DAFUQ? O'Reilly PRO-gun control

[Prolescum]

Firstly, welcome to LoR

Just wanted to pick up something you've said:

A gun is a tool for self-defense which is a basic human right.

It is arguable that a gun is "a tool for self defense". I would say they are offensive rather than defensive weapons in both design and general (read: most) use cases.

The relevant human right, I believe, is found in article three, which states: everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person, and doesn't mention guns as the means to that end. "The security of the person" could just as easily be interpreted to mean that countries who've signed the declaration are mandated to ensure the security (with a police force and standing army, for example) of its citizens.

What I'm failing to say is that I don't think the UDHR is very useful for arguing a pro-gun position.

 

[wswolf]

Firstly, welcome to LoR

Thank you.

It is arguable that a gun is "a tool for self defense". I would say they are offensive rather than defensive weapons in both design and general (read: most) use cases.

"Gun" is a very broad term so I will limit my reply to handguns. Handguns are also a broad category so forgive me for generalizing. Many, probably most, handguns have been made specifically for individual self-defense since the introduction of the wheel-lock mechanism in the early 16th century. Compared to rifles, usually designed with offensive capability in mind, handguns are low-powered, short-ranged and difficult to shoot accurately. Offsetting the disadvantages handguns have a number of advantages: they can be carried at all times to respond to an unexpected attack, they can be used with one hand leaving the other free to hold a flashlight or dial the police and they can enable someone who is small and weak to defend against large, strong and numerous attackers.

The number of criminal vs defensive uses is irrelevant to the exercise of an individual right, however criminological data from the US reveals that defensive uses outnumber criminal uses by at least three times and possibly as much as six times. Refer to studies by Gary Kleck, John Lott and others.

The relevant human right, I believe, is found in article three, which states: everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person, and doesn't mention guns as the means to that end. "The security of the person" could just as easily be interpreted to mean that countries who've signed the declaration are mandated to ensure the security (with a police force and standing army, for example) of its citizens.

What I'm failing to say is that I don't think the UDHR is very useful for arguing a pro-gun position.

I do not refer to the UDHR but to Thomas Hobbs concept of "unalienable" rights. To quote constitutional scholar David T. Hardy: "Hobbes contended that governments were founded for one reason--to safeguard each citizen against violence. The right to defend oneself if the government failed to do so was thus unalienable: if the government failed to protect, it had already breached its contract with the citizen. "A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void... For the right men have by Nature to defend themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished." Thus, at a minimum, no citizen could ever give up a right to self-defense--even if he desired to".

Even if a government does its best to safeguard each citizen the task is impossible. Criminals take great care to strike when police are absent. Many governments do not respond at all if the citizen is of the "wrong" race, religion or political party.
Cheers,
Wolf