Then "you composed a silly response". — Sapientia

That might be true if I based my position with respect to the right to bear arms on the jokes of a comedian.

Don't need to, don't intend to. — Sapientia

Why not? Why are you even respond to me, then? Are you bored, trolling, something else?

It didn't seem to sink in the first time. — Sapientia

Repeating the same claim doesn't make it so. You know that, so, again, I'm beginning to suspect you're just trying to get a rise out of me at this point.

It might not actually be the most effective at keeping potential intruders at bay, but it doesn't need to be. It was an attempt to help you get your head around the fact that there are more important things than what's most effective. — Sapientia

You've still given me no reason for believing that means other than a gun are just as effective as a gun in all cases. If prevention of crime is in view, then this is the claim you need to defend, otherwise, there is no reason to oppose the use of firearms in self-defense.

You have to be willing to kill. — Akanthinos

Naturally.

Proof of what? That fear is an effective tool of dissuasion? — Akanthinos

Your examples are ridiculous. None of them make any sense as effective means of self-defense.

You mean this?

1. I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
2. I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
3. Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
4. Therefore, I have a right to own firearms.

It's impossibly woolly. What does 'proper means' mean? Does it exclude means that create a danger to the rest of the community, because they would be 'improper'? If so then 2 is acceptable but 3 is not. If not then 2 is unacceptable.

What is the significance of 'the' in 'the proper means'? Usually, use of 'the' implies there is only one means. Perhaps you mean 'any proper means', or perhaps you mean 'at least one proper means'. Who knows?

If 'the' in 2 means 'any proper means' then I see no reason for anybody to accept premise 2, as owning some of those means could create an unacceptable hazard for the rest of the community - which is the case with many guns.

If it doesn't mean 'any proper means' then 4 doesn't follow from the preceding lines.

So with any of the interpretations of the vague words that come readily to mind, the syllogism is either invalid, or it relies on unacceptable premises (is 'unsound').

That might be true if I based my position with respect to the right to bear arms on the jokes of a comedian. — Thorongil

It was true because your response contained questions that didn't need to be asked, because you could have gotten the answers from what I'd said previously or by applying a little imagination.

Why not? Why are you even respond to me, then? Are you bored, trolling, something else? — Thorongil

What are you talking about? You're the one that came up with that criterion of equal effectiveness, not me. It's down to you to defend it. I don't have to attempt to meet it, and I have no intention of trying. As I've said, I go by a different set of priorities, and I think that you need to get yours in order.

Repeating the same claim doesn't make it so. You know that, so, again, I'm beginning to suspect you're just trying to get a rise out of me at this point. — Thorongil

No, I'm just trying to get you to see sense.

You've still given me no reason for believing that means other than a gun are just as effective as a gun in all cases. — Thorongil

Have you been listening to a word I've been saying? This feels like talking to a brick wall.

If prevention of crime is in view, then this is the claim you need to defend, otherwise, there is no reason to oppose the use of firearms in self-defense. — Thorongil

Prevention of crime within reason is in my view. That's the distinction between my position and yours.

Your examples are ridiculous. None of them make any sense as effective means of self-defense. — Thorongil

That's what you think. I can assure you that a phosphorus grenade will be a shitload more effective in deterring anyone who knows what it can do than any form of firearm. You happen to have a chance of surviving getting shot. Not sure you'd even want to survive a heavy phosphorus burn.

What does 'proper means' mean? — andrewk

Adequate and effective.

What is the significance of 'the' in 'the proper means'? — andrewk

Any proper means.

as owning some of those means could create an unacceptable hazard for the rest of the community - which is the case with many guns. — andrewk

This appears to be your key objection. I don't think it affects my argument, as there are plenty of things one owns that could create unacceptable hazards for the rest of the community (I assume you mean the public or society, otherwise your use of the definite article makes it somewhat unclear what you're referring to) that it would be ridiculous to prohibit the rightful use of.

Prevention of crime within reason is in my view. That's the distinction between my position and yours. — Sapientia

Why is the prevention of crime with the private use of guns unreasonable? You still haven't explained why.

Not sure you'd even want to survive a heavy phosphorus burn. — Akanthinos

Right, so you admit you weren't being serious, given this tongue-in-cheek sentence.

That's what you think. I can assure you that a phosphorus grenade will be a shitload more effective in deterring anyone who knows what it can do than any form of firearm. You happen to have a chance of surviving getting shot. Not sure you'd even want to survive a heavy phosphorus burn. — Akanthinos

Yes, he did the same thing with my example of mines. Anything so long as guns are the answer, it seems. Alternatives are to be dismissed, even if they actually tick more of the boxes on his own checklist. :-}

as owning some of those means could create an unacceptable hazard for the rest of the community - which is the case with many guns. — andrewk

This appears to be your key objection. I don't think it affects my argument

It affects it in that many people (most people, and certainly most lawmakers, at least outside the US) would not accept your premise 2, as it does not prevent you from owning things that create significant dangers to others.

You accept premise 2. That's your prerogative. But your argument will not be acceptable to most people because they would see premise 2 - with the interpretation you have now given it - as unreasonable.

I'll add that you don't help your case at all by linking defence of life with defence of property in premise 2. In almost all countries, the measures that are considered reasonable under law for defence of one's property are a tiny subset of the measures considered reasonable for defence of one's life.

Why is the prevention of crime with the private use of guns unreasonable? You still haven't explained why. — Thorongil

Yes, I have, both here and elsewhere. Because guns carry a greater risk. You're more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a stab wound, for example. And, obviously, you're more likely to be shot by someone with a gun than by someone without one - so don't give me that rubbish about not firing it. Furthermore, shooting an intruder almost always constitutes excessive force because of that line I repeated twice already.

as it does not prevent you from owning things that create significant dangers to others. — andrewk

That's my point. You own things that can be used in significantly dangerous ways that you and no one else objects to the rightful ownership of.

Other than that, you've merely provided an undemonstrated appeal to the majority in countries outside the U.S., which is irrelevant to my argument.

No, this is entirely serious. Phosphorus burns are absolutely monstrous, and it's almost impossible to stop white phosphor from spreading, so you'll likely end up with debilitating burns everywhere on your body.

I'd rather die than be turned into useless bacon.

That's my point. You own things that can be used in significantly dangerous ways that you and no one else objects to the rightful ownership of. — Thorongil

This does not work in your favour. Those things undermine the presumed usefulness of guns. And those ways in which you can use them are restricted by law, as they ought to be. Hence, if your reaction to an intruder is to bash his brains in by hitting him over the head repeatedly with a spade as hard as you can, even after he has been knocked out, then you'll likely be going to prison, because that would likely count as an excessive use of force.

Your response is that guns are more effective, but even if so, there are other ways which can be effective enough without carrying the same level of risk that you get with a gun, with regards to the likelihood of being shot and the impact of gunshot wounds.

And guns are not a practically unavoidable staple of the household, like many of the objects you'd expect to see in the home which could be used as a weapon.

Because guns carry a greater risk. You're more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a stab wound, for example. — Sapientia

This is way too simplistic. Do you assert it as a statistical claim? If so, what does it count as stab wounds? Stepping on a tack, cutting your finger with a kitchen knife, hemophiliacs accidentally wounding themselves? Those would affect the fairness of the comparison. What, moreover, are the circumstances of the wound's infliction? If I stabbed you in a major artery, then you are more likely to die than from a gunshot wound to a non-major artery. The caliber of bullet also factors into the damage dealt. If I stabbed you, incapacitating you, and you were left to bleed out without receiving any medical assistance, you are more likely to die than from receiving a gunshot wound and being immediately rushed to the hospital or being treated by a doctor on the scene. The fact is that your assertion isn't true without qualification.

Second, even if in some sense your claim is true, it ignores the statistical reality that I have consistently cited, which is that there are more defensive gun uses than gun deaths each year, meaning that a greater number of crimes are prevented by guns than committed by them. There is, therefore, a risk one takes in not owning a gun, just as there is in owning one. No one on my side ever said that gun ownership doesn't come with responsibility.

you're more likely to be shot by someone with a gun than by someone without one — Sapientia

This is a tautology and irrelevant to whether one has the right to own firearms. Just as you can't be shot without the perpetrator owning a gun with which to shoot you, so you can't be run over without the perpetrator owning a car or truck with which to run you over. Neither fact shows that one doesn't have the right to own the item in question.

Furthermore, shooting an intruder is almost always constitutes excessive force because of that line I repeated twice already. — Sapientia

You have consistently failed to prove any of these adverbs you keep using. Almost always? Well, once again, that depends on the circumstances of the shooting.

that's my point. You own things that can be used in significantly dangerous ways that you and no one else objects to the rightful ownership of.

No, I don't own anything that has anything like the lethal potential of a gun. If that's the point of the argument, then it doesn't work.

Other than that, you've merely provided an undemonstrated appeal to the majority in countries outside the U.S., which is irrelevant to my argument.

No. I've pointed out that most people would not accept your premise 2, so your argument, while you may find it personally convincing, is not unassailable.

In fact, it's simply a matter of opinion, as to how one feels about premise 2. Fortunately for me, opinion is generally against that premise.

there are other ways which can be effective enough without carrying the same level of risk that you get with a gun — Sapientia

I said earlier that you still haven't proven that there are other means as effective as a gun for every given scenario. That remains true. Please don't make me ask for it again.

This is way too simplistic. Do you assert it as a statistical claim? — Thorongil

Except that's a provable claim. Hostpital admittance for stab wounds show that you are about 60-80% likely to survive a stab wound, depending where you are stabbed, while the offshot is about 40% survival chances for bullet wounds.

No, I don't own anything that has anything like the lethal potential of a gun. If that's the point of the argument, then it doesn't work. — andrewk

I bet if I looked in your kitchen cabinets, I could find ingredients to make a bomb. If you own a vehicle, then as you should well know, it can be used to exact a rather hideous death toll. There are lots of other items I could probably find that you own that could be used to commit murder. Even if you own none of these things and live a sparse, ascetic lifestyle like me, most people own items and materials that if used inappropriately can be lethal, things which you do not object to the rightful ownership of.

No. I've pointed out that most people would not accept your premise — andrewk

You said most people in unspecified countries that are not the U.S. reject it (without proof, I might add), not most people per se. Regardless, this is just an argumentum ad populum.

Fortunately for me, opinion is generally against that premise. — andrewk

It must be nice determining the truth of a claim by referring to what the majority thinks. Nevertheless, I value logic.

Except that's a provable claim. Hostpital admittance for stab wounds show that you are about 60-80% likely to survive a stab wound, depending where you are stabbed, while the offshot is about 40% survival chances for bullet wounds. — Akanthinos

Yes, I was looking up similar statistics when composing my reply to Sapientia. My point still stands that the claim he made, without qualification, isn't obviously true. I have no problem granting such statistics either, as I said, for they don't refute my argument.

It must be nice determining the truth of a claim by referring to what the majority thinks. Nevertheless, I value logic.

Logic stops at the premise. A premise, by definition, is a claim that is accepted without proof, or not, according to how it feels to the reader.

If the premise is derived from a further argument, it is no longer a premise, but a deduction, or theorem. At this stage your line 2 is just a premise, and I don't accept it because it seems unreasonable to me. That's all that's needed for me to logically reject the argument.

If you want to turn line 2 from a premise to a derived statement, you need to provide a proof of it, based on other premises that are more likely to be accepted by others.

That's how logic works.

I bet if I looked in your kitchen cabinets, I could find ingredients to make a bomb. If you own a vehicle, then as you should well know, it can be used to exact a rather hideous death toll. There are lots of other items I could probably find that you own that could be used to commit murder. Even if you own none of these things and live a sparse, ascetic lifestyle like me, most people own items and materials that if used inappropriately can be lethal, things which you do not object to the rightful ownership of.

I don't own a car, and one of the reasons for that is that I agree with you that they are lethal, generally unnecessary, objects.

For a lawmaker to decide whether to legally allow ownership of item X, they will weight up the usefulness of it against its risk. I doubt most people have enough of anything that could make a respectable bomb. Farmers may own large amounts of fertiliser, which could. But society weighs that up against the benefit of being able to grow lots of food, and decides that on balance it should allow that.

These arguments cannot be made for guns. For most people they are not required in order to make a living, and for those that do need it for that, exceptions are made. I would not object at all to a law that required registration of all purchases of fertiliser, with the sale of more than a certain amount to a person in a month being blocked if they could not demonstrate a need for it related to their livelihood.

This is way too simplistic. Do you assert it as a statistical claim? If so, what does it count as stab wounds? Stepping on a tack, cutting your finger with a kitchen knife, hemophiliacs accidentally wounding themselves? Those would affect the fairness of the comparison. What, moreover, are the circumstances of the wound's infliction? If I stabbed you in a major artery, then you are more likely to die than from a gunshot wound to a non-major artery. The caliber of bullet also factors into the damage dealt. If I stabbed you, incapacitating you, and you were left to bleed out without receiving any medical assistance, you are more likely to die than from receiving a gunshot wound and being immediately rushed to the hospital or being treated by a doctor on the scene. The fact is that your assertion isn't true without qualification. — Thorongil

I provided the statistics and further details elsewhere in another discussion on gun control that we both participated in. Neither you nor anyone else in that discussion showed any interest in them whatsoever.

Some of those questions are pretty silly. From what I recall, as one would reasonably expect, they were based on major, life threatening injuries, on averages, on typical cases, and were of more of a like-for-like nature, thus ruling out minor injuries like stepping on a tack and special cases like those involving a haemophiliac.

Second, even if in some sense your claim is true, it ignores the statistical reality that I have consistently cited, which is that there are more defensive gun uses than gun deaths each year, meaning that a greater number of crimes are prevented by guns than committed by them. There is, therefore, a risk one takes in not owning a gun, just as there is in owning one. No one on my side ever said that gun ownership doesn't come with responsibility. — Thorongil

There should be no doubt about the truth of my claim, and it has already been suitably qualified. It is both in sync with common sense expectations and verified by statistics.

I have yet to see your statistics. If you've linked to them here or elsewhere, I'll have to check them out. But, assuming that they're from a credible source and as you say, it is still not a very good argument, as I can just cite statistics on gun crime here in the U.K. - where it is very rare to own or carry a gun, let alone use one - where the numbers are significantly lower than those in the U.S.

No one said that gun ownership doesn't come with responsibility, but lots of us have explained why it's irresponsible to own a gun in the first place.

This is a tautology and irrelevant to whether one has the right to own firearms. — Thorongil

It's an important and obvious truth, as well as a good reason to work towards making it increasingly difficult for citizens to obtain a gun, which is more important than any notion or sense of entitlement relating to the so-called right to bear arms.

Just as you can't be shot without the perpetrator owning a gun with which to shoot you, so you can't be run over without the perpetrator owning a car or truck with which to run you over. Neither fact shows that one doesn't have the right to own the item in question. — Thorongil

It's about whether one should have the right, not whether one does. You're right that, in isolation, that wouldn't be enough to show that one should not have right to own the item in question, but you're wrong to think that that's a refutation, as clearly that's just part of a wider context which forms an argument against the so-called right to bear arms, and should not therefore be considered solely in isolation or removed from its context without good reason.

You have consistently failed to prove any of these adverbs you keep using. Almost always? Well, once again, that depends on the circumstances of the shooting. — Thorongil

Yes, almost always. You yourself made the point about the typical objects that can be used as weapons in and around the home. Failing all else, there's always physical combat. I challenge you to come up with a scenario where a gun would be necessary, meaning there could be no other means available for self-defence.

That's how logic works. — andrewk

No it doesn't. My argument is proven to be unsound if one or all of my premises are false. Your objection to premise two is fallacious, so my argument stands.

blocked if they could not demonstrate a need for it related to their livelihood — andrewk

Why does one need to demonstrate a need for something to be related to one's livelihood in order to own it? That's a bizarre claim.

Granting this, however, the ownership of a gun would be demonstrated to be related to one's livelihood. For one's livelihood, or means of acquiring the necessities of life, itself depends on one's life being adequately protected. A gun is an adequate and in many cases the most effective means of protecting one's life, which then enables one to pursue one's livelihood.

It's your argument, and you're making the positive claim - that a person has a right to own any object that can be used to protect themself. The onus is on you to prove that claim.

I am not making any positive claim, so I have nothing to prove. I'm just saying that I don't believe your claim.

Why does one need to demonstrate a need for something to be related to one's livelihood in order to own it? That's a bizarre claim.

Sure is. Lucky I didn't make it then isn't it?
Go back and look at the first part of that sentence, of which you quoted only the second part.

My point still stands that the claim he made, without qualification, isn't obviously true. I have no problem granting such statistics either, as I said, for they don't refute my argument. — Thorongil

Except that they do. I don't get how you don't get this. Replace all guns in the States by blades, leaving everything else the same, and there will be less deaths as a result. That is the only conclusion that these stats can compel you to reach.

A gun is an adequate and in many cases the most effective means of protecting one's life — Thorongil

Still less effective than drones, land mines, railguns, nerve gas, lazersharks, honeytraps, etc...

I said earlier that you still haven't proven that there are other means as effective as a gun for every given scenario. That remains true. Please don't make me ask for it again. — Thorongil

Please don't, because I have already explained why that's a stupid request. What part did you not understand? I'm running out of ways to explain to you that I am under no such burden of proof.

That there are other means of self-defence which are effective enough as a means of self-defence is not at all to suggest that they're as effective as a gun would be in every given scenario. The latter is not necessary and is your own unreasonable criterion. It is not mine, so please stop acting as though it is.

I provided the statistics and further details elsewhere in another discussion on gun control that we both participated in. Neither you nor anyone else in that discussion showed any interest in them whatsoever. — Sapientia

I can only take your word for it. But it remains the case that your statement was not obviously true unless qualified, which you have now done. Good job.

I have yet to see your statistics. If you've linked to them here or elsewhere, I'll have to check them out. — Sapientia

They're principally from the CDC. I don't have a link on hand, but I do welcome you to check them out.

it is still not a very good argument, as I can just cite statistics on gun crime here in the U.K. - where it is very rare to own or carry a gun, let alone use it - which are significantly lower than those in the U.S. — Sapientia

Sure, but then I would like you to explain to me why the U.S. has seen a massive decline in gun violence over the last several decades, despite the number of guns sold increasing. Do note that the people buying these guns aren't committing the gun violence, as the vast majority of gun violence is committed with illegally acquired weapons. Britain, moreover, has always had low amounts of gun violence compared to the U.S., even before it implemented its effective ban, so your statistics don't actually prove the claim you need them to, namely, that a reduction in or outright ban on firearms leads to a reduction in gun violence.

The U.S. also has a different social history than Britain. Most of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs in highly concentrated geographical areas of certain urban centers and among a very specific demographic: young males from minority backgrounds. Such violence is heavily linked to gang related activity and the drug trade. The lawful gun owning NRA member in small town middle America is not the one committing this crime, and yet he, with his pro-second amendment stance, is the one blamed for it, as if he forced some gangbanger in South Chicago to do a drive-by shooting on his rivals by means of an illegally acquired firearm. Gun violence can and has been reduced by tougher penalties, greater policing, and clamping down on straw buyers. To simply ban guns would be to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

It's about whether one should have the right, not whether one does. — Sapientia

Then you fail to understand the first premise. Positive or legal rights can be added and subtracted, this is true. But natural rights don't ever go away, even if one passes laws that remove their positive legal status.

I challenge you to come up with a scenario where a gun would be necessary, meaning there could be no other means available for self-defence. — Sapientia

You can't be serious. Just for starters, what is it do you think cops bring with them most of the time when responding to reports of violent crime?

Please don't, because I have explained why that's a stupid request. — Sapientia

No you haven't. You've tried passing the baton back to me to prove that there aren't other means as effective as guns in every scenario. Sorry, Sappy, that will not do. You made the claim. It's up to you to defend it.

that a person has a right to own any object that can be used to protect themself — andrewk

You're not even characterizing my argument correctly, seeing as you've left out the part where I said that one has the right to proper, i.e. adequate and effective, means of self-defense, which excludes the absurd examples you and Akanthinos have been wracking your brains coming up with. My argument is valid and sound, unless and until you have show one of the premises is false, which you haven't done. The second premise really isn't that difficult to understand. If I lose my life or property defending them by one means of self-defense but protect them by another means, then I require the latter to maintain my natural right to life and property.