A little something that all RKBA believers should know....

Discussions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Post Reply
Ruari
Learning the ropes
Learning the ropes
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:16 pm
Location: New South Wales, Australia.

A little something that all RKBA believers should know....

Post by Ruari » Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:50 am

This is what I have termed Vallicella's Contention and I here present it for the edification of some and the frustration of those who would refute its Conclusion and the logical progression through which it was reached.
Bill Vallicella:
"Here is a stab at an argument for natural gun rights.

(1) Every human person possesses a right to life.
(2) If a human person has a right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate it.
(3) If a human person has a right to defend his life, then he has a right to an effective means of defending his life.
(4) A handgun is an effective means of defending one's life, and indeed, in some circumstances, the only effective means. Therefore,
(5) human persons have a right to possess handguns.

It is easy to see that the conclusion follows from the premises. But are the premises true?

Surely (1) is uncontroversial. Note that this argument does not assume that every human being is a human person. Saddam Hussein is a human being, but it is arguable that by the commission of his crimes he forfeited his personhood, and with it his right to life. Some will hold that human fetuses are not persons, and so have no right to life. I believe they are wrong, but the above argument does not rest on the assumption that they are.

To see that (2) is true, consider what happens if you negate it. The negation of (2) is: (~2) Human persons have a right to life, but they do not have the right to defend their lives. The absurdity of this is self-evident. How can I have a right to life if it is morally impermissible for me to defend my life?
My having a right to life does not entail any moral obligation on my part to defend my life, but it surely entails the moral permissibility of self-defense. For if I have a right to life, then others have an obligation not to harm me. This obligation of theirs entitles me to meet a deadly threat with force sufficient to thwart the attack, up to and including killing the assailant.
We appear to be at moral rock-bottom here. I say (2) is self-evident. Reject it, and there is probably no point in further discussion.

The negation of (3) also strikes me as absurd: You have a right to defend yourself, but no right to the possession of any effective means of so doing? To will the end is to will the means. So, to will one's defense is to will the means to one's defense. Therefore, if it is morally permissible to will one's defense, then it is morally permissible to will the means to one's defense. I grant that qualifications may be needed. Arguably, felons ought not have the right to purchase firearms. A felon either forfeits his right to self-defense, or has that right overridden by the community's right to be safe from his predation.

(4) is obviously true pending some obvious qualifications that I left out for the sake of brevity, the soul of wit. A handgun is an effective means of self defense, but not in all circumstances, only if the defender is properly trained in the use of firearms, etc.

The conclusion follows from the premises, and the premises are defensible. So I say the individual qua individual (as opposed to the individual qua member of some collective such as a police force or military unit) has an individual right to posses firearms for the purpose of defending his own life. The existence of such an individual right does not entail that it is unlimited. Thus if I have a right to firepower sufficient to my self-defense, it does not follow that I have a right to firepower sufficent to lay waste to a city. One non sequitur to avoid is this: There is no unlimited individual right to keep and bear arms; ergo, the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right.

Arguments like the foregoing make appeal to people's reason. Like all my arguments, it is directed to open-minded, reasonable people who are doing their level best to form correct opinions about matters of moment. You decide whether I have been employing right reason. But if you wish to criticize, just be sure that you engage what I have actually written and not something you have excogitated on the occasion of skimming my post.".


More of William Vallicella's writing may be found at http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/
Bill is a brilliant person and his writings are often witty and always thought provoking.
.
Last edited by Ruari on Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Self Defence is not only a right, it is an Obligation.

For Advertising mail webmaster
Virendra S Rathore
One of Us (Nirvana)
One of Us (Nirvana)
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:31 am
Location: Delhi/NCR
Contact:

Re: A little something that all RKBA believers should know..

Post by Virendra S Rathore » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:45 am

I don't disagree with Bill. We have not been calling for WMD licenses anyway.
We call for rationalization of Gun laws and an aligned implementation .. not for blind gun liberalization (free for all).
Virendra S Rathore

To Take my gun away for I might kill someone is just like cutting my throat for I might yell "Fire !!" in a crowded theatre ..

Virendra S Rathore
One of Us (Nirvana)
One of Us (Nirvana)
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:31 am
Location: Delhi/NCR
Contact:

Re: A little something that all RKBA believers should know..

Post by Virendra S Rathore » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:53 am

Ruari wrote:This is what I have termed Vallicella's Contention and I here present it for the edification of some and the frustration of those who would refute its Conclusion and the logical progression through which it was reached.
(4) is obviously true pending some obvious qualifications that I left out for the sake of brevity, the soul of wit. A handgun is an effective means of self defense, but not in all circumstances, only if the defender is properly trained in the use of firearms, etc.
Something I've always wanted to stress upon. Without focusing on proper training and practice culture cultivated in the applicants and owners, the argument of RKBA seems incomplete and weaker.
Threat is always there.
Need of possession is always there
Also there; is the need of proper training and practice. The need of being in a responsible gun culture.

Whenever wherever we rally for RKBA, we have to raise this point with equal force as we do for the rights.

Regards,
Virendra
Virendra S Rathore

To Take my gun away for I might kill someone is just like cutting my throat for I might yell "Fire !!" in a crowded theatre ..

User avatar
brihacharan
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:33 pm
Location: mumbai

Re: A little something that all RKBA believers should know..

Post by brihacharan » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:17 pm

> I believe the subject of RKBA is a never ending debate - will go on even after the proverbial cows come home!
> The harm that can be created by the use of a knife, crowbar, baseball bat, an icepick / screwdriver or even a brick can be as fatal as with that of a gun.
> Proximity (distance) to the unfortunate victim is perhaps what makes the gun score over the rest...
> Its the mindset, attitude & education that dictates the enforcement of gun laws...
> Most countries across the world were in some way or the other were the perpatrators of war & conquest - while India as a country never waged a war wontonly either to conquer, subjugate & rule others beyond its borders.
> Beginning with swords, spears, bows & arrows and ending with guns has been a transition in the garb of technological advancement and this progression will go on and if movies are any indication this futuristic trend is truly fearsome!
> Finally for us RKBA is more of 'politicizing' the issue rather than tackling / approaching it with need to fulfill 'basic human rights' ....
Briha

User avatar
essdee1972
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra

Re: A little something that all RKBA believers should know..

Post by essdee1972 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:56 am

What should we do with those who believe that self defense, like credit card selling, should be an "outsourced function" - outsourced to the cops, etc.?
Cheers!

EssDee
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, which are not supplied or owned by the state.Aristotle

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don't give up the fight.Bob Marley

User avatar
ckkalyan
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: A little something that all RKBA believers should know..

Post by ckkalyan » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:32 pm

Great coments by brihacharan and others
essdee1972 wrote:What should we do with those who believe that self defense, like credit card selling, should be an "outsourced function" - outsourced to the cops, etc.?
:o

Well essdee1972 what can one say..............horror of horrors - so much so that is no longer 'self' defence but 'outsourced' defence!!?

In a way it would be superb that we could discard our sense of self and...extended - self-reliance....then depend on 'outsourced' material, props, personnel and training programs to magically provide it. :mrgreen:
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!

Post Reply