. I could just as easily say it would have been harder to invade had Ukraine citizens been armed with military grade weapons. Maybe it would have even altered Russia's calculation as to whether an invasion was feasible.
Even if most are untrained, how can you be certain that former members of Ukraine military wouldn't have been able to work with their community to slow down the invasion?
Your entire point about terrorist organizations is ignoring that they had weapons to be trained with. Would the terrorist groups been able to defend themselves as successfully had the only had hand guns?
As for the corruption of the US is that not what a democracy is supposed to do? Vote it's corruption away?
This paragraph has no bearing on my view. I only provided a hypothetical situation in which US citizens might need to protect themselves against a corrupt or foreign government.
It is illegal to kill right? That's due to civil necessity and the need to collaborate as a population for the overall betterment of the collective
Unless I am severely misunderstanding you, this paragraph is mixing individual rights with how to best govern a society. One does not have a need to use recreational drugs. Recreational is in the name. Though I would argue it would be a better governing principle to de-criminalize drugs.
Yes, free speech is the best way to govern a free society. One does not have a need for free speech. Though maybe we mean different things when we say need. When I say need, I mean required to survive (as such, I take your point about murder but only as it is a right to life, not about civil necessity). Under my definition, the only things I need are food, water, shelter. None of which I have a right to beyond the pursuit thereof.
reply
Currently. Cmon the US is THE world superpower, sure Russia and china are external threats but they're not internal threats. I really struggle to see a likely scenario where civilians in the US would need to be armed to fight against a foreign power.
I fail to see how geography and/or time ought to govern whether something is a human right.
And yet they do, in the UAE a women doesn't have a right to many things.
In Europe you don't have a right to guns, so yes geography clearly does dictate what a right is as it depends geographically which "rights" apply to you. That to me tells me it's not a basic human right at all, it's just an ability to have something legally.
How can one become trained in a thing without a right to the thing?
And yet here I am. I live in a place where there's no right to weapons and yet I have training. So it's very possible. That training comes by necessity of the job. There is no necessity on a daily basis for a civilian to own a weapon. Hell even military personnel don't own the military grade weapons. They're not personal issue.
Since when is training a requirement for a right?
This might be the fundamental disagreement, I don't believe it's a right at all. Besides are you saying you don't need training to be able to have something? Yet you need to have trained in a discipline like medicine as an example to conduct surgery on someone you can't just automatically go and do something you don't know what you're doing and claim you have access to it because you believe you should.
What does it mean to help? Further, you have no evidence that it wouldn't have helped in some way. I could just as easily say it would have been harder to invade had Ukraine citizens been armed with military grade weapons. Maybe it would have even altered Russia's calculation as to whether an invasion was feasible.
I doubt it would have made a blind bit of difference in Russia's mindset. But I do understand your point. For example the UK is currently talking about the possibility of conscription should it need to defend itself from Russia. But that wouldn't arm the general populace that would train a larger army to a higher standard than someone without training.
Even if most are untrained, how can you be certain that former members of Ukraine military wouldn't have been able to work with their community to slow down the invasion?
I'm fairly certain former members of the Ukrainian military were asked to re-enlist and did. It is the job of the military to protect their nation under these circumstances. Not the general populace exercising a "right" that can decide to choose violence against an invading aggressor.
Your entire point about terrorist organizations is ignoring that they had weapons to be trained with. Would the terrorist groups been able to defend themselves as successfully had the only had hand guns?
They had weapons to be trained with because we gave them to them. They didn't have the weapons until we armed them and then trained them.
This paragraph has no bearing on my view. I only provided a hypothetical situation in which US citizens might need to protect themselves against a corrupt or foreign government.
What your scenario was/is is justification for a military not for armament of civilians. You've so far only used war time or warfare examples. Because fundamentally there is no reason that a civilian needs a weapon (whether their laws allow them to have one or not) of that grade in their day to day peace time activities.
Unless I am severely misunderstanding you, this paragraph is mixing individual rights with how to best govern a society. One does not have a need to use recreational drugs. Recreational is in the name. Though I would argue it would be a better governing principle to de-criminalize drugs.
I don't know if I'm mixing them up as they're extremely intertwined. One does not have a right to kill a person, if one also has a right to life. Those two things can't exist without infringing upon someone else's right. You're right one does not need to use recreational drugs, but do they not have a right to choose whatever they wish to inhale? It can't be freedom sometimes when it suits and not others. Either you're free to choose how to live your life and own what you want, say what you want, smoke what you want and do what you want with your body (including remove what you don't want in your body) or you don't have freedom. If you're probably gun you'd have to be pro choice, and pro recreational drugs and pro gay. If you believe in freedom claiming you have a right to guns whilst a women doesn't have autonomy over her body then I'd argue you're not pro freedom.
Yes, free speech is the best way to govern a free society. One does not have a need for free speech. Though maybe we mean different things when we say need. When I say need, I mean required to survive (as such, I take your point about murder but only as it is a right to life, not about civil necessity). Under my definition, the only things I need are food, water, shelter. None of which I have a right to beyond the pursuit thereof.
I'm very much aligned with this as I personally do not believe that a "right" actually exists, a set of rules enforced by fear of consequences is the closest thing to rights. But they're not truly a right. The idea that someone has a right to something is just plain false to me especially if that thing can be removed from that person by force. Sure you need food, water and shelter and that's it, but you don't have a right to them, you want them you need to take them... Nowadays the way we take them is transactional and of mutual benefit. But to claim that someone has something that cannot be removed by a more powerful entity tells me that the "right" is a false sense of security. You don't have a right to life if someone can take it. You don't have a right to education if no one will provide it. And you certainly don't have ant kind of freedom of speech when there are laws protecting religious groups and sexuality, gender, etc. if you can be punished lawfully for saying something against a protected group, then you don't have freedom of speech you have things you are allowed and things you are not allowed.
Slight tangent but to wrap it all up.
Thus far all of your points about the necessity for allowing civilians to have weapons of military grades have only really been justifications for military grade weaponry and a military. Not a reason why non military persons not currently engaged in military operations would need tools for that specific job.
You wouldn't use a chainsaw on a piece of paper just because they're both technically wood, you'd use scissors.
Your not in a warzone, you don't need warzone tools.
The problem with almost (as yes there are some restrictions on who can own, some eligibility criteria) almost everyone having access to that chainsaw to cut the paper is that had they only been allowed scissors, then they wouldn't have caused so much damage in schools...
Infact now I think about it by the definition of a right, does the fact that eligibility criteria for guns demonstrate that it isn't a right? If felons can't own, or those deemed cognitively disabled can't own... Then it isn't open to everyone and thus isn't a right. You need background checks to own right? Then you're being told by a different authority whether or not you can own one... So that's not a right, that's an allowance.