F. Leon Wilson writes:
> > 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.
>
> 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.

But that is obviously false.  The danger from violent crime is lower
in any part of Norway than it is in any city in the US (certain
neighborhoods in Oslo *might* be comparable.  We're talking
about differences in probability, not possibility.  Of course it is
always *possible* you might be a victim of violent crime, but it is
also always possible that you might get HIV from your wife, so you
should both just agree to never have sex again.

> >In that situation, the violent crime rate is low, and no one can argue
> >that he needs a gun for his self-defence.
>
> In a just society, people should not have to argue the right to own
> a gun.

We're not talking about the quality of justness.  It's irrelevant.  If
society is safe without guns, then it is less safe with guns.  In that
case, if the people decide to place restrictions on the ownership and
uses of guns and make those restrictions law, then I'm sure that you,
as a law-abiding citizen, will abide by those restrictions.  If you
don't, then you'll no longer be a law-abiding citizen.

> The reason why one owns a gun is irrelevant.

It's relevant.  A gun has purposes.  Your reasons for owning the gun
must be among them.  If your reason is self-defence but you aren't in
danger, then your reason is invalid.

> 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.

I am speechless.

> > 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.
>
> The "crime" rate should not and does not factor into the equation.

It does if the reasoning for owning a gun includes the need for
self-defence.  If the danger from violent crime is lower than the
chance of accidental injury from your own gun, then reasoning that you
need a gun for self-defence is not valid reasoning.

> 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.

It's the rule of law.

> > My point is that if the crime rate reaches that level in a society, then
> > that society is a failure.
>
> 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."

Well, so far you have eliminated morals, ethics, the rule of law, and
the value of statistical methods.  There isn't much left.

> >I'm assuming that peace and safety are requirements for a successful
> >society.
>
> That is an incorrect assumption.  Peace and safety may be desired elements
> of some societies, But does not define a "successful society."

...and, just when I thought you couldn't eliminate anything else, you
throw out peace and safety as well.  Are you actually F. Leon Wilson
or his evil twin?

> > 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.
>
> 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?"

It says things have gotten worse.  It didn't used to be that way, and,
in fact, the royal family in Norway very often appears in public (in
Norway) without being armed.  Politicians in Norway do not normally
have bodygurds.  The police are normally unarmed.

> >> 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?

What *are* you talking about.  You are a member of the society where
you live.  We are all members of the society of the world.  I live in
Norway; I am a member of Norwegian society.  I live in Horten; I am a
member of the society comprising people who live in Horten.  No one is
trying to trick you, Leon.  Society -- you're standing in it.

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