Philosophy Now Forum

You get that you a right to your life, liberty, and property, yeah?

You get that if I unjustly deprive you of life, liberty, and property, I, alone, in the wrong, yeah?

You get that if I unjustly deprive you of life, liberty, and property, I, alone, am accountable, yeah?

You get that one who injures or kills another becuz they were lackadaisical with their property has acted unjustly, yeah?

You wanna make it as I'm talkin' about license (doin' what you want and damn the consequences) when I'm talkin' about freedom (self-direction and self-responsibility).

The 4 rules aren't there to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. The 4 rules are there to remind you and me don't unjustly deprive the other guy of life, liberty, and property .

-----

Again: it does not seem sensible to me, becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or *unjustly hurt or kill others, that everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines.

Look at the words: misuse, use. Each has a meaning.




*added for clarity and emphasis

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:42 pm You get that you a right to your life, liberty, and property, yeah?

You get that if I unjustly deprive you of life, liberty, and property, I, alone, in the wrong, yeah?

I don't give a shit who's in the wrong. What matters to me (and most humans) is that a deprivation happened. It would've been so much better if the deprivation didn't happen!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:42 pm You get that if I unjustly deprive you of life, liberty, and property, I, alone, am accountable, yeah?

I don't give a shit who's accountable. What matters to me (and most humans) is that a deprivation happened. It would've been so much better if the deprivation didn't happen!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:42 pm You get that one who injures or kills another becuz they were lackadaisical with their property has acted unjustly, yeah?

I don't give a shit whether you acted justly; or unjustly. What matters to me (and most humans) is that injury or death happened. It would've been so much better if the injury or death didn't happen!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:42 pm You wanna make it as I'm talkin' about license (doin' what you want and damn the consequences) when I'm talkin' about freedom (self-direction and self-responsibility).

I am talking about the exact same thing!

One way to self-direct yourself is to ignore the 4 golden rules of firearm safety.
Another way to self-direct yourself is to adhere to the 4 golden rules of firearm safety.

Both of those choices amount to self-direction. If you are pro-liberty best you ditch the rules.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:42 pm The 4 rules aren't there to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. The 4 rules are there to remind you and me don't unjustly deprive the other guy of life, liberty, and property .

Bullshit. ALL rules are deprivation of liberty. Because the definition of liberty is doing what one wants WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

The 4 golden rules impose restrictions on behavior. Thefefore - they impose a restriction on liberty. ALL rules do that!

In following the 4 golden rules you are depriving yourself of liberty to wave your gun around and point it at whoever you want.
In adhering to murder laws you are depriving yourself of the liberty to murder whoever you want.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:42 pm Again: it does not seem sensible to me, becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or *unjustly hurt or kill others, that everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines.

Why isn't it sensible to you? It doesnt warm my heart that you'll go to prison for killing me. I am alraedy dead - I don't give a shit what happens to you.

The purpose of rules isn't to penalize anyone - the purpose of rules is to reduce the number of people who are harmed or killed.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:42 pm Look at the words: misuse, use. Each has a meaning.

Look at the word liberty. It also has a meaning... A meaning incompatible with ANY rules.

Stan owns a gun. He's committed no wrong with his gun. He hasn't hurt himself, he hasn't hurt or killed anyone.

Joe owns the same kind of gun. He takes his gun into a school and kills ten people.

The governing body of the area Stan and Joe live in legislates no one may own, possess, or use the particular kind of gun used by Joe to kill ten people.

Stan sez hey, wait a minute, why am I losin' my property? I didn't do anything wrong!



Stan owns a gun. He's committed no wrong with his gun. He hasn't hurt himself, or hurt or killed anyone.

Joe owns the same kind of gun. He takes his gun into a school and kills ten people.

The governing body of the area Stan and Joe live in legislates no one may own, possess, or use that kind of gun without first gettin' licensed.

Stan wonders how would licensing have stopped Joe from killin' ten people? Do driver's licenses and car registration stop drunk drivers? Do driver's licenses and car registration stop folks from drivin' into crowds? And why is it I have to now jump thru hoops to own property when I've done nuthin' wrong?

Why does anyone need an AR-15? The video explains why in 30 seconds.

https://rumble.com/v1bbse7-jerone-davison-ad-.html

Personally, I have never met a gun out of control.

But hey, people claim that there are unicorns and flying monkeys.

or as Walter Bishop said, Just because nobody had documented flying monkeys and talking lions yet, does not prove that they do not exist.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:53 pm Stan owns a gun. He's committed no wrong with his gun. He hasn't hurt himself, he hasn't hurt or killed anyone.

Joe owns the same kind of gun. He takes his gun into a school and kills ten people.

The governing body of the area Stan and Joe live in legislates no one may own, possess, or use the particular kind of gun used by Joe to kill ten people.

Stan sez hey, wait a minute, why am I losin' my property? I didn't do anything wrong!

Stan owns a gun. He's committed no wrong with his gun. He hasn't hurt himself, he hasn't hurt or killed anyone.

Joe owns the same kind of gun. He takes his gun to the shooting range and accidentally shoots and kills two people.

The entire gun owning community invents the 4 golden rules of firearm safety, and starts enforcing them informally. People who break them are reprimanded and removed from shooting ranges.

Stan sez hey, wait a minute, why am I losin' my liberty? I didn't do anything wrong!

Answer: Joe hadn't done anything wrong either - and then he did. This is not about Stan or Joe. This is about learning from Joe's mistakes and preventing preventable death.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:53 pm Stan owns a gun. He's committed no wrong with his gun. He hasn't hurt himself, or hurt or killed anyone.

Joe owns the same kind of gun. He takes his gun into a school and kills ten people.

The governing body of the area Stan and Joe live in legislates no one may own, possess, or use that kind of gun without first gettin' licensed.

Stan wonders how would licensing have stopped Joe from killin' ten people? Do driver's licenses and car registration stop drunk drivers? Do driver's licenses and car registration stop folks from drivin' into crowds? And why is it I have to now jump thru hoops to own property when I've done nuthin' wrong?

Henry Quirk doesn't understand the difference between effective and ineffective controls.

4 rules of firearm safety - effective controls.
Licensing/registration - ineffective controls.

The mechanism by which legislators (hope) licensing/registration works as a deterrent is like this:
* Most mass murders are committed with recently-purchased guns - if you add a waiting period people might cool off, and it buys the rest of society time to (maybe) get its act together and piece together the puzzle of the upcoming murder.
* Mass shooters and angry people are too mentally unstable to deal with admin/paperwork.

But the actual fact is that most of the political fiasco revolves around "Lets do something! This is something! Lets do this!" (even though it won't work, but at least we'll feel like we've done something)

Upthread, I said...

I won't be drawn into fruitless back & forth over the meaning of the 2nd or the intent of the Founders.

...and...

I won't be drawn into battles of numbers & stats.

Thanks to my good friend, skep: I also won't be drawn into comparisons between the self-regulation of the 4 rules and the plain-as-the nose-on-your-face violation of natural rights proposed by the control crowd.

Last word is yours, skep.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 8:47 am
But the actual fact is that most of the political fiasco revolves around "Lets do something! This is something! Lets do this!" (even though it won't work, but at least we'll feel like we've done something)

Banning the AR-15 won’t solve the problem of gun deaths and injuries.

Banning the AR-15 will solve the problem of deaths and injuries by AR-15s.

It’s a start. Let’s do something to get started.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:55 pm
Banning the AR-15 won’t solve the problem of gun deaths and injuries.

Banning the AR-15 will solve the problem of deaths and injuries by AR-15s.

It’s a start. Let’s do something to get started.

And all those folks who own AR-15s, who've never harmed, killed, or even threatened another with that weapon, they lose their property.

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless. L Spooner

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:00 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:55 pm
Banning the AR-15 won’t solve the problem of gun deaths and injuries.

Banning the AR-15 will solve the problem of deaths and injuries by AR-15s.

It’s a start. Let’s do something to get started.

And all those folks who own AR-15s, who've never harmed, killed, or even threatened another with that weapon, they lose their property.

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless. L Spooner

We are all individuals who live in a collective society.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:20 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:00 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:55 pm
Banning the AR-15 won’t solve the problem of gun deaths and injuries.

Banning the AR-15 will solve the problem of deaths and injuries by AR-15s.

It’s a start. Let’s do something to get started.

And all those folks who own AR-15s, who've never harmed, killed, or even threatened another with that weapon, they lose their property.

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless. L Spooner

We are all individuals who live in a collective society.

Not seein' how livin' together obligates folks to give up property when they've done no wrong with it.

And the excuse well, you might do wrong with it stinks of you're guilty till you prove your innocence.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:49 pm It’s the horror of the AR-15 that motivates me to start with that. For me, the horror transcends the numbers. I imagine it’s the same for many of the people who feel animus toward the AR-15.

You have given your opinion about they and them based on what?

Well, where is this "horror" coming from, if, as you say, the "numbers" don't support it? Are we freaking out because we don't like Darth Vader looking guns? There are uglier, more frightening guns around than the AR-15, I assure you.

Let's take the shooter in Highland Park: when he was arrested, he had a Kel-Tec Sub2000, not an AR-15. The two look nothing alike, and I would think they are equally "horrifying" if we are afraid of looks.

But here is a nice graphic of the actual facts: https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.co ... homicides/

Why, then, are we so "horrified" at the AR-15?

Why, then, are we so "horrified" at the AR-15?

Cuz we've been told to be horrified. And in the telling is an embedded advertising for the weapon, advertising that appeals to the nutjobs.

It's a vicious lil circle.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:34 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:49 pm It’s the horror of the AR-15 that motivates me to start with that. For me, the horror transcends the numbers. I imagine it’s the same for many of the people who feel animus toward the AR-15.

You have given your opinion about they and them based on what?

Well, where is this "horror" coming from, if, as you say, the "numbers" don't support it? Are we freaking out because we don't like Darth Vader looking guns? There are uglier, more frightening guns around than the AR-15, I assure you.

Let's take the shooter in Highland Park: when he was arrested, he had a Kel-Tec Sub2000, not an AR-15. The two look nothing alike, and I would think they are equally "horrifying" if we are afraid of looks.

But here is a nice graphic of the actual facts: https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.co ... homicides/

Why, then, are we so "horrified" at the AR-15?

For the same reason that people are more afraid of dying in a plane crash than an automobile accident. Risk is poorly estimated.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:43 pm

Why, then, are we so "horrified" at the AR-15?

Cuz we've been told to be horrified. And in the telling is an embedded advertising for the weapon, advertising that appeals to the nutjobs.

It's a vicious lil circle.

Yes. And then the horror &/or appeal becomes visceral.