Guns and freedom

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, by that argument the actual act of shooting doesn't hurt anyone, either. It's when you aim at people that people get hurt.

Thank you for pointing that out David. Pointing a gun at someone can indeed be very hurtful. It's downright terrifying. That was the point you were making wasn't it?

[David Floyd]

Thank you for pointing that out David. Pointing a gun at someone can indeed be very hurtful. It's downright terrifying. That was the point you were making wasn't it?

No. Generally, I don't consider "emotional damage" to be the same as violating someone's rights. Otherwise, we'd have to illegalize divorce and all sorts of things.

However, pointing a gun at someone with the intent to coerce them into doing something should certainly be illegal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doc... it's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, isn't it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No. Generally, I don't consider "emotional damage" to be the same as violating someone's rights.

Severe emotional damage is a tort action though.

[David Floyd]

It certainly is. But ask anyone who has been left and they will tell you that divorce inflicts "severe emotional damage". Yet should divorce be illegal?

[monkspider]

I wonder how many people would still oppose gun control if the founding fathers never included the second ammendment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Divorce is not intentionally designed to inflict emotional damage. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress require different things for recovery. Negligent Infliction of Emotitional Distress requires another charge for it to piggyback upon.

[David Floyd]

I'd still oppose it on the grounds of property rights - and actually in my view the 2nd Amendment is fairly superfluous. Guns seem to be protected under the 9th Amendment and general property rights (not to mention natural property rights).

[Boris Godunov]

It can be argued that divorce will prevent further infiction of emotional distress. That's certainly the way I see it.

[David Floyd]

Divorce is not intentionally designed to inflict emotional damage

Good point, but aiming a gun at someone, or humiliating them, in order to get them to do what you want isn't intentionally causing emotional damage, except in the context that the action was intentional and the likely result of the action was emotional damage.

I know what you're saying, though. My main point is that I tend to stay away from arguments about emotional damage, because that is so hard to measure in terms of actual damage to a person ("waaaa waaaa he called me a bad name" isn't emotional damage, for example).

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by monkspider
I wonder how many people would still oppose gun control if the founding fathers never included the second ammendment?

I'd venture it would be a lot less. The whole coming into existance of the US (including, in part, the second amendment) is a huge factor. Look at us in Canada - we gained our independence in a peaceful way, have no equivalent of the second amendment, and have way fewer guns/debates about gun control. Not to say that we have none of either, just way, way less.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good point, but aiming a gun at someone, or humiliating them, in order to get them to do what you want isn't intentionally causing emotional damage, except in the context that the action was intentional and the likely result of the action was emotional damage.

That's enough to assert Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

My main point is that I tend to stay away from arguments about emotional damage, because that is so hard to measure in terms of actual damage to a person

Courts have to do it all the time.

[David Floyd]

Courts have to do it all the time.

Not the Court of David. Judge Floyd just tells them to get over it and move on.

Well, actually not, I'm just saying I'm not gonna get bogged down arguing emotional distress because I'm not a psychologist or anything of the sort. I just fail to see "emotional distress" the same as violating one's property rights, for example.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not the Court of David.

Seeing that one of them doesn't exist, I don't care what it would say .

just fail to see "emotional distress" the same as violating one's property rights, for example.

Emotional Distress might cause problems to a mental state of a person. The ultimate property is the person's mind and body.

[David Floyd]

Emotional Distress might cause problems to a mental state of a person.

I suppose, but wouldn't you agree that severe emotional distress is usually the result of some other violation of liberty?

Shouting at someone seems quite unlikely to cause the type of emotional distress you're talking about, wouldn't you say?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suppose, but wouldn't you agree that severe emotional distress is usually the result of some other violation of liberty?

Not really. What about constant verbal harrassment? The only violation of liberty attached is the emotional distress argument.

[David Floyd]

The only violation of liberty attached is the emotional distress argument.

And I'm not sure that someone claiming that they feel "emotionally distressed" necessarily constitutes a violation of that person's liberty. They might just be being over-sensitive.

For instance, if an ethnic, gender-based, or whatever joke is told, and someone gets offended, their liberty certainly isn't being violated in any way I can see, because there is no freedom from being offended.

[Imran Siddiqui]

For instance if a person is subjected to constant teasing and needling from his boss about his stuttering problem. The problem gets worse from the teasing and therepy is involved. Shouldn't he get to recover for the cost of the therepy?

What about constant and unrelenting sexual harrassment, which might not involve battery, but causes great emotional harm.

Emotional Distress is extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. And it is recoverable.

[David Floyd]

Actually forget it - we obviously have different viewpoints, but I'm not gonna give you more material to use to mock me with later.

(I had a few paragraphs basically questioning why verbal harrassment should be a legal question, but I'm not gonna get sucked into a lose-lose situation).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess my question is what right is being violated here?

NOT TO BE SUBJECT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS!



That is a violation of a right not to be subject to extreme and outrageous conduct that causes emotional distress.

There is a reason it is a tort. Because it is violation of a right that every state has adopted by statute. Statutes create rights you know.

[David Floyd]

Statutes create rights you know.

No they don't. Rights are natural. If a supposed "right" has to be created, then very likely it isn't a right.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Good point, but aiming a gun at someone, or humiliating them, in order to get them to do what you want isn't intentionally causing emotional damage, except in the context that the action was intentional and the likely result of the action was emotional damage.

I know what you're saying, though. My main point is that I tend to stay away from arguments about emotional damage, because that is so hard to measure in terms of actual damage to a person ("waaaa waaaa he called me a bad name" isn't emotional damage, for example).

Actually David, pointing a gun at someone legally constitutes assault. Go ahead, ask your lawyer.

In order to divorce you usually have to have a reason. If you divorce someone merely to hurt them the court is likely to punish you by giving your stuff to your ex-spouse. The majority of divorces today are still filed because orf abuse and/or infidelity.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Rights are natural.

No they aren't.

[OzzyKP]

I guess I shoulda known I was just going to waste my time making a long thought out post here, only to have on one read it or respond to it. I don't know why I bothered to come back to these apolyton forums. *sigh*

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I don't know why I bothered to come back to these apolyton forums.

We don't know either.

[GePap]

To address the current stream of the thread (as always, not intentioned):

Rights are given by society, they are not natural, nor are they eternal. The only way I see to believe so is if one is relegious, otherwise, to think anything as 'natural', besides basic rules of physics, is nonsense.

As for your points OzzyKP, if you ever see this:

People can base their assumptions only on what they know, which is why in 1984 control of ll media and speech is so crucial: tll everyone that the armed men are terrorist (obviously immoral and bad), and they lose all support among the widespread population.Think of it this way: Could we today ever have a thing like Thomas Paines (spelling?) writings and pamphlets, which reahced far and wide and influenced a mass audience? No, heck, the Prez. speaks and gives a speech and what, 30% at most of the public know it hapened, and less actually saw it? Would any network ever televise someone calling for revolution, without some other person opposed to it there to argue against, in the name of 'balanced reporting'? and how mnay people would actualy be watching anyway?

The argument made at the start is that guns aren't enough for freedom: you can't beat modern armies by force unless either you are a modern army, or you engage the powers that be in a form of conflict in which such force is meaningless, and once you start shooting, you make the army very meaningful. Yet today most americans would say little while the basic methods of nonviolent struggle are denied to the public, because they have this idiotic notion that if things ever got bad, they would just pick up their guns, march on wahsington, and overthrow the government...yeah right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

most americans would say little while the basic methods of nonviolent struggle are denied to the public, because they have this idiotic notion that if things ever got bad, they would just pick up their guns, march on wahsington, and overthrow the government...yeah right.

Um no... most Americans rather have in mind Vietnam.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JCG
In fact, I still don't understand why someone would be seriously opposed to "bullet fingerprint tracking" or whatever the name was for that particular proposal....Would have been immensely useful in situations such as the current sniper attacks.

The reasons can generally be lumped under "waste of time and money" and "potential for abuse"

In the first category, it's a waste because the marking characteristics of barrels change with excessive wear (put 5000 rounds of FMJ through a rifle barrel in a fairly short period of time, and you have different markings). Some times of ammo (some hollow points, Glaser safety slugs and wadcutters) fragment so badly ballistic markings are unrecoverable. Also, good ol' .22 long rifle tends to be very hard to trace. It's also easy as hell to damage the surface of the lands and grooves within the barrel.

On the abuse side, I think there's been enough reversals of DP convictions, police scandals, crime lab scandals, etc., where overzealous cops, prosecutors or lab technicians have already reached a conclusion as to who is guilty. Most criminal defendants don't have access to defense experts and independent labs, so giving police and prosecutors a tool that points to a name and a particular weapon type is a little too powerful. Just take a dumb as a rock jury, claim that there's a higher probability ballistic match than there really is (who's gonna know, and hell, we all know the ******* is guilty?), and point out that iron-clad "fingerprint" that Billy Bob bought a weapon just like this. (let's gloss over we can't prove he didn't sell it a couple years ago like he claims and we can't tie him to the crime scene )

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Here's where your problem is. The government actually CAN'T "regulate" (which in this context means take away) ANY right for reasons of national security. They may well do it, but that's because enough people let them get away with it.

If we shot them the first time they tried (and I mean all the way back to shooting or stringing up those responsible for the Alien and Sedition Acts, and everything on forward, conscription, etc.), like we quite frankly should have, then we wouldn't even be having discussions about whether or not rights can be limited for reasons of national security.

No, we'd be a ****ing Somalia for white people, with about the same global significance.

[MarkG]

can someone do a comparison of the guns of the US goverment versus the guns of the US citizens?
i'd love to see some numbers...