On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:42:28 +0200, Martin William Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>F. Leon Wilson writes:
>> Martin William Smith wrote:
[ [ [ TEXT CUT ] ] ]
>> > Martin William Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >Well there are at least three good reasons to own a gun: hunting,
>> >target shooting, membership in the national guard. I argue that
>> >self-defence is not a good reason, because, if people are not safe in
>> >a society, then the society has failed and needs to be resturctured at
>> >a more fundamental level.
>> F. Leon Wilson writes:
>> I have a major problem with the statement, "if people are not safe
>> in a society, then the society has failed and needs to be
>> resturctured at a more fundamental level."
>>
>> If I, and individual of some "constructed society" decides to shoot
>> (to kill) someone has society failed?
>
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> No, if a single murderer decides to kill in a society, then the danger
> to any other particular individual in that society is miniscule.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
I will argue that any single member can kill and single member at any
point in time, therefore the danger to any other particular individual in
that so-called society is always constant. Certain activities increase the
likelihood that one may be kill by another, but if certain activities
(e.g., drug dealing) are not present, then the threat subsides.
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>In that situation, the violent crime rate is low, and no one can argue
>that he needs a gun for his self-defence.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
In a just society, people should not have to argue the right to own a gun.
The reason why one owns a gun is irrelevant. One has the right to do
whatever they please with that gun. If they choose to kill another
person, they have the right to do so . . . in a just society.
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> But if the violent crime rate becomes so high that there is a significant
> chance that any individual will be a victim of violent crime, then one
> can argue that he needs a gun for self-defence.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
The "crime" rate should not and does not factor into the equation.
You want to place the argument of some "justification" of gun ownership. I
am arguing that in a free and just society, gun ownership is no different
from ownership of a toothbrush. Anytime one begins to argue about what
people in a free and just society can own and not own or how they should
uses those items of ownership, you are back to a model of supremacy by one
group or another.
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> My point is that if the crime rate reaches that level in a society, then
> that society is a failure.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
My point is that the concept of a crime rate is artificial (bogus). The
so-called crime rate does not measure everything that is considered a
crime in a society. It pulls out certain elements, which are biased
against specific elements of a society, only serves to distort the meaning
and picture of "crime."
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
>I'm assuming that peace and safety are requirements for a successful
>society.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
That is an incorrect assumption. Peace and safety may be desired elements
of some societies, But does not define a "successful society."
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> You can measure success in other ways, but if you really
>can't go out at night without a gun, then with respect to peace and
>safety, your society has failed, and it is time to rebuild.
F. Leon Wilson writes:
Well I would say that if you cannot go out at night without being armed,
then one must understand what is being protected. All heads of state never
leave home without being armed. What does that say about the world
"society?"
>
>> I have never join a specific aspect of "society."
>>
>> How is membership in the society determined?
>>
>> How does one become a member of society?
>
>If you live in the US, you are a member of US society.
>
How so? Does some members in the US society have more rights than others?
When they join that society, did they join with less rights?
Why?
Out of time, will continue later. . .
F. Leon
>> Is society limited by locale or it some imagery makeup?
>
>It doesn't matter really, except that if you live in Punkin Corner,
>Colorado, your crime rate will be a lot lower than if you live in
>Chicago.
>
>
>> >I suppose American society has very nearly reached that point, but
>> >before throwing everything out and starting over, strict gun
>> >control like Norway's should be tried.
>>
>> I don't beleive this statement. American society has reach no point
>> close to you statement.
>
>Ok, then in america, you can't justify owning a gun for self-defence.
>
>> People make life choses each day. They they decide to kill, they
>> have that right to kill.
>
>The right to kill? Other people? No, Sovereign states claim that
>right, which is one reason why their count should be reduced to one,
>but individuals have no right to kill other people.
>
>> Perhaps I should ask, "Do people have the right to kill?
>
>Under what circumstances?
>
>martin
>
>Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
>P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
>N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|