Do You Own a Gun?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Phil

source?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...702280473/1029

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21902

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Radar

Really? Perhaps you can tell me why in 100% of the states that have allowed concealed permits to be obtained by regular people (non-cops) crime has decreased dramatically?

Does that apply to individual cities as well?

[Radar]

States apply carry laws, cities don't. But if you want to talk about cities, let's start with the cities in America with the strictest gun laws.... Washington D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles. The rate of gun violence in the cities with the harshest gun laws is higher than anywhere else in America, and most certainly higher than any of the cities in America that have carry permits available for regular citizens.

[Phil]

nice comebacks, excellent sources everyone.




youre still wrong.

[Aliantha]

No, you're wrong Phil!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

... I'm asking you about the jungle people who sacrifice kids. Why do you feel that it's wrong for them to sacrifice the children? Is it only because it would be wrong in your society? Do you recognize the right of the jungle society to sacrifice their children if that's what they've agreed to do, or would you try to make them stop the practice?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I feel it's wrong because that's the way the society in which I was raised feels. I would not try to change them anymore than I would allow them to change me to their way of thinking.
...

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't buy that--you try to change people's minds on here all the time. Okay, some of us are from the same society, but you've discussed things with Brits and Aussies too, and worked to convince them of what you believe. Hell, your whole position on the gun topics is that taking a life is an inherently horrible thing, even if it's a criminal's life. You have a strong sense of right and wrong, Spexx, which means you can't be a complete moral relativist.
...

You're right, I probably would try to change them.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

... But if it's wrong to arbitrarily kill a child--if it's wrong to kill a thief trying to steal your chewing gum--then you have already recognized that that person has an inherent right to live. That right supercedes all societal conventions, unless you believe in total moral relativism.

My point is that I/we recognize that a person has the right to live because that's the way we were socialized. Not everybody thinks that way, which means there are not universal "rights", they differ by society. I think your example of the jungle people shows that. Ask them if the children have a right to live. Ask a Saudi if a thief has the right not to have his hand cut off for stealing. As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

It can't be that impossible--there are a lot of permit holders in Philly.

Not impossible, just difficult.

While murder and other violent crime rates are declining in many cities, they are still on the rise in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania liberalized its concealed carry law in 1989, but Philadelphia demanded and received an exemption.

The results are troubling.

Philadelphia has the highest firearms murder rate of the 10 largest U.S. cities.

Shootings accounted for 80 percent of the more than 400 murders that occurred in Philadelphia in 1997.

The city estimates that gun violence costs it approximately $50 million annually in additional policing and health care-related expenses.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.

No, society determines what rights are taken away.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, society determines what rights are taken away.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's what happens when you're wrong.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's what happens when you're wrong.

Only facts are wrong. Facts can be proven. Prove your point.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Many people here, including myself, have proven that natural rights exist until taken away by society.... all great scholars and even the founding fathers understood that.
But alas, you keep ordering fudge ripple, silly.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

My point is that I/we recognize that a person has the right to live because that's the way we were socialized. Not everybody thinks that way, which means there are not universal "rights", they differ by society. I think your example of the jungle people shows that. Ask them if the children have a right to live. Ask a Saudi if a thief has the right not to have his hand cut off for stealing. As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.

But it's not a discussion about the practical application of reality. "Human rights" is a philosophical question. If the jungle people are wrong, then they do not have the ability to determine the children's right to live. They have the ability to determine whether the child lives, but they are wrong when they do so. If they are wrong, there has to be a reason. The reason is that the child has an inherent right to be allowed to live, and no amount of societal tradition will make it okay for them to kill the child. It's not a legal or a practical question, it's a question of morality.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But it's not a discussion about the practical application of reality. "Human rights" is a philosophical question. If the jungle people are wrong, then they do not have the ability to determine the children's right to live. They have the ability to determine whether the child lives, but they are wrong when they do so. If they are wrong, there has to be a reason. The reason is that the child has an inherent right to be allowed to live, and no amount of societal tradition will make it okay for them to kill the child. It's not a legal or a practical question, it's a question of morality.

And morals are subjective.