Guns and The Right to Self Defense

Each person has the right to self-defense.

Guns may or may not be utilized in exercising that right.

Depending on the circumstances, any gun or other weapon (boiling water, corrosive chemical, hammer, etc.) may be utilized for self-defense IF the self-defense is justified and only until the threat is over.

Tree of Life said:

Are you saying that my right to self defense does not entail a right to owning a gun?

Click to expand...

No, but I'm saying that choice may not be available to you, at least legally.
You would still have the right to self-defense.

Tree of Life said:

I’m not referring to constitutional rights in this thread, but basic human rights. I am assuming that humans have rights even if they are deprived of them by governments or otherwise not recognized.

Click to expand...

OK, if we do not consider the legality of owning a particular weapon (such as a gun), then your right to self-defense would entail a right to own the weapon. Or so it seems to me.

Of course, as an owner, you would have responsibilities to reasonably ensure that your weapon does not create an undue risk to those around you. This would be true for any dangerous items, not just weapons.

My weapon is my teeth.

Tree of Life said:

Here's a few separate but related questions for discussion. For the purposes of this discussion I'm thinking of "rights" in terms of basic human rights and not strictly constitutional rights. Someone may have a constitutional right that is not basically human and someone may have a human right that is not mentioned in a nation's constitution. Here's the questions:

Does a person have a right to defend themselves or others if they believe that they are at risk of severe bodily harm or even death?

If a person has such a right, does this right entail gun ownership in a world where guns exist?

If a person has such a right, does this entail gun ownership of all kinds? Explain.

Click to expand...

I always wonder if I burrow mines around my house would it be self defence when som1 gets killed?
if yes then would it be still self defence if policeman wanted to knock on my door and he just blow up walking to them?
could be argued that I didn't know he was one but what if he has search permit so can legally enter my house but he blows up on the way there is it still self defense?

NomNomPizza said:

I always wonder if I burrow mines around my house would it be self defence when som1 gets killed?

Click to expand...

No. Not even close.

Tree of Life said:

This would be negligence. It would be analogous to shooting someone because they walked onto your property. That does not amount to self defense.

Click to expand...

As civilian issue landmines are not really a thing setting up a mine field would involve creating multiple IEDs so in addition to homicide charges various explosives and terrorism charges would be possible.

Tree of Life said:

Does a person have a right to defend themselves or others if they believe that they are at risk of severe bodily harm or even death?

Click to expand...

Obviously

Tree of Life said:

If a person has such a right, does this right entail gun ownership in a world where guns exist?

Click to expand...

Not in my country.

Tree of Life said:

If a person has such a right, does this entail gun ownership of all kinds? Explain.

Click to expand...

Not in my country.

In Australia gun ownership is not regarded, by law or public opinion, as a basic human right. While it is defined as a right in the US, there is no reason to assume it's a 'basic' right, i.e., has universal application.

America is not the world.
OB

Tree of Life said:

I’m assuming that humans have rights apart from governments so I’m not wanting to discuss constitutional rights.

Click to expand...

Tree of Life said:

You say that humans obviously have a right to self defense. Do you think that your country is being inconsistent when it forbids its citizens to own firearms? How can they defend themselves without them?

Click to expand...

With whatever means is available at the time.

Why is it 'inconsistent' to disallow guns? Basically the overall risk, to society, of generalised gun ownership is seen as greater than any advantage of owning guns. You may live in a society where the overall perception (or reality) of the risk of being in a life threatening situation is far greater than mine.

Suggesting that gun ownership is, or should be, a 'basic' right is a perception peculiar to Americans.

OB

Tree of Life said:

I’m assuming that humans have rights apart from governments so I’m not wanting to discuss constitutional rights.

You say that humans obviously have a right to self defense. Do you think that your country is being inconsistent when it forbids its citizens to own firearms? How can they defend themselves without them?

Click to expand...

Slavemasters enjoy thier slaves not having weapons to assasinate them.
In USA maybe it was called "Wild West' but in city usually only Sheriff could have gun others were expected to handle thier guns to him when they entered city. As we know it didn't work because now there is like 2,5 guns per person in USA and u had to overthrow ur goverment in past history.
The whole purpose u guys kept guns is to in case of emergency overthrow goverment again when its trying to enslave u.

Europe countries on the other hand never had this issue there always been slaves and slavemasters of some kind most never rebelled or had ability to so we never had guns for normal people.

Tree of Life said:

Here's a few separate but related questions for discussion. For the purposes of this discussion I'm thinking of "rights" in terms of basic human rights and not strictly constitutional rights. Someone may have a constitutional right that is not basically human and someone may have a human right that is not mentioned in a nation's constitution. Here's the questions:

Does a person have a right to defend themselves or others if they believe that they are at risk of severe bodily harm or even death?

If a person has such a right, does this right entail gun ownership in a world where guns exist?

If a person has such a right, does this entail gun ownership of all kinds? Explain.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are all made in the image of God therefore we are all valuable


Yes the potential threat has to be met with an equal deterrence or solution.


No it should not include fully automatic small arms weapons, there should be no limit on semiautomatic small arms weapons or their magazines.[/QUOTE]

NomNomPizza said:

I always wonder if I burrow mines around my house would it be self defence when som1 gets killed?
if yes then would it be still self defence if policeman wanted to knock on my door and he just blow up walking to them?
could be argued that I didn't know he was one but what if he has search permit so can legally enter my house but he blows up on the way there is it still self defense?

Click to expand...

Um, no...no mines, please.

And a bazooka for general defense, would also be over kill...literally.

Tree of Life said:
If a person has such a right, does this right entail gun ownership in a world where guns exist?
Occams Barber said:
Not in my country.

Just curious, isn't gun ownership legal in Australia? Or are you talking about another country?

jacks said:

Tree of Life said:
If a person has such a right, does this right entail gun ownership in a world where guns exist?
Occams Barber said:
Not in my country.

Just curious, isn't gun ownership legal in Australia? Or are you talking about another country?

Click to expand...

Apart from some specific exceptions, with strict conditions attached (police, pest control, some hunting, some farming, sport shooting etc.), it's illegal to buy or own a firearm in Australia. Self defence is not an accepted reason for owning a firearm.

This means that your average Australian cannot legally own a gun.

An Essential Research poll in 2016 found 6% of Australians thought the laws were too strong, 44% thought "about right" and 45% thought the laws were "not strong enough". This result was consistent across people of all political leanings.

OB

Tree of Life said:

Does a person have a right to defend themselves or others if they believe that they are at risk of severe bodily harm or even death?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course.

Tree of Life said:

If a person has such a right, does this right entail gun ownership in a world where guns exist?

Click to expand...

No, having the right to self defence in a situation where someone is threatening your life is quite different from preparing to use deadly force when you are not in a threatened situation.

Your government needs to decide if they want a society of people walking around with loaded guns. This provides an opportunity for thugs, and criminals to walk around with loaded guns without the police being able to apprehend or disarm them before they start shooting people.
This also results in a situation where police will be on edge, scared and trigger happy.
This also results in situations where "good" people get in temporary states of aggression and things escalate to deadly force.
It will also result in a lot of dead wives and girlfriends.

Does letting people carry guns make society safer or more dangerous? Does it make each individual more likely to live or more likely to die.

Personally, I'm less interested in "gun rights" and more interested in whether myself and my loved ones will be safer.

Tree of Life said:

If a person has such a right, does this entail gun ownership of all kinds? Explain.

Click to expand...

I do think government should let consenting adults do as the choose as long as it doesn't endanger others or society.
Certain guns are more dangerous than others.
Handguns for example has been a total disaster in USA society.

I think Govt need to weigh up the utility of things against the danger of things.
For example it is very useful to have cars but we know that people WILL have car crashes and people WILL die.

But things like machine guns, how is that useful to civilians? It presents a danger to society, so it seems the Cons far outweigh the pros.