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.
reply
We are talking about different things.
E.g.,
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.
I am not talking about actual laws, I am talking about what I view as universal human rights. In other words, I believe all women everywhere have the same human rights, including women in UAE. Obviously the UAE government does not allow them to exercise those rights. I believe the UAE government not allowing women to exercise their rights is a crime against humanity.
Nearly all your other points are also not addressing my arguments (and hence, my comments aren't addressing your arguments). Here is why I think that is the case:
It seems to me that your argument is stemming from the view that governments grant people rights. Of course I could be wrong and maybe you don't hold that view, but I don't see how one could make the comment about UAE without this view. Your last paragraph about something being an allowance further demonstrates this. I am of the view that human rights are universal, and the governments role is to protect them.
Here is a thought experiment:
There is an island populated with 100 people and no government. What rights do the people on the island have?
Now, suppose the people decide they want a government. If you believe people had rights prior to the government, do those rights exist upon creation of the government? If you are of the view that certain rights go away upon creation of the government, I would argue they weren't rights before the government was created.
My answer to the initial question is more or less whatever Nozick laid out as negative rights. That is, we have a right to the freedom of barriers/obstacles. We do not have positive rights. To give an explicit example of my view, I have the right to pursue medical care; I do not have a right to medical care.
Once the government is created, the people have the exact same rights.
How the people decide the government ought to protect those rights is a different discussion.
This is important because the underlying view that generates your comment about UAE implies that humans do not have rights beyond what the government grants them. As such, the 100 humans on the island do not have any rights until the government exists.
reply
I have to concede you've introduced a line of thought I hadn't gone down. But whilst I pull on that thread I come to a barrier at the point of an interpretation of what a right is.
My personal opinion is probably much colder and harsher than most, I don't believe that "rights" exist. I don't believe anyone truly has a right to anything, I only feel there is accepted rules/regulations and there is enforcement. Why do I not kill someone? It's not because I believe they have a right to life, it's due to fear of consequence, I don't want to live with those consequences so I don't perform those actions. To me rights are a false sense of security and or entitlement you hear it all the time "you can't do that it's against my rights" ok, sure, watch me, if that person doesn't have the capacity to prevent me from infringing on their rights then are they rights? Or are they certain expectations in behaviour that can at any moment change. Using the right to life as an example, if it's a basic human right, then how is it ok to shoot and kill someone? In warzones? Or even defending your own property. If your right infringes upon their right, then theyre not basic rights they're rules that get followed most of the time and the rule that gets followed there and then is the one that can be enforced by whoever has the most power over the other.
In the example of the UAE the govt has not removed someone's right, by the definition you're describing they're just preventing them by an abuse of power from being able to exercise this so called right.
In your island situation, which I found very interesting as a thought experiment, without the govt there is no requirement for enforcement of rules. There is just an expectation that a small collective of people will behave in a manner in which they wish to be treated. I'd suggest they weren't not killing each other because of any perceived rights but instead out of either a fear of consequence of getting killed or exiled by the rest of the community. In that situation the collective needs each other to survive. They're not agreeing rights they're agreeing behaviours that gives them all the best chance at survival.
Just to attempt to articulate my point on rights not being something I believe to be real, I'm going to use the term entitled instead of rights. let's roll back to guns again and even yes use healthcare like you mentioned, instead of claiming to have a right to healthcare, you are entitled to access, but there is a caveat... And that caveat is that you meet acceptance criteria. In the case of healthcare one of the criteria is that you can pay for the care. That's not a right if there's a barrier to entry.
So I guess what I'm getting at is no, you aren't entitled to own a gun or have a right to own one. There are barriers to access already in place, what I'm saying is those barriers should be tightened and bring in a level of necessity. Nobody that is not engaged directly in military conflict, needs military tools. It's a risk to reward weigh up, the risk of the wrong people using those weapons outweighs the reward of anyone having access to it.
Just to elaborate a touch, the risk to the lives of multitudes of children and adults because that weapon came into the wrong hands, far outweighs the reward of one person being able to take down one aggressor to defend themselves, their family and their property. It's a simple numbers game. Let's say average family is 4 people, the wrong person decides to start shooting at you and they get you and yours. 4 deaths. Or you get to them first 1 death. Your access to that weapon had a potential for up to 5 deaths (including yourself or the aggressor, situation dependant). Now looking at that same weapon in the hands of an unstable person in a school, 40+ easily. The maths doesn't check out. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the many need to be alive over the fews want to own a gun.
reply