Guys I would love to own a gun and have loads of ammo, there is something good and sexy and powerful about owning a gun but you know what, if I could own one that easy so could my neighbour and he is a deranged lunatic with money & marital issues, I don't want him anywhere near a gun because as sure as eggs are eggs, at some stage he would use it. It's not the responsible law abiding 95% you have to worry about, it's the reckless criminal psychopaths that pose the threat.
That's why we have the police and prisons. No point you owning a gun unless you're prepared to kill because the bad guys are.
The argument is the same for nuclear weapons, why spend trillions of dollars on something you can never use .....as a deterrent?, it won't deter Al Qaeda if they also get a nuclear weapon which is only a`matter of time ....... they will fire because they are murderous psychopaths.
Taking the gun out of society isn't just a legal issue but restricting the sale of them is, or the bullets, now that would be a good start, stop the sale of bullets.

If Syrians had the right to bear arms that Americans enjoy do you think Assad would still rule? Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun. People die by the truckload all over the world in bomb explosions. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop violence, but allowing citizens to own guns keeps them from being exploited. Trusting the dogs, the guns, and the alarm system beats trusting the response time of the cops.

@Nigee - In the US at least, you have to pass a background check to legally purchase a gun. So it isn't likely your neighbor with marital problems could legally get one. And laws only keep law abiding citizens from getting them. Criminals will still find a way.

@Draug That's not always true. At some gun shows you can buy one without having a background check done and not required to maintain records of sale.

@Celtic - How? It's Federal Law.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

If they are doing it, then the gunshow dealer is committing a Federal Felony.

OK, further research shows that a private seller can sell a gun without a background check. But *only* someone selling something from their personal collection and even then, if there is reason to believe the buyer may be ineligble if a background check occurs, it is a felony for the private seller to conduct the transaction.

so the obvious solution is to let criminals buy any type of weapon, no matter how dangerous, legally. Krellin, as always, is a drunk idiot.

Oh, and the FBI does undercover spot checks and purchases at gunshows across the country so no FFL would *dare* sell a weapon without doing the background check.

@Jacob,

What "valid points" are you speaking of? I've seen very from you and your cohorts. I've seen you take stats out of context and claim they prove that gun laws make people safer.

Btw, what is the unalienable right to life if not the right to defend it?

Criminals get everything unlawfully, that's why they are criminals. In the end it comes to what standards you set for yourself, your family, your friends, neighbours, your society.
We've had 2 World wars centred in and around Europe but that doesn't mean Europe is awash with guns, the funniest irony of it all is that the Swiss have the most guns and they are neutral. Northern Europe is a reasonably civilized place to live with high levels of education and high living standards. Even though on the continent the police carry guns there is not a proliferation of gun crime, in the UK the police don't even carry guns, I bet for some people that is hard to understand but it works. In history Britain has been involved in more wars than most but that is not a reason for being armed to the teeth in 2012, things change, nations grow up.
I love watching a good police drama both British and American, you know what the difference is between these shows, in the US police shows it all centres around people getting shot, it's like a national obsession. Does anyone sleep easier at night having watched your evening tv with guns and killing in it.
Your film heroes are Arnie, Stallone, Willis et al, ours are Kenneth Branagh, Hugh Grant, Sir Ian McKellan, Keira Knightley, etc.
The point I'm making is just that Yanks seem obsessed with guns and will use all sorts of facts and figures to justify that craving, that lust, I don't know why that is.
The educated people running the country have to provide some moral leadership to the rest, to be a voice of reason. What do the religious leaders say about guns, are they pro or anti?

mmmmmmmm Keira Knightly

"Criminals get everything unlawfully"

Not true. A criminal can hold down a job too and go shopping at the grocery store and pay with the cash he earned form the job. Then he got something legally. But then, Nigee, I know you are just one big trollhole.

"Your film heroes are Arnie, Stallone, Willis et al, ours are Kenneth Branagh, Hugh Grant, Sir Ian McKellan, Keira Knightley, etc."

Selective choices don't make an argument. I dare say Great Britain's biggest film hero is James Bond, 007, License to Kill in all his incarnations. He carries a gun and uses it usually resulting in hundreds of deaths by the end of every movie.

Draug .... I like a good larf, but this subject is DEADLY serious
Us Brits have a great affinity with you Yanks and I personally think US citizens should demand more of their govt and themselves, your politicians are managed by lobbyists who buy their vote, it is corrupt to the very core, that is why gun laws haven't been passed. You deserve better but you have to demand it, guns are for losers and killers

"Btw, what is the unalienable right to life if not the right to defend it?"

It's exactly what you claim it is - the right to a life as free of fear and full of joy as possible. Your idea of safety is owning a gun; mine is a country where guns are infinitely harder to come by. Your right does not supersede mine, which on a related note is an issue you haven't addressed head-on. You think that your right to 'bear arms' is more important than my right to safety because your's is more concretely expressed. However, your idea of safety is obviously not my idea of safety, and it's so naive of you to suggest that these abstracts are unable to conflict. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to self-defense takes precedence; what's errant to me is that you seem to think that, by the transitive property, this means gun rights take precedence. This is the heart of the matter: your interpretation isn't fact and neither is mine, but I'm going to continue supporting my beliefs just as you are. What's unfortunate is that the dregs of your position like krellin cannot recognize this fundamental truth.

Passing judgment on every gun owner. Nice to see you have no capacity to allow for differing opinions or that someone could actually own a weapon and be responsible. A gun is a tool, nothing more. How it is used is the responsibility of the individual and us "yanks" (I hate that fucking derogatory term) are all about individual freedoms, rights, and responsibilities. We left your rainy little island and won our independence so we could have those freedoms and no fucking redcoat limey is going to tell me I should give up my rights as a US citizen.

@ 2ndWhiteLine good statistics--not surprised Krellin chooses to ignore them

@ krellin you cannot be serious about abolishing all gun controls
as soon as you say that it's "OK for "Honest Citizens to have guns"
and "Not OK for Criminals to have illegal guns you" are supporting Gun Control

You are using Dumb, simplistic nonsense

The debate is-- what sort of Gun Controls should the USA have ?

another "pedantic" point I would make is the right to bear arms in the USA is an
"inalienable right" not "unalienable right"

@ SuperSteve yes there are cultural differences, and the "drivers of crime" are complex, but that is no excuse to "dismiss out of hand" the strong statistical evidence raised by other contributors eg 2ndWhiteLine

The "bottom line" is too many Americans are victims of Gun crimes
and the "git tough on Law & Order" policy is a FAILURE
as wealthy as the USA is, you simply cannot afford to keep increasing your prison populations (per capita)---- California is reaching the point where it will soon spend more taxpayer dollars on prisons ( but fuck all on rehabilitation ) than it spends on Tertiary Education-- & your only chance at staying competitive in the Global Economy
is to have the smartest, best educated population and workforce

You need to work together to solve your problems & complex problems require sophisticated, multi faceted solutions

The private Corporations that run prisons have a vested interested in NOT SOLVING
the problem of an increasingly financially unsustainable prison system, they are happy
to suck up as many taxpayer dollars as you want to waste, the only way they can increase their income & profits is to keep increasing the prison populations

Draug - why is Yanks derogatory, what do you prefer to be called?
People call me a Brit and think I live in the Uk but I'm not I'm English and I live in England, alternatively Redcoat and Limey are inoffensive and acceptable nicknames.
What is a slang but inoffensive term to call American citizens?
Under the American Constitution you also have the right to eat shit but you don't exercise that right for good reason and you don't have to immerse yourself in the stars and stripes to defend yourself against criticism of the US gun culture, guns are a bad answer to a reasonable question, 'how should normal folk defend themselves against the bad guys'. That's an issue for all of us but seems to be a bit more of an issue for you guys across the pond. Love the people, despise the culture.

Thank you Brown Paper Tiger, a sensible balanced comment at last. The pro-gun lobby don't appear to have many arguments other than 'It's my right', and then lots of expletives and insults.
Still the US is a great place, and also a democracy so they have the option to choose. Although one suspects the Gun industry spends lots of dollars ensuring public option stays on their side :)

@ NigeeBaby

"you don't have to immerse yourself in the stars and stripes to defend yourself against criticism of the US gun culture, guns are a bad answer to a reasonable question, 'how should normal folk defend themselves against the bad guys'."

I'm not immersing myself in the Stars and Stripes to deflect criticism. I'm immersing myself in facts.

FACT: Chicago has the tightest gun control in America and has one of the highest crime rates.
FACT: Cities and states who have repealed gun control have seen a significant drop in violent crime.

If you want me to provide specific numbers and sources, I can. But I don't see the point. Many others including myself have already listed many facts that indicate that guns are an excellent answer to the question "how should normal folk defend themselves against the bad guys."

@ KingJohnII

"The pro-gun lobby don't appear to have many arguments other than 'It's my right', and then lots of expletives and insults. "

See above. We have more facts than you do. Name one community that enacted gun control and saw a significant drop in crime.

"Still the US is a great place, and also a democracy so they have the option to choose."

We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

"Although one suspects the Gun industry spends lots of dollars ensuring public option s
stays on their side"

As they should. Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Remington have saved many more innocent lives than they have ended.

@jacob,

You're confused. Let me explain.

The Declaration of Independence stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This phrase has been discussed and analyzed through out the centuries since it was penned. The greatest debate in regards Jefferson profound words arises concerning the true meaning of the "pursuit of Happiness," while the "Life" and "Liberty" are well settled.

The Right to Life states, as John Locke so aptly expressed in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, that you own your own body. It is your property to do with as you please. No one may force you to do anything, no one may injure you in any way, and above all, no one may take your life.

Your confusion arises in that you think that the Right to Life is, "the right to a life as free of fear..." There is no right to not live in fear, just as there is no right to food, nor right to medical care. Rights are guarantees to freedom of actions. They do not provide for anything but freedom of action. That means that contained within the Right to Life, is the right ACT in one's own defense from injury and/or death. Further, just as one's Right to Liberty is codified in the 4th and 5th Amendments, one's Right to Life -- and as a corollary, the right to ACT in defense of one's life -- is codified in the 2nd Amendment.

You stated, "[y]our idea of safety is owning a gun; mine is a country where guns are infinitely harder to come by. Your right does not supersede mine..." Again, you don't have a right to safety, you have a right to ACT to provide for your safety. In our free society, you may do what you want, when you want, provided you don't trample on the rights of anyone else. If you feel that you would be safer in a gun-free environment, then it is your right to act to effectuate that environment. However, as stated above, you CANNOT trample on the rights of others in order to bring this about. When one claims that because they don't feel safe, they can limit another person's Right to Life (and by extension their right to defend their life), they're trampling on the rights of others, and that is unacceptable in a free society.

Here another point which you claim I haven't addressed head-on..."You think that your right to 'bear arms' is more important than my right to safety because your's is more concretely expressed. However, your idea of safety is obviously not my idea of safety, and it's so naive of you to suggest that these abstracts are unable to conflict. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to self-defense takes precedence; what's errant to me is that you seem to think that, by the transitive property, this means gun rights take precedence."

"Safety," has nothing to do with it. Safety is an abstract concept, not an ACTION. A Right, as I said, is a guaranteed to freedom of action, NOT freedom from emotions like fear. The "right to bear arms" is an expression of the right to ACT in defense of one's Right to Life, and the Right to Life is the seminal right -- without it, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are irrelevant. As such, the ability ACT to protect that Right to Life -- i.e., bear arms -- DOES take precedence.

"What's unfortunate is that the dregs of your position like krellin cannot recognize this fundamental truth."

First, I cannot control what others do or say. I am NOT a representative of the "pro-gun" crowd. I am myself, with my own views on the subject. If, by coincidence, my view are the same as that of another, that is indicative of our homogeneity.

Secondly, what "fundamental truth" are you speaking about?

MichiganMan, I appreciate your attempt to profoundly simplify and characterize only negative (and natural) rights as legitimate ones, but I fear you do yourself a great disservice by claiming that freedom to act unimpeded is the ultimate and irrevocable expression of a right.

If rights are only as good as your ability to ACT in the defense of one's rights, how better is this than not having the concept of rights at all, and instead resorting to a mode of life where access to force is the sole arbiter of disputes and relationships.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this would mean that you do not genuinely have the right to any freedom, any positive attribute all really, except that which you are able to take through action.

Without the ability of the state (or whatever social institution you use) to limit the 'freedom' of others to kill you, take your property, your rights do not mean anything. Given that we have different interpretations of what it means to have Liberty, and to pursue happiness, these contradictions NEED resolution. You cannot simply wave them away. Without a framework of positive rights where people are granted the freedom FROM want, the freedom FROM arbitrary violence, and FROM all sorts of ills, the freedom TO have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean nothing.

If I want to own a tiger but I am unable to care for it, my negligence infringes on the rights of others. If I want a gun but am unable to care for it or use it responsibly, the same infringement occurs. Without a control framework to ensure responsibility, I literally have no ability to act in the defense of my right to live unimpeded by the negligence of others.

What bearing does this have on the gun control debate? Well, this is where I tend to believe that the harm principle does the best job in balances competing rights frameworks. (in this case, the right TO own guns and to defend oneself versus the right to live without having one's life endangered by others).
I tend to think that unfettered access to weapons is tantamount to an unjustified impediment of the freedom from endangerment, because in giving deadly force to those unable to hold it responsibly it violates the harm principle. On the other hand, preventing any access to guns is unjustified, because responsible gun ownership is not tantamount to a genuine endangerment of society. The harm principle suggests that the proper course is to develop a framework that exclusively permits responsible gun ownership.

The question then becomes less about what rights trump other rights, and purely about how to balance the competing framework in a way that is most efficacious and maximizes both to the greatest degree possible. Unfortunately the only way to give you the freedom to own your gun and defend yourself and give me the freedom of living free of constant endangerment is for the state to have a mechanism to control access to guns and monitor their use. Similarly, I fully support the regulation of tigers, explosives, vehicles, swords, deadly diseases, nuclear power plants, and so on and so forth.

Personally, I think that people who want to use guns responsibly should support legislation that seeks to promote responsible gun ownership and inhibit irresponsible gun ownership.

@ MichiganMan LOL Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I was really struggling with my inability to understand this issue...

Come on. Positioning yourself as an authority does not make it so; in fact, you have most disappointed me in this recent thread with your talk of 'action.' In no way are rights synonymous with solely actions, and it's unfortunate that you understand your explicitly outlined right to bear arms as having greater priority than my right (yes, RIGHT) to safety. How do you interpret the right to bear arms if not as your right to safety? Surely you aren't suggesting that the right to bear arms is no more complex than allowing citizens to own a gun; surely there is an abstract behind such a right. And yet you claim abstracts have no place in this argument...The fundamental truth is that there is no black and white on this - it is your interpretation vs. mine, and not only are you naive but you're also sporting a swollen dome if you think that you have managed to crack this issue with the absolute, be-all-end-all, probably divine truth, brought to you lovingly from MichiganMan. It's articulate, obviously intelligent people like you who breed the antagonistic political climate in which we live thanks to your own perceived infallibility. For shame.

I eagerly await Krellin's next salvo of blustery accusations and petty insults. :) :) :)

If only Liberals understood facts, truths, and honesty the way Krellin does...

@FriendlySword

"If rights are only as good as your ability to ACT in the defense of one's rights how better is this than not having the concept of rights at all, and instead resorting to a mode of life where access to force is the sole arbiter of disputes and relationships. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this would mean that you do not genuinely have the right to any freedom, any positive attribute all really, except that which you are able to take through action."

I have read and re-read the above statement over and over and despite a great deal of effort, I cannot glean any logic out of your statement.

A Right is the freedom act. The Right of free speech gives on the right speak out in public. The Right to vote give one the right to participate in the democratic process. These are all guaranteeing the People the right to ACT. Further, it gives them the ability to defend that Right through the legal process. I don't understand why you seem to claim that the ability to defend a Right somehow descends society into "rule by force" lawlessness. Please explain further.

"Without the ability of the state (or whatever social institution you use) to limit the 'freedom' of others to kill you, take your property, your rights do not mean anything."

I specifically said that a Right to act is limited to acts that do NOT infringe upon the rights of others. Those two examples above are not "freedoms."

"Without a framework of positive rights where people are granted the freedom FROM want, the freedom FROM arbitrary violence, and FROM all sorts of ills, the freedom TO have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean nothing."

Again, you're not understand the concept of a Right. A Right is the freedom to ACT. Every person is endowed by the Creator, according to Jefferson, et.al., with the freedom to ACT on their own behalf to provide the necessities of life. Further, every person has the right to ACT on their own behalf should they be faced with violence. Yes, the State has enacted laws that are meant to deter and punish those that violate the rights of others, but where the rubber meets the road these are nothing but words on a page. Right come from above, not from below -- i.e., they do not come from the Government, they come from the Creator. A government can pass laws that say that all the people will be fed, clothed, and housed, but these are not Rights in the true sense. A right that relies upon someone else, some other institution to act on your behalf is not a Right. The beauty of Jefferson's words, and then the eventual Constitution that grew out of them, was that they detailed the Rights of the People as endowed by the Creator, and then codified the LIMITS upon the government to act in reference to the Rights of the People. "The government shall pass no law that infringes upon the Right of the People to..."

"If I want to own a tiger but I am unable to care for it, my negligence infringes on the rights of others. If I want a gun but am unable to care for it or use it responsibly, the same infringement occurs. Without a control framework to ensure responsibility, I literally have no ability to act in the defense of my right to live unimpeded by the negligence of others."

Only AFTER that Tiger or gun has actually harmed someone else. You obviously don't understand the essential elements of Negligence: 1) Duty of Care; 2) Breach of Duty; 3) Causation (broken down into actual and proximate); and 4) Actual Damages. In the examples you gave above, there has yet to be any damages; therefore, there has yet to be any infringement of the rights of another. Further, you claim that there is no "control framework" to ensure responsibility, which is patently FALSE -- it's call the Duty of Care, the first essential element of Negligence. The Duty of Care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. This concept of Duty of Care is a direct out growth of the founding principles of unalienable Rights -- i.e., if you go around acting in a manner in which you know, or should know, that your actions could infringe upon the Right of another, you will be held liable (and possibly criminally responsible) for the damage your actions (or possibly omissions to act) cause. You seem to be claiming that the physical presence of dangerous things is somehow infringing upon your rights, and that is something that has NO legal support whatsoever.

Further, in your Tiger example, our legal system hold the keepers of wild animals STRICTLY LIABLE for any harm that may be caused by that wild animal, even if "tame." Meaning, if someone is harmed by that Tiger they really don't even have to prove that your actions breached the duty of care that you owed to them. The same is true of all so called, "unreasonably dangerous" activities, i.e., blasting with TNT, sky diving, etc.

"What bearing does this have on the gun control debate? Well, this is where I tend to believe that the harm principle does the best job in balances competing rights frameworks. (in this case, the right TO own guns and to defend oneself versus the right to live without having one's life endangered by others)."

If one's life is endangered by the physical presence of firearms, as you suggest, then too your life is endangered (and more profoundly so) by the presence of automobiles, prescription medication, and electricity. This "harm principle" that you speak of is a legal nullity as it is only the POTENTIAL harm, not the actual harm. As I detailed above, ACTUAL harm is required for there to be negligence. One has no right to live without their life being endangered. Now there might be laws that will punish those that acutely threaten or endanger the life of another, but not simply for the physical presence of a dangerous object such as a gun or a Tiger. If you come to my home and find out that I had a gun in the closet, you cannot sue me or have me arrested because you felt your life was in danger -- that would be ridiculous.

"I tend to think that unfettered access to weapons is tantamount to an unjustified impediment of the freedom from endangerment, because in giving deadly force to those unable to hold it responsibly it violates the harm principle. Unfortunately the only way to give you the freedom to own your gun and defend yourself and give me the freedom of living free of constant endangerment is for the state to have a mechanism to control access to guns and monitor their use."

Again, you do not have to "freedom from endangerment" on the general scale you're talking about. That concept goes directly against the very foundation of western law, i.e., actus reus, the "guilty act." Further, your view that there is a place or situation where you're "free from constant endangerment" is asinine and naive. Lastly, the US ALREADY has those mechanisms in place.

I cannot get over the fact that you seem so consumed by fear, and that you assume that because you're in fear that everyone else has to make things better for you. The United States was found on a principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. A gun, in and of itself, is no more a threat to anymore than any heavy metal object that could be used as a bludgeon. It needs ammunition, and a person to pull the trigger in order for its true lethality to emerge. The physical presence of guns does not endanger your life in any way. Further, a loaded gun in someone's hands does not endanger your life and more than a running automobile does. It is only when certain situations arise that your life is endangered by that gun. As I said, our legal system doesn't deal with potential very well. It's based upon actuality, as it should be.

@jacob,

your inferiority complex is glaringly obvious. I never said I was the be-all-end-all of the debate. I am giving you my thoughts on the subject. Just because you don't understand legal principles doesn't make me arrogant. Read what I wrote in response to sword. Your perceived "right to safety" is just that, a perception -- and a false one at that. You have a Right to Life, if you feel unsafe, you have a right to act to ensure your safety, so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others in doing so. As I said above, the physical presence of firearms does not intrinsically make you unsafe, anymore than the presence of other "dangerous" things. Right are not about perceptions. Safety is an abstract concept.

@MichiganMan What inferiority complex is that? "You're confused. Let me explain." Believe me, I have wanted to say that to you this entire conversation, but I'm attempting to stay civil. Trust me, I understand legal principles just fine. Better than you, it would seem. The courts and I have determined that abstracts DO have a place within the law, but you obviously know better; therefore, arrogant. Also, ignorant. The only misperception here is that owning guns makes you safer. I have spent three posts acknowledging that safety is an abstract concept; not sure why you concluded your latest post with that fact. The disconnect here is that you can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that abstracts do, in fact, comprise our rights. It's cute that you think you can avoid the nitty gritty in these posts ("Surely you aren't suggesting that the right to bear arms is no more complex than allowing citizens to own a gun; surely there is an abstract behind such a right."), but it's getting tiresome. I'll be checking out now. You can lead a horse to water...but you can't convince him of his folly concerning gun control :)

Additionally, remember when I said I support stricter gun control but not a ban on guns? Yeah, me too.

Oh, thank you so much for the condescension, here is some sarcasm. Gah. I am not 'misunderstanding' you, MM. I simply have a different interpretation of what rights are, and how they function to make society better. I did not fail to understand the 'fact' that rights only entail freedom to act, I was attempting to argue that this is an insufficient perspective. I'm sorry if I was unclear in doing so.

Speaking of condescension, have you heard of the concept of claim rights, or even positive rights? They are quite popular concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Essentially, the concept of a claim right is that true freedom can only be maintained by developing a system of rights that protect both the ability of people to DO things as well as the ability of people to NOT have things done to them. If you believe that....
"I specifically said that a Right to act is limited to acts that do NOT infringe upon the rights of others."
You are already essentially ascribing to this view. The reason I say that your conception of rights as nothing more than the idea that certain actions should never be curtailed is insufficient is because it is only when you accept that it is your RIGHT to be free from interference that you can conceptually have a framework where rights can be balanced. Otherwise there is no way to balancing competing rights.

"A right that relies upon someone else, some other institution to act on your behalf is not a Right."
"A right comes not from below, but from above" and some business about God.

This is just silly. Whether or not God or humans are responsible for rights, and whether or not there is some mystical idea of a 'pure' right, the fact remains that the business of establishing the precedence of rights is a messy business that humans have to take care of, and human institutions are the only things capable of doing so.

You can say that there is no such thing as a passive right to safety or security of the person, but give me the credit of engaging with the idea, don't accuse me of not understanding what rights are. I understand, I just disagree.

As it happens, the United States very much sides with me on this issue as far as it is organized. The United States treats people as if society broadly has a positive obligation to ensure that those in most dire need are given the capacity to maintain their own lives. The State recognizes that when people recognize it's monopoly over force in a given area, the state must in turn provide a basic basis of security.

Because they do not answer WHY we should respect people's lives, happiness, etc, negative liberties to do what one wants are only sufficient in a Hobbesian world, not in a complex modern society.

And for the record, I support something roughly like the status quo. That is, that the possession of deadly weapons is a right, but that due diligence and prior responsibility must be established to access that right, so as to maintain the positive obligation of the state to provide security of the person to citizens as much as is possible and reasonable.

I am sorry if I sounds condescending Sword. I am really enjoying this conversation. I am on an important call, I'll get back into this in a few.