There was an armed guard, but bringing a pistol to a rifle fight just doesn't work.

In any specific situation there is no telling what will or won't happen. In the Oregon shopping mall incident as soon as a concealed-carry permit holder drew his weapon (didn't fire because of too many bystanders), the attacker fled into a stairwell and committed suicide. Who knows how many lives were saved. In the New Life chapel attack, a security guard engaged the gunman and who knows how many lives were saved.

Do we even know whether the armed guard was anywhere near where this all went down and, if they were, were they in any position to actually engage the shooter. The shooter apparently cased the place pretty thoroughly and I would not be at all surprised if that included choosing the time and method of attack specifically so as to mitigate the ability of the sole security guard from being able to react effectively within the planned duration of the attack.

 

Data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that 311 children age 14 and under were killed in unintentional shootings between 2007 and 2011 — an average of 62 per year.11 And an estimated 660 children are hospitalized each year with non-fatal, unintentional firearm injuries.
Your in more danger from your friend than by a terrorist.

 

In any specific situation there is no telling what will or won't happen. In the Oregon shopping mall incident as soon as a concealed-carry permit holder drew his weapon (didn't fire because of too many bystanders), the attacker fled into a stairwell and committed suicide. Who knows how many lives were saved. In the New Life chapel attack, a security guard engaged the gunman and who knows how many lives were saved.

Do we even know whether the armed guard was anywhere near where this all went down and, if they were, were they in any position to actually engage the shooter. The shooter apparently cased the place pretty thoroughly and I would not be at all surprised if that included choosing the time and method of attack specifically so as to mitigate the ability of the sole security guard from being able to react effectively within the planned duration of the attack.

From what I've read they chased him inside where he took cover in the restroom along with a bunch of people. Kind of the opposite of your examples. But who knows what might have been. But I guess if even 20 or 30 more people had had guns maybe only 10 or 15 people may have been killed. But, I'm having a tough time visualizing that many guns inside a gay bar at closing time.
Edit:
Around 2 a.m.
The shooter opens fire outside Pulse nightclub, engages with an offduty uniformed police officer who was working for the nightclub when the shooting started, and then enters club. More officers arrive and exchange gunfire with the suspect, forcing him to stop shooting and retreat to one of the nightclub’s restrooms.

 

This is a classic American response to attacks.

 

Data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that 311 children age 14 and under were killed in unintentional shootings between 2007 and 2011 — an average of 62 per year.11 And an estimated 660 children are hospitalized each year with non-fatal, unintentional firearm injuries.
Your in more danger from your friend than by a terrorist.

As noted previously, along with rights come risks. 62 deaths per year in a population of nearly 60 million in that age range makes the rate just under 1 in a million.

In 2014, also according to the CDC, in that same age group there were 597 deaths by unintentional drowning, 1083 from traffic accidents. Accidental deaths from firearms didn't even make the top ten list of unintentional causes of death for any age group except one, ages 5-9.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc...eaths_unintentional_injury_2014_1040w740h.gif

If they are more in danger from their friends than a terrorist (which is very true), then just consider how much more they are in danger from their parents. On average about 1500 kids die each year from abuse and neglect.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatality.pdf

 

From what I've read they chased him inside where he took cover in the restroom along with a bunch of people. Kind of the opposite of your examples. But who knows what might have been. But I guess if even 20 or 30 more people had had guns maybe only 10 or 15 people may have been killed. But, I'm having a tough time visualizing that many guns inside a gay bar at closing time.
Edit:
Around 2 a.m.
The shooter opens fire outside Pulse nightclub, engages with an offduty uniformed police officer who was working for the nightclub when the shooting started, and then enters club. More officers arrive and exchange gunfire with the suspect, forcing him to stop shooting and retreat to one of the nightclub’s restrooms.

Keep in mind that my other examples were for NON-terrorists. I almost added to post you responded to that I would have expected him to ambush the sole armed guard at the very beginning, and now it appears that perhaps he did (or tried).

 

Personally, I think the notion of "natural rights" is a fiction -- we only enjoy the rights that we are willing to demand and, if necessary, fight for -- and even then only if we do so successfully.

The issue is philosophical. If rights are conferred upon men by men, then they can also be withdrawn at the whim of other men (usually, by a mob called democracy). If you accept this, you surrender your moral basis to demand and fight for your own rights.

 

The issue is philosophical. If rights are conferred upon men by men, then they can also be withdrawn at the whim of other men (usually, by a mob called democracy). If you accept this, you surrender your moral basis to demand and fight for your own rights.

But doesn't the very fact that they ARE routinely withdrawn by other men pretty much then prove that they WERE conferred by men in the first place?

It is a common refrain that natural rights can't be taken away. Well, if that's true and a natural right CAN'T be taken away, then any right that IS taken away must NOT be a natural right to begin with.

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R44521.pdf

According to CRS analysis of publicly available information, IS supporters have accounted for 67 homegrown violent jihadist plots between 2014 and early June 2016.7 In the same time period, IS-linked plots have dominated the homegrown violent jihadist landscape, accounting for 67 of 76 total plots. In November 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reportedly had more than 900 investigations of IS suspects in the United States.8 Coping with the comparative size of this threat is one of the challenges domestic law enforcement agencies face. This is complicated by the varied courses of action chosen by IS supporters as they engage with the terrorist group.

 

But doesn't the very fact that they ARE routinely withdrawn by other men pretty much then prove that they WERE conferred by men in the first place?

It is a common refrain that natural rights can't be taken away. Well, if that's true and a natural right CAN'T be taken away, then any right that IS taken away must NOT be a natural right to begin with.

Again, mixing up what the poster says vs. what they mean. Joey is not really talking about philosophy, even though he says it is philosophy. He is talking about branding and positioning his view as a "natural right" so it becomes more difficult for anyone to take it away.

 

Data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate ..................

The CDC for a while was the NRA of anti gun laws. They were even reprimanded for exceeding their mandate and other "questionable" things, like......

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

"The Centers for Disease Control was using taxpayer money to pay for biased advocacy studies about guns and gun control."

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

 

Again, mixing up what the poster says vs. what they mean. Joey is not really talking about philosophy, even though he says it is philosophy. He is talking about branding and positioning his view as a "natural right" so it becomes more difficult for anyone to take it away.

How about in the future you just assume I mean what I say, and not something else.

But doesn't the very fact that they ARE routinely withdrawn by other men pretty much then prove that they WERE conferred by men in the first place?

It is a common refrain that natural rights can't be taken away. Well, if that's true and a natural right CAN'T be taken away, then any right that IS taken away must NOT be a natural right to begin with.

If they are not natural rights, then what is your moral basis for either a) fighting to keep them, or b) fighting to get them back.

Just give up. You'll make a fine slave.

 

How about in the future you just assume I mean what I say, and not something else.
.

Because @WBahn was right, natural is natural and, if they can be taken away (and frequently are taken away, an even accepted when taken away), they are not natural.

 

Because @WBahn was right, natural is natural and, if they can be taken away (and frequently are taken away, an even accepted when taken away), they are not natural.

So, you accept then, that you have no moral basis for remaining alive, and that if another man, or group of men decide so, they may morally deprive you of your life for no other reason except that they can?

 

Apropos:

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2016/04/a-superior-vision/

 

How about in the future you just assume I mean what I say, and not something else.

Because GopherT obvious knows what you mean far better than you do.

If they are not natural rights, then what is your moral basis for either a) fighting to keep them, or b) fighting to get them back.

I understand (I'm pretty sure) what you are trying to say and I pretty much agree with you. But why do I have to have a "moral basis" based on some "natural right" in order to demand or fight for something worth fighting for? I need to convince enough people not that something is "A right", but rather that it is simply "right". Labeling things "natural rights" or claiming that they are "God-given" is largely just a way to tug at emotional heartstrings in order gain popular support instead of actually making rational arguments to win people over to your position.

 

Because GopherT obvious knows what you mean far better than you do.



I understand (I'm pretty sure) what you are trying to say and I pretty much agree with you. But why do I have to have a "moral basis" based on some "natural right" in order to demand or fight for something worth fighting for? I need to convince enough people not that something is "A right", but rather that it is simply "right". Labeling things "natural rights" or claiming that they are "God-given" is largely just a way to tug at emotional heartstrings in order gain popular support instead of actually making rational arguments to win people over to your position.

I've only said the words. I did not provide a logical argument as to why some rights are natural to man as a sentient being. To do so would take more time than I have, and has been done many times and in far better ways than I ever could.

 

Natural rights that are given by nature (or God) require a human belief system that rules exist independent of deciding which rules we should make(law). I really see very little protection of citizens in this human belief system of rights and wrongs that can be changed even quicker than a democratic mob can change the law.

The North Korean leaders are often portrayed as divine beings protecting the Natural rights of its people to be slaves.
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001/North Korea materials/10 principles of juche.html

 

Looks like they need gun & knife control in the UK.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-cox-dead-live-updates-8207676

Labour MP Jo Cox has been shot and killed in an attack in West Yorkshire today.

The 41-year-old mother of two was shot three times and stabbed just before 1pm in Birstall in her Batley & Spen constituency.

 

Looks like they need gun & knife control in the UK.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-cox-dead-live-updates-8207676

But you must admit they have far fewer than us.