In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[Anomaly]

That mysterious God given right to own a semiautomatic rifle with a high capacity magazine. I think it's mentioned somewhere on Luke.

 

It's listed right next to the section that it's a god given right to allow teenagers to drive cars despite the cold hard fact they kill more people and cause more damage than high capacity fire arms.  958 people were INJURED or Killed in the last 30 years from mass shootings.  Only 25% were assault weapons.  That's an average of 32 people injured or killed per year over the last 30 years.

 

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens. In 2010, seven teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.  Fortunately, teen motor vehicle crashes are preventable, and proven strategies can improve the safety of young drivers on the road.

 

In 2010, about 2,700 teens in the United States aged 16–19 were killed and almost 282,000 were treated and released from emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes.1

Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females.

 

Looking at the statistics, a teen driver is about 9,000 times more likely to injure or kill themselves or other teens than to be injured or killed in a mass shooting.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Anomaly

[theculturewarrior]

It's listed right next to the section that it's a god given right to allow teenagers to drive cars despite the cold hard fact they kill more people and cause more damage than high capacity fire arms.  958 people were INJURED or Killed in the last 30 years from mass shootings.  Only 25% were assault weapons.  That's an average of 32 people injured or killed per year over the last 30 years.

 

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens. In 2010, seven teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.  Fortunately, teen motor vehicle crashes are preventable, and proven strategies can improve the safety of young drivers on the road.

 

In 2010, about 2,700 teens in the United States aged 16–19 were killed and almost 282,000 were treated and released from emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes.1

Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females.

 

Looking at the statistics, a teen driver is about 9,000 times more likely to injure or kill themselves or other teens than to be injured or killed in a mass shooting.

 

If you are saying that we need to raise the minimum age for driver's licenses, I agree!

[4588686]

It's listed right next to the section that it's a god given right to allow teenagers to drive cars despite the cold hard fact they kill more people and cause more damage than high capacity fire arms.  958 people were INJURED or Killed in the last 30 years from mass shootings.  Only 25% were assault weapons.  That's an average of 32 people injured or killed per year over the last 30 years.

 

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens. In 2010, seven teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.  Fortunately, teen motor vehicle crashes are preventable, and proven strategies can improve the safety of young drivers on the road.

 

In 2010, about 2,700 teens in the United States aged 16–19 were killed and almost 282,000 were treated and released from emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes.1

Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females.

 

Looking at the statistics, a teen driver is about 9,000 times more likely to injure or kill themselves or other teens than to be injured or killed in a mass shooting.

 

Right.  I agree that America's driving laws are ridiculousness.  So therefore we should have equally ridiculous gun laws?   

[Winchester]

That mysterious God given right to own a semiautomatic rifle with a high capacity magazine. I think it's mentioned somewhere on Luke.

 

Property rights are natural rights. The shape of the property isn't an issue.

[4588686]

Property rights are natural rights.

 

Says who?  What gives you the right to appropriate the natural world to your exclusive use?  You have no argument unless you accept the legitimacy of the state. 

[Winchester]

Says who?  What gives you the right to appropriate the natural world to your exclusive use?  You have no argument unless you accept the legitimacy of the state. 

 

So prior to the state, the only human right was to found the State?

[Anomaly]

Right.  I agree that America's driving laws are ridiculousness.  So therefore we should have equally ridiculous gun laws?   

 

I'm pointing out that extreme ridiculousness should be taken out of the equations.  In the wake of this tragedy, let's try to identify what the real problem is and evaluate our capability of correcting the problem.

 

Restricting high capacity weapons really doesn't do anything other than make some people feel good.  It's a riduculous and ineffective emotional response.   What effect would limit a certain type of gun when there are alread 200,000,000+ legal guns in the US?  What if he had 3 shot guns? 

 

Is the threat from a mass shooter armed with an assault weapon more dangerous to schoolchildre than the ride to or from school in a car or bus?  If not, and your response is not addressing the real danger to the kids, who are you telling lies to?

[4588686]

So prior to the state, the only human right was to found the State?

 

I wouldn't say that there was a right to create a state.  There are no transcendent rights.  You have a legal right to property.  That's it. 

I'm pointing out that extreme ridiculousness should be taken out of the equations.  In the wake of this tragedy, let's try to identify what the real problem is and evaluate our capability of correcting the problem.

 

Restricting high capacity weapons really doesn't do anything other than make some people feel good.  It's a riduculous and ineffective emotional response.   What effect would limit a certain type of gun when there are alread 200,000,000+ legal guns in the US?  What if he had 3 shot guns? 

 

Is the threat from a mass shooter armed with an assault weapon more dangerous to schoolchildre than the ride to or from school in a car or bus?  If not, and your response is not addressing the real danger to the kids, who are you telling lies to?

 

If he had three shot guns then it would take him a lot longer to kill 90 people than if he had three bushmasters with high capacity magazines.  Gun control can work.  Unless Americans are just massively more violent than Western Europeans, Canadians, and UKers.  A guy with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a ride home on any particular school bus.  That's not what the fact that more kids are killed by vehicles than mass shooters means.  

[Winchester]

I wouldn't say that there was a right to create a state.  There are no transcendent rights.  You have a legal right to property.  That's it. 

 

If there is no right to create a state, then the state cannot be legitimate.

[4588686]

If there is no right to create a state, then the state cannot be legitimate.

 

Who said a state is 'legitimate?'  It exists and you live in it and therefore you have a legal right to property.  You can claim that you have some supra-legal right to property but you haven't provided any proof that any such right exists.  

Edited December 19, 2012 by Hasan

[Winchester]

That doesn't make any sense.  Who said a state is 'legitimate?'  It exists and you live in it and therefore you have a legal right to property.  You can claim that you have some supra-legal right to property but you haven't provided any proof that any such right exists.  

 

You claimed the only way to accept property rights is to accept the legitimacy of the State.

 

The State is formed by man. If the State is legitimate, it must be a right of man to form a State. If there is such a right, then there must be some form of property right, at least in ownership of oneself. Otherwise, the use of the self to form the State wouldn't be legitimate, and it follows that the State would not be legitimate.

 

Are you saying that might makes right?

[4588686]

You claimed the only way to accept property rights is to accept the legitimacy of the State.

 

Right.  

 

The State is formed by man. If the State is legitimate, it must be a right of man to form a State.   If there is such a right, then there must be some form of property right, at least in ownership of oneself. Otherwise, the use of the self to form the State wouldn't be legitimate, and it follows that the State would not be legitimate.

 

Are you saying that might makes right?

 

I think it is possible to argue for the moral legitimacy of a state without saying that people have some sort of positive transcendent right to form a state.  States are just institutions.  They can do good or bad things.  Does somebody have a transcendent moral right to for a chess club?  Probably not.  But I wouldn't say that it is necessarily illegitimate for them to found one.  I also wouldn't say it's legitimate.  That institution exists and it can do good or bad things.  

 

But you're saying that the state is inherently illegitimate.  Ok.  Fine.  There where does the right of property come from?  Who says you get to demarcate a piece of forest and declare it fit only for your exclusive use?  

[Winchester]

Right.  

 

 

I think it is possible to argue for the moral legitimacy of a state without saying that people have some sort of positive transcendent right to form a state.  States are just institutions.  They can do good or bad things.  Does somebody have a transcendent moral right to for a chess club?  Probably not.  But I wouldn't say that it is necessarily illegitimate for them to found one.  I also wouldn't say it's legitimate.  That institution exists and it can do good or bad things.  

 

But you're saying that the state is inherently illegitimate.  Ok.  Fine.  There where does the right of property come from?  Who says you get to demarcate a piece of forest and declare it fit only for your exclusive use?  

 

I don't see a need to enumerate a special right for each variance of the use of the body. Yes, you have a right to form a chess club. That is merely a use of your body (disregarding use of chess pieces and pocket protectors).

 

Are you saying that the only human rights are those granted through legalities?

[4588686]

I don't see a need to enumerate a special right for each variance of the use of the body. Yes, you have a right to form a chess club. That is merely a use of your body (disregarding use of chess pieces and pocket protectors).  Are you saying that the only human rights are those granted through legalities?

 

The only human rights are the ones that humans are willing to demand and enforce.  If you want to say that you have a right to private property and are willing to use violence to appropriate a piece of the common world to your private use and the means the enforce that claim then I guess that you have a right to private property.  That's more or less how the system of private property got started in the first place.  

[Papist]

There are some very curious and scary things being said about this event. Things like it was planned, more than one shooter, connection with LIBOR scandal and UN Small Arms Treaty.  Has anyone encountered them?   I dismiss conspiracy theories, but I am drawn to this one b/c of its scariness. I hope it is all nonsense.