Guns, Guns Everywhere

[Patroklos]

I could say the same thing about speech or voting. Many tyrants have.

The statement is being made by a democratic government elected by popular vote with freedom of assembly and speech that is concerned with the welfare of it's citizens. Your point is void.

Spoken like a true tyrant. Also one that lacks a chain of logic at all relevant to the statemet I made.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

You have missed a key lesson of history.

The first thing we notice is that when democracies are overthrown by tyrants, the tyrants must use organized violence. The Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, and so on must be not only armed, but organized and loyal to a single leader.

So the danger is not that the state might lose its monopoly on violence. The danger comes if the state loses its monopoly on paramilitary organization.

It's irrelevant whether individuals have the power to commit violence. That power is literally inalienable because you cannot take it away from human beings except by putting them in straitjackets. What matters is whether people have the power to create their own armies, armies that might conceivably be capable of overpowering the rest of the citizens and forcing them into obedience.

Stop people from making their own armies, and you no longer have to worry about a tyrant overthrowing the democratic process by force, even if every single citizen is still armed to the teeth with deadly weapons.

The term 'monopoly on violence' already covers everything you wrote, and according to Max Weber's Politics as a Vocation this monopoly is a fundamental aspect of the state. It's a well understood term in sociology, and frankly? Explaining it is kinda embarassing. Saying that the other party is the one that's lacking in lessons is ludicrous in such cases.

Spoken like a true tyrant. Also one that lacks a chain of logic at all relevant to the statemet I made.

I see Americans love not getting cultural differences. Gun ownership is not a constitutionally defined right in European states, so equivocating between guns and voting is stupid. The political culture, historical circumstances and legal code necessary for your comparison are not there.

[Patroklos]

The rights involved are irrelevant, my point stands regardless if which ones you substitute in.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

[quote="Purple"]A better question would be to think about the society that makes you need to defend your self. A functional society is one where you are not supposed to ever come into such a situation in the first place. Where I am from, the very notion that one might feel the need to provide for his own defense against criminals is while not unimaginable well into the "doomsday cook" category.[/lquote]


Its not just criminals, a lot of the U.S. is rural, really rural, like back of beyond, animal attacks are a thing out in the boondocks. I knew kids who had a two hour bus ride to school. The nearest fire department is about a mile and a half from the school, but the nearest police are the PA State Troopers, and they're based out of the county seat, ten miles of windy country roads farther in. Anything happens out there, and you could be on your own for an hour or more before emergency services get to you. With this in mind, you might want to be prepared. Now I, personally, think that a Rottweiler would be a far better choice for home defense, weather from wild animals or criminals, than a gun, but I can see why someone might want a firearm handy.

[Jub]

The rights involved are irrelevant, my point stands regardless if which ones you substitute in.

Are Canadians any more or less free than Americans because we lack something akin to the second amendment? Nope, if anything we're freer. How much has the second amendment helped with the loss of freedom and privacy post 9/11? It hasn't.

The fact of the matter is that owning guns does nothing to stop the sort of tyranny that modern governments are capable of. Your gun doesn't stop your neighbor from being swayed by a political talking head, nor does it prevent lobbyists from getting in a politician's ear, and it sure as hell doesn't make your vote count for more. Plus, any revolution will have to have the help of some military units anyway, so how much help do you think your handgun or hunting rifle will be to any revolution?

Does owning more guns make you safer? Nope, not according to most metrics. The US is still pretty bad violent crime wise compared to other nations with the same population density.

So really, what does the right to bear arms actually do for you?

Its not just criminals, a lot of the U.S. is rural, really rural, like back of beyond, animal attacks are a thing out in the boondocks. I knew kids who had a two hour bus ride to school. The nearest fire department is about a mile and a half from the school, but the nearest police are the PA State Troopers, and they're based out of the county seat, ten miles of windy country roads farther in. Anything happens out there, and you could be on your own for an hour or more before emergency services get to you. With this in mind, you might want to be prepared. Now I, personally, think that a Rottweiler would be a far better choice for home defense, weather from wild animals or criminals, than a gun, but I can see why someone might want a firearm handy.

Does the same not apply to Canada with our, generally, stricter stance on gun ownership? Are rural Canadians less safe due to our gun laws?

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Does the same not apply to Canada with our, generally, stricter stance on gun ownership? Are rural Canadians less safe due to our gun laws?

I don't know, are they? At a guess, I'd say probably not, but I don't think the hunting rifles and shotguns that often get used in these situations are that heavily regulated in Canada, either, though I could be wrong on that. Also, its my understanding that Canada has less crime in general due to having a better social safety net.

I'm not a big gun nut, nor am I a heavy gun control guy, I actually think both sides get more wrong than they get right, and that the whole debate just distracts from bigger problems. There are three things that, together, would do more to stem violence and crime in the U.S. than the strictest gun laws in the world would.

1) End the War on Drugs.

2) Improve access to mental health care.

3) Enact aggressive anti-poverty measures.

Unfortunately, these three sensible actions would cost money and any politician who proposed them would be smeared as a soft-on-crime, tax-loving, socialist-commie-Nazi, so we're stuck with the puddle of shit.

[Jub]

Does the same not apply to Canada with our, generally, stricter stance on gun ownership? Are rural Canadians less safe due to our gun laws?

I don't know, are they? At a guess, I'd say probably not, but I don't think the hunting rifles and shotguns that often get used in these situations are that heavily regulated in Canada, either, though I could be wrong on that. Also, its my understanding that Canada has less crime in general due to having a better social safety net.

I'm not a big gun nut, nor am I a heavy gun control guy, I actually think both sides get more wrong than they get right, and that the whole debate just distracts from bigger problems. There are three things that, together, would do more to stem violence and crime in the U.S. than the strictest gun laws in the world would.

1) End the War on Drugs.

2) Improve access to mental health care.

3) Enact aggressive anti-poverty measures.

Unfortunately, these three sensible actions would cost money and any politician who proposed them would be smeared as a soft-on-crime, tax-loving, socialist-commie-Nazi, so we're stuck with the puddle of shit.

Exactly, guns don't make you any freer or any less likely to be a victim of crime. Social policies do.

What guns might do, the data is kind of hard to draw conclusions from, is make certain crimes and violent events deadlier. It's why I tend to be against the proliferation of weapons.

[Purple]

Its not just criminals, a lot of the U.S. is rural, really rural, like back of beyond, animal attacks are a thing out in the boondocks. I knew kids who had a two hour bus ride to school. The nearest fire department is about a mile and a half from the school, but the nearest police are the PA State Troopers, and they're based out of the county seat, ten miles of windy country roads farther in. Anything happens out there, and you could be on your own for an hour or more before emergency services get to you. With this in mind, you might want to be prepared. Now I, personally, think that a Rottweiler would be a far better choice for home defense, weather from wild animals or criminals, than a gun, but I can see why someone might want a firearm handy.

That is exactly why I mentioned criminals. What you describe is the part that makes sense. What people walking down a street and into a shopping mall with a rifle out of fear do doesn't.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The rights involved are irrelevant, my point stands regardless if which ones you substitute in.

Except that they have to be legally defined rights, which in Europe they aren't. Thanks for lack of comprehension, I guess?

[Simon_Jester]

...So the danger is not that the state might lose its monopoly on violence. The danger comes if the state loses its monopoly on paramilitary organization...

Stop people from making their own armies, and you no longer have to worry about a tyrant overthrowing the democratic process by force, even if every single citizen is still armed to the teeth with deadly weapons.

The term 'monopoly on violence' already covers everything you wrote, and according to Max Weber's Politics as a Vocation this monopoly is a fundamental aspect of the state. It's a well understood term in sociology, and frankly? Explaining it is kinda embarassing. Saying that the other party is the one that's lacking in lessons is ludicrous in such cases.

I have to be misunderstanding you. Here is what it looks to me like we're saying- paraphrased, but accurate as far as I can tell.

Simon: "Scorpion, you missed a key lesson of history. Look at what actually happens when a dictator overthrows a democracy. They do it with a paramilitary Party organization: Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, something like that. The state doesn't need a monopoly on all violence to stop that. They only need a monopoly on organized violence."

Trainwreck: "Simon, you ignoramus, by definition the state must have a monopoly on all violence. Weber says so!"

Which is pretty much what you communicated. And I know that. Thing is, I still disagree. I think that doesn't sound like much of an argument, though. It doesn't really refute the claim "the state only needs a monopoly on organized violence to prevent tyranny, not all violence." Not unless you want to break out an appeal to authority in the form of the great sociologist Weber.

So let's take a look at Weber's authority- examining the political opinions of such a man toward the end of his life, having just lived through World War One in Germany, interests me.

Basically, Weber seems to be saying that the legitimate use of force can be delegated by the state (how he combines self-defense with the concept of the monopoly). Hm.

Thinking about it, as a descriptive principle of sociology this works. It makes little difference to a sociologist whether the state authorizes individuals to use violence in self-defense, or whether the people have this right in and of themselves regardless of state permission.

But it does make a difference in political philosophy. And that's the level I'm operating on right now. I'm not just talking about description but about prescription. And about how, philosophically, we interpret a law that says "people may defend themselves."

Does that mean people are permitted to use violence to defend themselves on sufferance by the state?

Or does that mean there is an intrinsic right that the state cannot justly take away?

If self-defense is a privilege, obviously it's subject to revocation whenever the state sees fit.

On the other hand, even an intrinsic right can be regulated as to the details, to protect the rights of others. But it does make a difference whether there is an underlying right, in the sense of "human rights" or "civil rights."

My position is that self-defense is an intrinsic human right, a logical corollary of that thing we call "citizenship." If you don't have the right to self-defense, you are not a full participant in your society- you are being treated as a child, or a serf, or some other sort of legally inferior being. Which I consider to be an intolerable position for a government to take.

Purple seems to say "obviously, self defense is a state-granted privilege," with a side order of "I don't think there's any such thing as an intrinsic right." I'm not sure I can sum up the views of anyone else in the debate except maybe Jub, who's saying pretty much the same thing, only with a smaller side order.

I see Americans love not getting cultural differences.

First off, will you please put away the anti-American stereotypes? They're offensive. And inaccurate. No, I do NOT "love not getting cultural differences," I resent the accusation, and it's a damn lie.

I would never routinely, casually insult you for being a European. Especially not as this kind of off-topic aside, an attempt to degrade and ignore someone's opinion before even starting to speak about it.

Is it that hard for you to believe that I might hold a political philosophy different from yours? That I might actually have sensible reasons for disagreeing with you? That I might be aware that your country has a different set of customs than mine? That we both have a right to present political philosophies that are informed by our own culture and national experience? That yours might not just automatically 'outrank' mine by virtue of being from the correct side of the Atlantic?

That we might actually want to have a conversation about this, rather than just chuckling condescendingly at those crazy Americans?

Gun ownership is not a constitutionally defined right in European states, so equivocating between guns and voting is stupid. The political culture, historical circumstances and legal code necessary for your comparison are not there.

Voting is not a constitutionally defined right in North Korea. Does that mean claiming North Korean people have a right to vote (which is not being granted) is stupid?

Arguments about whether something is a right have nothing to do with whether that right is legally recognized in a particular country. We here on this forum routinely advocate rights that exist in very few places in the entire world.

---

I newer said that the police has to be armed though. What we are talking about is a monopoly on violence. The term only means that fundamentally the state is the only one with the legal right to use violence to enforce things. A state can achieve this by using no violence at all just as long as the population does not use it either.

Again, my operating point here is that I don't think the state's monopoly on violence should be treated as an absolute, philosophically speaking.

I think that one of the state's purposes is to exert a monopoly on organized violence, because no one person can stand against an army. So we need an army to protect ourselves, but it is best to have only one such army per place, to avoid getting caught in the middle. So far, so good.

But this monopoly on organized violence, on systematic, disciplined bodies that use territory to exert control over territory (armies, navies)... That is there specifically to ensure that no one else uses organized violence to terrorize the people.

The state is also authorized to enforce various laws, which justifies extending its monopoly on organized violence- so it creates an organized, sometimes-violent police force. One that can enforce laws.

But nowhere in this list of justifications for state power and control of the use of violence do we encounter a justification for saying that the state should get to choose whether or not you are allowed to defend yourself with force, when attacked with force. Giving the state that power serves little or no useful purpose.

You're missing the point.

By fixating on the word "trust" you miss the point of the exercise here: a healthy, free society must empower all or nearly all its people as full citizens, making only limited and highly specific exceptions.

But why? That simply does not sound logical at all. A healthy free society must seek to better the life of its citizens and not pursue freedom for freedoms sake. And freedoms should be regulated to optimize this. That's why we regulate things like who gets to drive, how old you have to be to drink etc.

Do you not understand that there's a difference between "fundamental rights of citizenship" and "right to do whatever we want?"

Being a citizen does not give you a right to drive a car as such. It does not give you a right to practice medicine or law. It does not give you a right to hunt fish or deer (because there aren't enough fish and deer to go around; we have to enact rationing). It does not give you a right to walk into secure military installations.

There are all sorts of things a citizen isn't allowed to do, or needs a permit to do, while still being a citizen.

But there is also a short list of things a citizen must be allowed to do, in order to not be a slave or some kind of legally inferior person.

A citizen must be able to participate in their nation's political processes. They must be free to associate with friends and neighbors of their choosing. Related to that, they must be free to speak with people of their choosing, without fear of being arrested or punished purely because their thoughts and ideas are disagreeable to the state.* They must be free to make significant changes in their own lives without state permission.*

I could list a few more such basic rights or categories of rights, but it'd just be tedious.

My argument is that this class of "fundamental rights of citizenship" exist... and that the right to use violence in self-defense is one of those rights. Such that if you don't have it, you are not really a full citizen of your polity. You're a sort of pet, to be protected if possible- and declawed at the convenience of the system to stop you from tearing up the curtains.
________________________

*Maybe with specific exceptions, but in general free to do this.

But it's foolish to assert that there is no such thing as 'trust' extended by the state to an elite. We can easily point to a lot of societies that were fiercely stratified between a respected/trusted/free minority and a despised/enslaved/carefully monitored mass.

The only trust that exists is that toward the means of legal coercion. As in I trust my government to step down if I vote them down and they trust me to obey the laws they make.

I don't really agree with your rhetoric as I feel that you are basically justifying the use of a word where it does not belong through long winded explanations that make little sense.

Okay, let me try and get past your fixation another way. Forget I said "trust." I can make my entire argument over without using it:

Most societies in history have had a privileged class. You can look up "privileged" yourself.

My first point is that it is bad for a society to have a privileged oligarchy, aristocratic class, elite caste, whatever you want to call it.

Having such an elite is corrosive to society. It results in the exploitation and suffering of many people. It short-circuits social change and innovation, because the privileged elite tend to reject changes that might threaten their position.

And my second point is that to avoid having a privileged elite of 'real citizens' ruling over a mass of helots, we need to take precautions. We need to make sure the typical member of society has a basic core of rights that cannot be taken away by shifts in state policy, or by the whims of the powerful.

My third and final point is that self-defense, specifically, is such a right. One of the minimum necessary rights to distinguish between a citizen and a peasant.

Rights. Either all rights are inalienable and you can't ever compromise or it's immediately a Stalinist dictatorship. That's the kind of rhetoric that I keep hearing.

Well, then what I just said should clear it up. Some rights are inalienable; they can be regulated in their details but they have to exist. Other rights are... not inalienable.

The "American" (which is not shared by all Americans) view is that the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. It has a monopoly on force that is not for self defence against an imminent threat. You have a right to life. You have a right to defend your life. You have a right to the tools necessary to effectively defend your life. If you cannot have the tools necessary to effectively defend your life, then do you really have the first (a right to life)? Or do you merely have a life until someone decides to take it from you? Are you just a serf?

A better question would be to think about the society that makes you need to defend your self. A functional society is one where you are not supposed to ever come into such a situation in the first place. Where I am from, the very notion that one might feel the need to provide for his own defense against criminals is while not unimaginable well into the "doomsday cook" category.

The odds of your needing the means to defend yourself against a criminal, an insane person, or a wild animal... Are these odds that much lower than the odds that your personal vote will decide the outcome of an election?

There's a difference between saying "you have a right to participate in X" and "we deem it likely that your participation in X will be of vital importance today."

---

Exactly, guns don't make you any freer or any less likely to be a victim of crime. Social policies do.

I could equally well argue that barring guns doesn't make you less likely to be a victim of a crime either- social policies do.

So there's not much basis for simply removing the idea that citizens have a right to have some reasonably practical means of defending their own lives.

What guns might do, the data is kind of hard to draw conclusions from, is make certain crimes and violent events deadlier. It's why I tend to be against the proliferation of weapons.

And for acts of political treachery and mass confiscation from the law-abiding, as I recall.

[Scorpion]

You have missed a key lesson of history.

The first thing we notice is that when democracies are overthrown by tyrants, the tyrants must use organized violence. The Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, and so on must be not only armed, but organized and loyal to a single leader.

So the danger is not that the state might lose its monopoly on violence. The danger comes if the state loses its monopoly on paramilitary organization.

It's irrelevant whether individuals have the power to commit violence. That power is literally inalienable because you cannot take it away from human beings except by putting them in straitjackets. What matters is whether people have the power to create their own armies, armies that might conceivably be capable of overpowering the rest of the citizens and forcing them into obedience.

Stop people from making their own armies, and you no longer have to worry about a tyrant overthrowing the democratic process by force, even if every single citizen is still armed to the teeth with deadly weapons.

"Monopoly of violence by the State" doesn't mean nobody else can use violence, that's just simply ludicrous! It means nobody else can use violence without sanction, that it is not an acceptable means of conflict resolution and it is held in exclusive by state agencies as a last resort to deal with persons that do use it to resolve conflicts.

But let's say you're right. The state prevents people from forming militias and legions and whatnot, but you can solve a dispute by shooting it out. You don't have Fascist Italy, but now you have 90's Somalia!

The European attitude is more like "guns are dangerous, so you have to prove you are responsible enough to have them".

And my counter is that you are essentially saying to me "Prove you are worthy to be more than a (prosperous) serf. Prove that you are one of the trustworthy elite, who can be trusted to control themselves. Prove that you are NOT part of the useless, irrelevant mass of the lumpenproletariat who need to be controlled."

Which I might reasonably find to be an unhealthy attitude for a government to take- more on that below.

First off, what's with the American obsession with medieval metaphors? That wasn't even a thing in your country's history!
That and the "Gub'mint gun take muh free-doms" attitude. A Government's ONLY pourpose it's to ensure it's citizens' well being. That means that when there's something that could harm the public welfare, the Government must make sure that the people handling it know what they're doing and are adequately equipped to do it. That's why there are laws and regulations. If I don't know traffic regulations, I may cause a 50-car pile-up. If I don't have the right equipment to deal with hazardous chemicals, I may cause a toxic spill. If I don't know gun safety procedures, I may shoot myself or others when I'm cleaning my gun!

So yeah, that's what the state says, minus the air of condescending arrogance you bestow upon it to validate the American fantasy of the heroic citizen-warrior keeping the EVUL GUB'MINT at bay. The difference is that while I see it as the actions of a democratic and responsible state, you see it as perfidious machinations of those who would instantly declare SOVIET AMERIKHASTAN if only you didn't have that Colt 1911 under your pillow. But guess what? The US government does that as well, not matter how much guns you stock up in your basement.

P.S.: I know that may not be what you believe, but that is what I get from the general right-wing fundie gun-nut zeitgeist, and that last part was more of a reply to that than you specifically.

That's where I feel all the arguments which boil down to "Oh, you don't trust me. Is that it?" come from. Arguments which I find to be illogical simply because the obvious answer is: "Of course not! Governments are not children on the playground and should not operate on the principal of optimistic unconditional trust."

Okay. From this, I would tend to conclude that governments must say "Real citizenship belongs only to the minority we trust. Those are the people we really think are qualified to participate in setting the tone of our society, who have the right to be respected and entrusted with important personal decisions. Everybody else is a second-class 'citizen,' with rights extended to them only because we're being polite about it, and they have little or no standing to make their own decisions."

But this model of citizenship is at odds with the preferences of most of the Western world for universal rights, and for the idea of legal equality among legal adults.

You do realize that's what all governments do, right? Only citizens that the state finds trustworthy (the ones that follow the law) are granted full rights, while those who don't (criminals) have restricted rights, mainly the right to freedom of movement and assembly. In the US, it's even worst tahn most countries, as ex-convicts (IIRC) loose the right to vote!

[Jub]

Exactly, guns don't make you any freer or any less likely to be a victim of crime. Social policies do.

I could equally well argue that barring guns doesn't make you less likely to be a victim of a crime either- social policies do.

So there's not much basis for simply removing the idea that citizens have a right to have some reasonably practical means of defending their own lives.

What guns might do, the data is kind of hard to draw conclusions from, is make certain crimes and violent events deadlier. It's why I tend to be against the proliferation of weapons.

And for acts of political treachery and mass confiscation from the law-abiding, as I recall.

I'm reluctant to do this again, but Britain, a nation with similar population density and wealth distribution but fewer guns, has less deaths due to violent crime. I think this might have something to do with less people being armed. However, I also know that a program to disarm America would go about as well as the war on drugs has. In the end, I think the best bet for the US is tighter weapons laws, maybe a slow creeping effort to get handguns out of major cities, combined with a ramping up of social safety nets.

I don't see ownership of weapons as a right, just like the ability to drive a car isn't a right. I find it funny that Americans seem to view freedom to be armed as more important than freedom to drive.

[Scorpion]

I could say the same thing about speech or voting. Many tyrants have.

The statement is being made by a democratic government elected by popular vote with freedom of assembly and speech that is concerned with the welfare of it's citizens. Your point is void.

Spoken like a true tyrant. Also one that lacks a chain of logic at all relevant to the statemet I made.

Your statement is as void and sterile as an infertile jellyfish. I can do the same thing, wanna see?
"I could say the same thing about mosquitos. Many baristas have."
"I could say the same thing about ball bearings. Many Nascar drivers have."
"I could say the same thing about lolipops. Many pedophiles have."
So person Y says that X is equivalent to Z. Great. Now explain to me why does that matter.

But since you very clearly fail at logic, let me explain you very clearly and succinctly why your "argument" sucks:
A basic premise of my argument is that the state we're dealing with is a democratic one. Therefore, if the state is no longer democratic, my argument no longer applies, making your objection as irrelevant as objecting to aerodynamics because it doesn't work in a vacuum.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I have to be misunderstanding you. Here is what it looks to me like we're saying- paraphrased, but accurate as far as I can tell.

Simon: "Scorpion, you missed a key lesson of history. Look at what actually happens when a dictator overthrows a democracy. They do it with a paramilitary Party organization: Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, something like that. The state doesn't need a monopoly on all violence to stop that. They only need a monopoly on organized violence."

Trainwreck: "Simon, you ignoramus, by definition the state must have a monopoly on all violence. Weber says so!"

Which is pretty much what you communicated. And I know that. Thing is, I still disagree. I think that doesn't sound like much of an argument, though. It doesn't really refute the claim "the state only needs a monopoly on organized violence to prevent tyranny, not all violence." Not unless you want to break out an appeal to authority in the form of the great sociologist Weber.

So let's take a look at Weber's authority- examining the political opinions of such a man toward the end of his life, having just lived through World War One in Germany, interests me.

Basically, Weber seems to be saying that the legitimate use of force can be delegated by the state (how he combines self-defense with the concept of the monopoly). Hm.

Thinking about it, as a descriptive principle of sociology this works. It makes little difference to a sociologist whether the state authorizes individuals to use violence in self-defense, or whether the people have this right in and of themselves regardless of state permission.

I'm wrong if I communicated that, sure. My objection was more like this: I saw Scorpion using a rather well defined term, then I saw you being somewhat... erm, anal about it. It's not a hard term to grasp, and all that you said could be covered and clarified by a short time on Google, so I guessed you didn't know that 'monopoly on violence' is a thing.

And I reject the idea that I'm committing a logical fallacy there. Given that 'monopoly on violence' is a sociological term that was introduced by Max Weber (or, at the very least, is a shorthand for the point he makes in his writings), how is it fallacious to refer to him when discussing it?

But it does make a difference in political philosophy. And that's the level I'm operating on right now. I'm not just talking about description but about prescription. And about how, philosophically, we interpret a law that says "people may defend themselves."

Does that mean people are permitted to use violence to defend themselves on sufferance by the state?

Or does that mean there is an intrinsic right that the state cannot justly take away?

If self-defense is a privilege, obviously it's subject to revocation whenever the state sees fit.

On the other hand, even an intrinsic right can be regulated as to the details, to protect the rights of others. But it does make a difference whether there is an underlying right, in the sense of "human rights" or "civil rights."

My position is that self-defense is an intrinsic human right, a logical corollary of that thing we call "citizenship." If you don't have the right to self-defense, you are not a full participant in your society- you are being treated as a child, or a serf, or some other sort of legally inferior being. Which I consider to be an intolerable position for a government to take.

Purple seems to say "obviously, self defense is a state-granted privilege," with a side order of "I don't think there's any such thing as an intrinsic right." I'm not sure I can sum up the views of anyone else in the debate except maybe Jub, who's saying pretty much the same thing, only with a smaller side order.

I'm certain I argee with you more than I agree with Purple or Jub on the matter (strictly speaking, it's true that any right is only granted at the sufferance on the state, but that's a stupidly legalistic position). But I wouldn't tie the right of self defense to citizenship at all; if it an intrinsic human right, it applies to all regardless of being a citizen, a child or a serf. And that's my position.

First off, will you please put away the anti-American stereotypes? They're offensive. And inaccurate. No, I do NOT "love not getting cultural differences," I resent the accusation, and it's a damn lie.

I would never routinely, casually insult you for being a European. Especially not as this kind of off-topic aside, an attempt to degrade and ignore someone's opinion before even starting to speak about it.

Is it that hard for you to believe that I might hold a political philosophy different from yours? That I might actually have sensible reasons for disagreeing with you? That I might be aware that your country has a different set of customs than mine? That we both have a right to present political philosophies that are informed by our own culture and national experience? That yours might not just automatically 'outrank' mine by virtue of being from the correct side of the Atlantic?

That we might actually want to have a conversation about this, rather than just chuckling condescendingly at those crazy Americans?

This is my just reward for getting involved in a gun debate, right?

I didn't refer to you at all. It was a response to Patroklos, and I regret not making separate posts. But, you know, Patroklos went and confirmed it. Calling someone a tyrant because he has a different position than you, without bothering to think whether he simply does it because he is informed by his own culture and national experience, fits the 'ignorant American' thing to a T. What happened to one culture not outranking another just because it's from the correct side of the ocean?

That said, I apologize for offending you.

Voting is not a constitutionally defined right in North Korea. Does that mean claiming North Korean people have a right to vote (which is not being granted) is stupid?

Arguments about whether something is a right have nothing to do with whether that right is legally recognized in a particular country. We here on this forum routinely advocate rights that exist in very few places in the entire world.

As I said above, legalism is stupid. But this comparison between Europe and North Korea, even if just to make a point, is extremely problematic. North Korea is so more opressive than any European nation, it's just out of proportion however you cut it.

[Beowulf]

First off, what's with the American obsession with medieval metaphors? That wasn't even a thing in your country's history!

Would you prefer the term slave? Just because it wasn't in our country's territory, doesn't mean that it's not part of our shared Western based history.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm wrong if I communicated that, sure. My objection was more like this: I saw Scorpion using a rather well defined term, then I saw you being somewhat... erm, anal about it. It's not a hard term to grasp, and all that you said could be covered and clarified by a short time on Google, so I guessed you didn't know that 'monopoly on violence' is a thing.

And I reject the idea that I'm committing a logical fallacy there. Given that 'monopoly on violence' is a sociological term that was introduced by Max Weber (or, at the very least, is a shorthand for the point he makes in his writings), how is it fallacious to refer to him when discussing it?

Hm. Back up a sec.

Let me explain something. I accept the 'appeal to authority' to an extent- that extent being, I look at the authority's actual views and see what I think of them. I mean, it's perfectly normal to say "Einstein said time dilation happens" without oneself being able to prove time dilation. That's really just a form of saying "look, if you want to have this conversation, first check up with the people who first outlined how the argument goes, then we can talk when we're on the same page."

"Appeal to authority" was a bad choice of words because that exact phrasing is often used to indicate that someone thinks you're reasoning poorly. But it's perfectly logical to appeal to a great sociologist's thinking to explain an opinion about sociologists. I don't criticize you for doing that.

My point is simply that I disagree with Weber.

Or, rather, I think his model of 'monopoly on violence' is satisfactory in the context of sociology, where we are trying to describe a wide range of different societies. I just don't think it's satisfactory for talking about the powers and role of the state in political philosophy.

That's really just because sociology is descriptive and political philosophy is prescriptive. And the 'monopoly on violence' as Weber understands it certainly describes most real-life states. But I do not think it's satisfactory as a prescriptive value for how a state ought to be governed.

I think the idea of a fundamental right to self-defense, one that doesn't exist on state sufferance, is a more satisfactory state of affairs.

...My position is that self-defense is an intrinsic human right, a logical corollary of that thing we call "citizenship." If you don't have the right to self-defense, you are not a full participant in your society- you are being treated as a child, or a serf, or some other sort of legally inferior being. Which I consider to be an intolerable position for a government to take.

Purple seems to say "obviously, self defense is a state-granted privilege," with a side order of "I don't think there's any such thing as an intrinsic right." I'm not sure I can sum up the views of anyone else in the debate except maybe Jub, who's saying pretty much the same thing, only with a smaller side order.

I'm certain I argee with you more than I agree with Purple or Jub on the matter (strictly speaking, it's true that any right is only granted at the sufferance on the state, but that's a stupidly legalistic position). But I wouldn't tie the right of self defense to citizenship at all; if it an intrinsic human right, it applies to all regardless of being a citizen, a child or a serf. And that's my position.

Well, empirically, if a legal class of serfs exists they usually don't have the right to defend themselves, or at least not against the aristocrats. In extreme cases, they simply have no legally recognized right to be alive at all, if someone from the privileged class chooses to take that life away.

As a schoolteacher I'll tell you that children's right to self-defense has to be handled very carefully. Children are almost totally unable to make a mature decision about whether they're being threatened or not. Any given fight a child gets into is far more likely to be a case where they 'had to' respond to some perceived slight, than it is to be an actual threat to their person.

This is why schools tend to indiscriminately punish both students in a fight- because so damn many fights on school grounds involved both children actively courting a fight in one way or another. Even if one of them swung the first punch, the other child was heavily involved in escalating the situation to where a punch would be thrown.

So while children have a right to self-defense in extremis, they simply cannot be assumed to have anything like an unlimited right to it... because they are generally unable to tell when they actually are in danger they need to defend themselves against. Much as children cannot be assumed to have the ability to enter contracts in an adult fashion.
_________________________

But all that aside, my basic point is that as a fundamental human right, self-defense is one of those things we cannot allow the state to deny people on any systematic basis. An individual might be denied access to effective means of self-defense, purely because he personally poses too much threat to others. But we can't just block out such access from all of society, because it's not realistic to expect that to work as intended- we can't disarm the criminals faster than we disarm the lawful people. So we are effectively taking the great mass of the citizenry and saying "you no longer have access to the means of self-defense."

This is my just reward for getting involved in a gun debate, right?

I didn't refer to you at all. It was a response to Patroklos, and I regret not making separate posts. But, you know, Patroklos went and confirmed it. Calling someone a tyrant because he has a different position than you, without bothering to think whether he simply does it because he is informed by his own culture and national experience, fits the 'ignorant American' thing to a T. What happened to one culture not outranking another just because it's from the correct side of the ocean?

That said, I apologize for offending you.

Since you talked about what 'Americans' do, not what Patroklos does personally, you got exactly what you deserved.

But seriously, you can insult Patroklos all day long and I won't stand in your way. I don't much care for him- I just don't like hearing my nationality insulted just because some other damn fool is living up to a national stereotype... or appearing to do so.

Voting is not a constitutionally defined right in North Korea. Does that mean claiming North Korean people have a right to vote (which is not being granted) is stupid?

Arguments about whether something is a right have nothing to do with whether that right is legally recognized in a particular country. We here on this forum routinely advocate rights that exist in very few places in the entire world.

As I said above, legalism is stupid. But this comparison between Europe and North Korea, even if just to make a point, is extremely problematic. North Korea is so more opressive than any European nation, it's just out of proportion however you cut it.

It's not an analogy, it's an illustration. Let me give you another example:

"Dad, I want to go to the drunken party!"

"No."

"But everyone else is doing it!"

"If everyone else were jumping off a cliff, would you do that too?"

Now, here it is obviously not appropriate to compare "drunken party" to "jumping off a cliff" directly. But that's not the point of the comparison. The point is to take the question to the extreme limiting case, something that is so obvious and simple that we don't need to think about it.
_________________________

In this case, my point is that we can be talking about:
1) Whether something is a right people ought to have, and
2) Whether this 'right' is legally recognized in this or that country.

And my point is that (1) and (2) are totally unrelated. We routinely have arguments in here saying that X should be a right when it was practically unheard of to even consider X a right until recent times.

[By the way, I originally used 'China' in my example, but did some research and realized China actually does have elections, even though the system is gamed so that nobody but the Communist Party's chosen men can make it into the upper echelons of the national government. Cool. You learn something every day.]

---

"Monopoly of violence by the State" doesn't mean nobody else can use violence, that's just simply ludicrous! It means nobody else can use violence without sanction, that it is not an acceptable means of conflict resolution and it is held in exclusive by state agencies as a last resort to deal with persons that do use it to resolve conflicts.

I cleared this up later talking to Dr. Trainwreck.

My argument is basically this: the state's role is to enforce the laws (which bars most disorganized violence) and to categorically block anyone from forming a paramilitary body to use organized violence against the citizens.

The class of violence that is left is self-defense. Looking at this as a sociologist, Weber (and everyone who's copypasting him) seems to say that the legitimacy of self-defense flows downward; it is a power that the state grants to the people, as a form of delegation.

Personally, I think I disagree. I think that self-defense is a fundamental right that does not need to be granted by anyone.

This is why Patroklos keeps making an analogy to voting. The state does not decide to permit you to vote, it doesn't get to choose if you are worthy of being trusted with that power- you vote because it is your right, and that right is only taken away in unusual circumstances, carefully defined in the law code.

And likewise, the argument goes, self-defense is not something that flows from a preexisting state monopoly. The state doesn't get to decide whether you have a right to defend yourself. It has jurisdiction to ensure that any violence you commit actually IS self-defense. But they don't have grounds to say you're not allowed to practice self-defense.

The state can and should assert its monopoly power to control or prevent all other forms of violence. But self-defense is different precisely because it's part of citizenship.

But let's say you're right. The state prevents people from forming militias and legions and whatnot, but you can solve a dispute by shooting it out. You don't have Fascist Italy, but now you have 90's Somalia!

The state rightly has jurisdiction to punish people for using violence to settle a personal quarrel- which is obviously not self-defense.

The European attitude is more like "guns are dangerous, so you have to prove you are responsible enough to have them".

And my counter is that you are essentially saying to me "Prove you are worthy to be more than a (prosperous) serf. Prove that you are one of the trustworthy elite, who can be trusted to control themselves. Prove that you are NOT part of the useless, irrelevant mass of the lumpenproletariat who need to be controlled."

Which I might reasonably find to be an unhealthy attitude for a government to take- more on that below.

First off, what's with the American obsession with medieval metaphors? That wasn't even a thing in your country's history!

Americans fall into two categories: those whose demographic were second-class citizens and those who weren't.

The people who were second-class citizens don't want to repeat the experience and bitterly resent attempts to reduce them in standing. The people who weren't take a certain pride in their identity as, well, not being second-class citizens. Thus, "serf" and "peasant" are routinely used as terms for a kind of status Americans never want to be reduced to, and are very conscious we don't want to be reduced to.

That and the "Gub'mint gun take muh free-doms" attitude. A Government's ONLY pourpose it's to ensure it's citizens' well being. That means that when there's something that could harm the public welfare, the Government must make sure that the people handling it know what they're doing and are adequately equipped to do it. That's why there are laws and regulations. If I don't know traffic regulations, I may cause a 50-car pile-up. If I don't have the right equipment to deal with hazardous chemicals, I may cause a toxic spill. If I don't know gun safety procedures, I may shoot myself or others when I'm cleaning my gun!

I would be happy to hear the state saying "if you wish to own a weapon we will require you to take a safety course."

Although in that case it would be appropriate for the state to subsidize the cost of the course for low-income citizens.

See, that's the thing- I think that self-defense, and access to effective means of self-defense, is a fundamental right. But I like the idea of the state trying to make sure no one is needlessly endangered by the exercise of the right, so long as the right is not unduly infringed.

So yeah, that's what the state says, minus the air of condescending arrogance you bestow upon it to validate the American fantasy of the heroic citizen-warrior keeping the EVUL GUB'MINT at bay. The difference is that while I see it as the actions of a democratic and responsible state, you see it as perfidious machinations of those who would instantly declare SOVIET AMERIKHASTAN if only you didn't have that Colt 1911 under your pillow. But guess what? The US government does that as well, not matter how much guns you stock up in your basement.

P.S.: I know that may not be what you believe, but that is what I get from the general right-wing fundie gun-nut zeitgeist, and that last part was more of a reply to that than you specifically.

So why don't you cut the stereotype and talk to me?

The main reason why gun-nuts talk like that is that they perceive no point in even having a conversation with gun control advocates. Because they've had dealings with gun control advocates (like Purple and Jub) who really aren't even interested in this notion that "access to means of self-defense" is a fundamental right.

How do you have a meaningful political conversation about how to regulate a certain right of yours... with someone who refuses to even admit that you have such a right?

So at some point, if you still honestly think this is a right you are entitled to... what can you say except "hell no I'm not letting this right be taken away!" How would you negotiate rationally with someone who simply can't wrap their head around the idea that you think you are entitled to vote? They think the vote should be restricted to people who've met certain narrow credentials; you don't. What do you say to them?

You do realize that's what all governments do, right? Only citizens that the state finds trustworthy (the ones that follow the law) are granted full rights, while those who don't (criminals) have restricted rights, mainly the right to freedom of movement and assembly. In the US, it's even worst tahn most countries, as ex-convicts (IIRC) loose the right to vote!

Except that's done the opposite way- everyone starts with this right. You have to do something unusual, and be formally proven guilty of it, before you can lose the right.

Whereas with access to the means of self-defense, I see Purple and Jub wanting to say "you start out with NO access to this right, unless we clear you for it ahead of time."

The difference seems pretty significant to me.

[Purple]

Again, my operating point here is that I don't think the state's monopoly on violence should be treated as an absolute, philosophically speaking.

I think that one of the state's purposes is to exert a monopoly on organized violence, because no one person can stand against an army. So we need an army to protect ourselves, but it is best to have only one such army per place, to avoid getting caught in the middle. So far, so good.

But this monopoly on organized violence, on systematic, disciplined bodies that use territory to exert control over territory (armies, navies)... That is there specifically to ensure that no one else uses organized violence to terrorize the people.

The state is also authorized to enforce various laws, which justifies extending its monopoly on organized violence- so it creates an organized, sometimes-violent police force. One that can enforce laws.

But nowhere in this list of justifications for state power and control of the use of violence do we encounter a justification for saying that the state should get to choose whether or not you are allowed to defend yourself with force, when attacked with force. Giving the state that power serves little or no useful purpose.

In that case your point is simply wrong. The state absolutely has the right to decide if you are allowed to defend your self using violence because ultimately the state has a duty to ensure that you do not come into such a situation in the first place.

That is actually the difference between what one might call the "European" and "american" mindset. You feel that by definition the right to life includes the right to defend your life. So you believe that the state should not control your ability to do so. And that it should by no means restrict your access to the means you need to accomplish this.
Where as we think that by definition it includes the right to not have our lives threatened in the first place. We have a right not to be assaulted, not to be robbed at gunpoint and not to live under the constant threat of strangers attacking us. And it is the states duty to enure this. So we believe that the state should regulate your ability to initiate violence in the first place by regulating access to the tools of violence.

You see firearms as tools of self defense against bad people because you don't rely on your government to defend you.

[Tribble]

Sorry, I'm kind of lost in the conversation here. Is the debate about whether or not we should have the right to self defence? Or that guns should be included as the right to self-defence in the home (i.e. castle doctrine)? Or that guns should be included in the right to self defence in public as well (i.e. stand your ground)? Or that guns should be included in the right to defend property?

I'm pretty sure that the right to self-defence is standard in Western democracies, is it not? For example, in Canada we have the right to use "as much force as is reasonably necessary" to repel an attacker, which includes lethal force.

As for the others, I suppose it's debateable. As was pointed out I shouldn't really be speaking about other countries apart from my own, as I do not have experiences living in them. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the vast majority of Canadians reject the concept of guns being necessary for effective self defence. Perhaps this is because... well, homicide per capita in Canada is less than half of that in the US, so we simply do not feel the need? And only 17% of violent offences involve a firearm in Canada, whereas I believe it is somewhere around 65-70% in the US? Because they rarer in Canada, we seem tend to take the stance that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a more effective approach than arming ourselves. Perhaps if I lived in the US, I would feel the need to own one for self defence. Up here, not so much.

[Rogue 9]

In that case your point is simply wrong. The state absolutely has the right to decide if you are allowed to defend your self using violence because ultimately the state has a duty to ensure that you do not come into such a situation in the first place.

Do you even comprehend how utterly insane this statement is? The state cannot possibly actually fulfill a duty to ensure you are never threatened; short of running the nation like one big penitentiary it cannot conceivably ensure that threats against its citizens simply never occur. Not even Big Brother-style monitoring could do that; at most that would ensure the state could avenge you, and at a cost simply far too high to be worth paying.

[Beowulf]

In that case your point is simply wrong. The state absolutely has the right to decide if you are allowed to defend your self using violence because ultimately the state has a duty to ensure that you do not come into such a situation in the first place.

That is actually the difference between what one might call the "European" and "american" mindset. You feel that by definition the right to life includes the right to defend your life. So you believe that the state should not control your ability to do so. And that it should by no means restrict your access to the means you need to accomplish this.
Where as we think that by definition it includes the right to not have our lives threatened in the first place. We have a right not to be assaulted, not to be robbed at gunpoint and not to live under the constant threat of strangers attacking us. And it is the states duty to enure this. So we believe that the state should regulate your ability to initiate violence in the first place by regulating access to the tools of violence.

You see firearms as tools of self defense against bad people because you don't rely on your government to defend you.

You are insane. The state cannot ensure that I do not have violence directed against me. It cannot prevent a person from initiating violence short of imprisoning everyone in solitary, or mind control technology we do not currently possess. You can keep the law abiding from having purpose-designed weapons, but you can't keep the non-law abiding from getting them, nor can you prevent improvised weaponry from being acquired. So your position is the the state should attempt to do the impossible. This is the very definition of insanity.

[Jub]

You are insane. The state cannot ensure that I do not have violence directed against me. It cannot prevent a person from initiating violence short of imprisoning everyone in solitary, or mind control technology we do not currently possess. You can keep the law abiding from having purpose-designed weapons, but you can't keep the non-law abiding from getting them, nor can you prevent improvised weaponry from being acquired. So your position is the the state should attempt to do the impossible. This is the very definition of insanity.

So how do places like Japan and Britain prevent armed criminals from terrorizing everybody if they have very tight gun laws?

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Better social programs, like we talked about earlier, if Britain or Japan had the U.S.'s shit puddle of a social safety net, their crime problems would be much worse, even if their gun laws remained unchanged. As it stands, robberies, murders, and home invasions still happen, even in countries like Britain or Japan. The point is, you can't count on the authorities to always be there, 100% of the time, so its not entirely unreasonable to want the ability to defend yourself, even if there's a one in a million chance you'll need it, better to have and not need, than need and not have.

[Tiriol]

That is actually the difference between what one might call the "European" and "american" mindset. You feel that by definition the right to life includes the right to defend your life. So you believe that the state should not control your ability to do so. And that it should by no means restrict your access to the means you need to accomplish this.
Where as we think that by definition it includes the right to not have our lives threatened in the first place. We have a right not to be assaulted, not to be robbed at gunpoint and not to live under the constant threat of strangers attacking us. And it is the states duty to enure this. So we believe that the state should regulate your ability to initiate violence in the first place by regulating access to the tools of violence.

You see firearms as tools of self defense against bad people because you don't rely on your government to defend you.

What? No, that's not European mindset at all, otherwise no "European" country would have self-defence clauses in their laws. The state absolutely recognizes that everyone has a right to defend one's life, even if through violence as a last resort. The courts are there to make decision whether the use of that particular method of violence was justified. "American" mindset also includes the right to NOT be assaulted in the first place but without an all-powerful, benevolent and omnipresent state there is no way to guarantee that right with 100% certainty. That's why there exists self-defence laws. Hell, Finland even has laws that allow one to do things that otherwise might be punishable if it could save someone's life. And once again, the courts are there to make the decision whether that use of violence/other breach of law falls within justifiable self-defence/defence of other people.

This discussion is not about some weird "European vs American" mindset when it comes to basic tenets of self-defence. As far as I can see, it is about why the approach to gun control is different in the US and in several other countries.

[Purple]

What? No, that's not European mindset at all, otherwise no "European" country would have self-defence clauses in their laws. The state absolutely recognizes that everyone has a right to defend one's life, even if through violence as a last resort. The courts are there to make decision whether the use of that particular method of violence was justified. "American" mindset also includes the right to NOT be assaulted in the first place but without an all-powerful, benevolent and omnipresent state there is no way to guarantee that right with 100% certainty. That's why there exists self-defence laws. Hell, Finland even has laws that allow one to do things that otherwise might be punishable if it could save someone's life. And once again, the courts are there to make the decision whether that use of violence/other breach of law falls within justifiable self-defence/defence of other people.

This discussion is not about some weird "European vs American" mindset when it comes to basic tenets of self-defence. As far as I can see, it is about why the approach to gun control is different in the US and in several other countries.

Sure nothing is 100% proof. But that's not the point. It's the principal that counts. And in principal what we see as special and extreme cases they see as day to day behavior. I don't feel the need for a gun because the state ensures violent crime against me is unlikely enough that I will most likely spend my entire life without the need for one. That does not mean that it can't happen. What it means is that we don't consider our own personal firearm collection to be the first, last and only line of defense. Instead we expect the state to add several layers of protection before that which americans just don't or else they would have a functioning safety net and other means of keeping crime down.

[Beowulf]

You are insane. The state cannot ensure that I do not have violence directed against me. It cannot prevent a person from initiating violence short of imprisoning everyone in solitary, or mind control technology we do not currently possess. You can keep the law abiding from having purpose-designed weapons, but you can't keep the non-law abiding from getting them, nor can you prevent improvised weaponry from being acquired. So your position is the the state should attempt to do the impossible. This is the very definition of insanity.

So how do places like Japan and Britain prevent armed criminals from terrorizing everybody if they have very tight gun laws?

A. Someone can be armed without being armed with a gun.

2. What makes you think they are actually successful? England and Wales have a higher rate of robbery and assault than the US. See pages 74 and 81.