Five Questions ("Government on Trial") -- Larken Rose

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sure you'll make the right choice. Whatever you think it is. Considering my familiarity with firearms, I'm sure you'll know my choice.

--Brant

I'll supply my argument

I gather that you'll load your arms with low-caliber, non-forfeit ammunition so that no one is deprived of a right as a penalty for wrongdoing.

You may gather that I think my way of knowing and advocating individual rights is better than yours or I'd have switched. Hence my right to self defense trumps someone's right to assault me and if I have that right I logically have the right to defend myself with something. (When you need the police they are only minutes away.) For home defense it's a .223 semi-auto. (Or a 12 gauge shotgun.) One is not likely to survive this military caliber which is even more deadly than military full metal jacket. For a handgun it's .9mm automatic with a large capacity magazine for it's more important to fire off multiple rounds as fast as you can than the slower fire from a larger .45 cal auto or .357 and .44 mag revolver. Once someone gets hit the first time he still has an 80 - 90% chance of survival but that flips the other way if hit more than once. You're more likely not to hit him at all with the larger guns. Since the first shot is not enough statistically and because he can continue his assault even if mortally wounded I'd likely have to put 3 - 5 into him being aware someone else may be coming in behind him. Apropos that possibility I'll have to put even more bullets into the first guy to make sure he can't do anything to me if I am going to be busy shooting the hypothetical number two. And since I have the legal right to use deadly force, I'd have no incentive just to wound--you never shoot to wound if you're shooting; that's stupid and additionally dangerous--and have him come back for revenge or simply to sue me because he ended up in a wheelchair. He also won't be able to say I did what I did not in a court of law and fuck me up that way.

--Brant

hey, I'm a nice guy and nice gets nice from me--why would anyone want my bullets?

[Derek McGowan]

Hence my right to self defense trumps someone's right to assault me

your use of the word "trump" has not been authorized by Fransisco

[Brant Gaede]

Hence my right to self defense trumps someone's right to assault me

your use of the word "trump" has not been authorized by Fransisco

My right to trump trumps his right to de-trump my right.

--Brant

triumphant! (trump, trump, trump!)

[Francisco Ferrer]

You may gather that I think my way of knowing and advocating individual rights is better than yours or I'd have switched. Hence my right to self defense trumps someone's right to assault me and if I have that right I logically have the right to defend myself with something.

The statement "My right to self defense trumps someone's right to assault me" is self-contradictory. There cannot be both a right to ownership of one's body and one's goods and a right for another person to initiate force to deprive the first person of any part of that body or goods.

The "right" to assault is null and void. For such a right to be granted, we would have to dispense with the right of any peaceful person to hold on to his living body and his worldly possessions.

The homeowner's right, i.e. his entitlement, to use lethal force to take out an immediate threat to life and property does not simply "trump" or outrank the assailant's right to be there. By inserting himself uninvited and in a threatening manner into another's home, the invader has no rights; he has abandoned any pretense of rights.

He has, in short, forfeited any claim to his present state of health or even continued existence on earth.

The forfeiting of rights does not entail dehumanization, debasement, or cruel and unusual punishment for rights violators. As I have said earlier in the thread, justice requires that the self-defense response be appropriate to the threat and that in a court of law the punishment fit the crime.

[Brant Gaede]

"Trumps" another right means no right was trumped because of the contradiction. I left that conclusion to the reader.

We're doing our same old argument about the difference between forfeit of rights and forfeit the right to exercise or use rights. It's become worthless for the repetition.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

"Trumps" another right means no right was trumped because of the contradiction. I left that conclusion to the reader.

Let "Trumps another right" = A

Let "No right was trumped" = Non-A

Thus if "Trumps another right means no right was trumped," A = Non-A.

We're doing our same old argument about the difference between forfeit of rights and forfeit the right to exercise or use rights.

If Homeowner A's killing of Intruder B for breaking and entering is a forfeiture of the right to exercise or use rights, how would A's killing of Intruder B for breaking and entering as a forfeiture of rights be any different in character or outcome?

This appears to be a distinction without a difference.

[moralist]

I'm sure you'll make the right choice. Whatever you think it is. Considering my familiarity with firearms, I'm sure you'll know my choice.

--Brant

I'll supply my argument

I gather that you'll load your arms with low-caliber, non-forfeit ammunition so that no one is deprived of a right as a penalty for wrongdoing.

You may gather that I think my way of knowing and advocating individual rights is better than yours or I'd have switched. Hence my right to self defense trumps someone's right to assault me and if I have that right I logically have the right to defend myself with something. (When you need the police they are only minutes away.) For home defense it's a .223 semi-auto. (Or a 12 gauge shotgun.) One is not likely to survive this military caliber which is even more deadly than military full metal jacket. For a handgun it's .9mm automatic with a large capacity magazine for it's more important to fire off multiple rounds as fast as you can than the slower fire from a larger .45 cal auto or .357 and .44 mag revolver. Once someone gets hit the first time he still has an 80 - 90% chance of survival but that flips the other way if hit more than once. You're more likely not to hit him at all with the larger guns. Since the first shot is not enough statistically and because he can continue his assault even if mortally wounded I'd likely have to put 3 - 5 into him being aware someone else may be coming in behind him. Apropos that possibility I'll have to put even more bullets into the first guy to make sure he can't do anything to me if I am going to be busy shooting the hypothetical number two. And since I have the legal right to use deadly force, I'd have no incentive just to wound--you never shoot to wound if you're shooting; that's stupid and additionally dangerous--and have him come back for revenge or simply to sue me because he ended up in a wheelchair. He also won't be able to say I did what I did not in a court of law and fuck me up that way.

--Brant

hey, I'm a nice guy and nice gets nice from me--why would anyone want my bullets?

Well thought out, Brant.

I'm into firearms too.

I recently came up with an idea for a compensator for 22 pistol shooters doing the "Steel Challenge". The prototype is almost done and it'll be sent to a competition shooter for his independent evaluation.

Greg

[Backlighting]

Brant said: "For home defense it's a .223 semi-auto. (Or a 12 gauge shotgun.) One is not likely to survive this military caliber which is even more deadly than military full metal jacket. For a handgun it's .9mm automatic with a large capacity magazine for it's more important to fire off multiple rounds as fast as you can than the slower fire from a larger .45 cal auto or .357 and .44 mag revolver"

As far as long guns go, a .223 leaving the muzzle at approx. 3,000fps, will easily penetrate the walls in a home and could kill family members in adjoining areas.

A 12 gauge is great if one's wife or children are in to weight training & have spent sufficient time firing one. A 16 gauge or even a 410 will suffice at close range.

I wouldn't recommend a long gun if that were to be my only weapon inside the home. Getting one on target, quickly, in a corridor, stairwell or small room might present a problem.

As for handguns I prefer a 44 special revolver (more reliable than a semi-auto). Women & teens, with practice, can handle it. Additionally, a center mass hit with that or any of the other 40 cal. rounds are more effective than a 9mm. I'd rather stop an aggressor with 1 or 2 rounds than have to empty a 9mm magazine. For multiple assailants, indoors, I'd go with a .40 S&W. in a 15+ 1 semi-auto. Outdoors and at distances beyond 100 yards, an M1A or any of the other .308 semi-autos would be my first choice.

-J

[Brant Gaede]

I live in a brick house so it's either one for me. A 16 gauge has advantages over a 12. Less recoil and faster to fire and not so intimidating to women for them to use. If you're outside using a gun, that's too much advantage to the bad guy, generally speaking.

--Brant

a 410?--if that's all you have, start firing, especially if you're in The Birds

[Backlighting]

I live in a brick house so it's either one for me. A 16 gauge has advantages over a 12. Less recoil and faster to fire and not so intimidating to women for them to use. If you're outside using a gun, that's too much advantage to the bad guy, generally speaking.

--Brant

a 410?--if that's all you have, start firing, especially if you're in The Birds

Brant, are the walls between your rooms brick?

-J

[Brant Gaede]

I live in a brick house so it's either one for me. A 16 gauge has advantages over a 12. Less recoil and faster to fire and not so intimidating to women for them to use. If you're outside using a gun, that's too much advantage to the bad guy, generally speaking.

--Brant

a 410?--if that's all you have, start firing, especially if you're in The Birds

Brant, are the walls between your rooms brick?

-J

I'm not going to be shooting myself.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

I live in a brick house so it's either one for me. A 16 gauge has advantages over a 12. Less recoil and faster to fire and not so intimidating to women for them to use. If you're outside using a gun, that's too much advantage to the bad guy, generally speaking.

--Brant

a 410?--if that's all you have, start firing, especially if you're in The Birds

Brant, are the walls between your rooms brick?

-J

I'm not going to be shooting myself.

--Brant

So glad to hear that.

-J