Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Naughtorious]

Under the ideals of chivalry you never run from battle, you never lie, you place money and monetary rewards below other perceived spiritual and ethical things, you defend the weak, you defend the widowed and orphaned.

Under gangsterism you lie, cheat, steal, and more importantly exploit the weak and terrorize them. Fundamental to gangsterism is the pursuit of gaining as much worldly riches as you can.

Could we perhaps place a moderate level between these two subjects? Clearly there isn't a single person in this world who 'never' lies. However. It's good to keep ourselves away from gangsterism.

[Philosch]

Cronos988 wrote:

I did not contest the fact that the assailant was psychologically ill and that this was the main "cause" for his actions. But looking you victim in the eye and remotely detonating a Bomb are very different experiences. There are a great many school shootings by troubled young men, yet there have been only very few school bombings. Do you think that is a coincidence?

I don't think a sword or combat knife are materially different from a gun in that sense, but getting a sword that can actually be used to kill is harder then getting a gun in the US (irony?), and swords and knives are vastly less efficient. They do not currently pose the same threat that guns pose, both in availability and in killing power.

I am not saying that they would not have done anythin destructive. But the number of victims would very likely be smaller. Dynamite and explosives can cause more damage, but are considerably harder to use on any large enough scale. In any event, blowing a building up remotely is differnet from killing people face to face. Again, compare terrorists, who rely on bombs a lot, to the classical "school shooters", who use almost exclusively guns. The choice of tools can hardly be just a coincidence.

I do not actually base my argument solely on the availability of guns. it's the whole "gun culture" that is at the heart of the problem. Widespread availability of guns combined with widespread usage of guns also leads to widespread misuse of guns.

No, I don't actually think that. But it is clear from the evidence that Adam Lanza's mother did not own guns out of any professional need for guns. Neither did she require said guns for self defence (unless armed bands run rampant in Connecticut). So it is a likely conclusion that she owned them because she liked guns. Now I realize I should not judge people I do not know, and that my earlier statement was a little harsh, and presumed to much. She may have very well taken good care of the guns and properly locked them away. But nevertheless the guns were a part of that household, and frequently used by it's inhabitants. They were "normal" to an extent. And if an instrument of death becomes something "normal" than I think there is a problem.

I do not want to judge you or your handling of guns, and if I did, I admit that it was wrong. What I am "judging" is the gun culture. I know there are responsible gun owners, even I know some gun owners and they are responsible people. But glorifying guns as some symbol of freedom and security is wrong. A society armed to the teeth is not free, it is in constant fear, and fear precludes freedom.

I know what you are getting at, I can readily accept that we do need reasonable gun control and I would even agree that the glorification of gun use in Hollywood and in the computer gaming industry are not good things. I will give you that all day long. My main point was that gun legislation is clearly superficial, it’s just an easy target, low hanging fruit, used by politicians who need to do something visible to help their careers and make the people who are mourning and bewildered by the tragedy, feel like something is being done. But then too much energy is wasted on these solutions and the real solutions which would center on massive cultural changes, deep changes in how we deal with mental illnesses and people who are in crisis will largely be ignored, that’s my real position.

I had started a thread months ago on the nature of blame and root cause analysis for the sake of coming up with meaning solutions to problems. I actually used this issue as an example, along with unwanted pregnancy and other issues which seem intractable. We as a society are very adept at going after the superficial aspects of these issues because it’s cheaper and it makes us feel collectively like we are doing something, but in the end the deeper root causes remain and so the problems re-emerge in one form or another. This is a classic example of this type of crisis response.

As a follow up, you should read the official account of the Bath, Michigan incident involving dynamite. What that guy did was very up close and personal, right up to the end when he detonated the last bomb in his truck while he spoke to one of the people he wanted to kill. I was wrong about one thing, he did use a gun, he used it to detonate his last bomb. It was an extremely personal and violent act. When you read all of what he did you will see that psychologically his disposition was very similar to Adam Lanza's, he bludgeoned his wife, wired his horses' legs together so they would be burned alive and so on. Dynamite was the main tool used as guns were for Mr. Lanza, but the brutality and anger or their psychological dispositions look the same when you step back away from the details.

Until we can figure out a way to identify these types of people earlier on, society is doomed to having to defend our most innocent and helpless members through some kind of active mechanism. Passive defense doesn’t work against these types of people no more than it works against suicide bombers. The reason is simple; there is no leverage that can be used against people intent on dying themselves, suicide bombers or sociopaths leave you no choice. Their violent outbursts require some kind of “violence” or “force” to stop them and that’s the practical reality.

[Supine]

What do others think of this guy? I'm impressed with him pertaining to his views on firearms. He has his own philosophical outlook on preparation for self defense and guns.


1. Rules of Gun fighting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnQCU-OZaNc

2. Martial Arts of Guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcpSDrtuj3Y

His videos on 1911s might be worth while too. He even has a video interviewing a craftsman gunsmith about mass produced 1911s as opposed to handcrafted 1911s. This is the first I've ever heard criticism of the 1911, so, given my knowledge of firearms is rather rudimentary I have no idea how valid their points are. I do know modified 1911s are used by the U.S. Marine Corps Special Operations Capable Expeditionary Unit.

[UniversalAlien]

A new poster to this forum asked what is the issue of gun control doing on a philosophy forum? I will attempt to answer him. The issue of why the founders of the US placed the Second Amendment {"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"} as significantly as they did and why Americans still hold it in esteem is an important philosophical issue. Should people have the right to protect themselves and their property even though giving people this right creates a dangerous paradigm and may cost more lives than if people did not have this right?

I am a great believer in cultural diversity. If England and the English or Australians or any other nation for that mater wants to give people a sense of security by removing deadly force as an option for protection of self and property it is fine with me. Hopefully they are happy and feel secure, I like to see people as happy. But, and on the other hand, if one nation and group of people {say the United States of America} believes that the right of the individual trumps the right of the mass and that that individual is given the right to protect his life and property and be capable of using deadly force to do so I also believe that the sovereignty of that nation and the will of its people should be respected.

I am paradoxically for a New World Order where peace will reign over the affairs of men - but if we are to have a New World Order with a New Dawn for humanity we should respect the cultures and mind sets of each other and not try to fit that diverse being called Man into a one size fits all paradigm. If people want to live dangerously in America and others want to bask in the security of a risk free England - so be it

In conclusion, and I quote from The Declaration of Independence {from the English Monarchy}:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

Let the New World Order happen but make no mistake about it this culturally diversified group of people started by a small group of renegade Englishmen and now composed of people from every race, creed and nationality will survive and they will protect what is theirs, including their right to protect what is theirs

PS: As some of you from England seem to look at us here and seem to be expressing a sense of pity for those poor Americans with their barbaric gun rights - Every time I see England which produced such great men as Winston Churchill, and which came very close to an invasion by the Nazi war machine not so long ago, I feel a sense of pity that your government has so overly disarmed your people that one might wonder what would happen in the event of.....?

[Quotidian]

Right, so now we see the NRA's response to that dreadful tragedy one week ago. "Armed guards in schools". If they have their way there would be armed soldiers and policemen on every corner, in every building, in the 'land of the free'. Really, what's happening to America. It's supposed to be a leader of the free society, it is failing dreadfully.

[UniversalAlien]

There is some truth to what you are saying BUT I believe this a case where you are attributing the wrong thing as the cause of a society ripe with social problems. When the Communists had control of about one third of the world religion was looked down upon and greatly suppressed if not outlawed and did that help anything? Where people happy under their Communist rulers? NO, and to think that suppressing gun ownership will stop the violence and problems in America is quite naive. Atheists are always blaming religion for many of mans problems. But it is not religion that has caused most of mans problems but rather it is the misuse of religion that caused them. Same could be said about guns. The old cliche 'guns don't kill people, people kill people kill people' still is true. The fact that the US is too obsessed with guns and guns are getting into the wrong hands I might agree with but to hope that suppressing gun ownership in the hope that America will suddenly cure its social ills is also naive.

The fact that Switzerland a nation of almost universal gun ownership has a very low crime rate and one of the worlds lowest homicide rates for guns shows that gun ownership in itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Supine]

Right, so now we see the NRA's response to that dreadful tragedy one week ago. "Armed guards in schools". If they have their way there would be armed soldiers and policemen on every corner, in every building, in the 'land of the free'. Really, what's happening to America. It's supposed to be a leader of the free society, it is failing dreadfully.

We already have armed [guards] police, that is campus police, on state universities like UW-Milwaukee (and the flagship of the UW system, UW-Madison). I see no problem.

Some children were interviewed on the news tonight (CBS or ABC or something) about their thoughts over the gun violence issue related to schools etc. They surprised people when they said they did not think guns were the problem, and in fact would like armed guards in their schools, as the one young boy stated it would make him feel safer.

I think there are some cultural things and differences going on at base. And those cultural phenomena having being brewing for quite some time.

I just recently watched on youtube the boot camp of the British Royal Marines. I was literally shocked as it was 360 degrees different than what I had always assumed it was like: basically far more extreme than U.S. Marine Corps boot camp, with little tolerance for anything other than absolute "winners." Then I observed officer training for British Royal Marines. Even that is something much different than the U.S. Navy's OCS training. And I don't mean this in any way to denigrate those British services or the British people. But what I gleaned out of some of this - like the humor used in Royal Marines officer lectures using theatrics - is that there are some underlying cultural differences going on at the core of each civilian society's national cultures and identity of a "good person."

I doubt you or any other foreign person will believe this - so be it - but many ethnic Black-American, young, women (especially teenage girls) are far meaner, more violent, and more prejudiced than your blacks and white males enlisted in the British Royal Marines.

Also, an ethnic Black-American woman below Baby Boomer generational ages, will always think your whites and black males in the U.K. and Europe as a whole have a savagely aggressive life to undergo, competition with no temperance, a life of sheer hell deprived of all government help, contra their male peers in the U.S. who, if they fail to be "alpha males," are the biggest "pussies" to have walked the earth under an American sun that provides all males with everything for free.

What I'm saying is... whatever your critique of the U.S. at least take due comfort in the fact it's women folk will always look highly upon you all from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere even of those males that are not "alphas" in their own nations.

So, I don't expect one to understand this when I say, if caught in street traffic and armed, if approached in my car by American men with guns, I don't care what any European tourist in an automobile next to me might think. I intend on surviving the situation or die trying. If that results in prison, then I'll have to adapt and survive around Aryan Brotherhood and other races of gangs, even if I'm not an "alpha."




(For references to some of the things I mentioned above)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v_netqzAmk (U.S. Navy OCS)

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4POpHJmwSYI (British Royal Marines OCS)



3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhpXrSE0g6Q (First 5 minutes of U.S. Marine Corps boot camp)

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL_E4X8xA70 (British Royal Marines boot camp)

[Scottie]

I'm not convinced that it's the guns that are the problem. I think it's Americans and American culture that are the problem.

As an citizen of the US I am embarrassed to live in a country which has such an institutionalized contempt for the weak and the dependent. We express concern for the welfare of our children yet we do not mandate seat belts in school buses despite their proven record of safety enhancement. We pretend to care about disabled folks but our equivalent of disability pensions here is often below poverty level. The number of people without health insurance here is appalling given that evidence clearly shows that other countries with their more "socialized" solutions handle this much better and at less overall public cost.

This is played out in our public discourse in which propagandists avail themselves of clever rhetoric to make "freedom" issues out of what would otherwise be sensible public policy issues. In this vein it becomes an undue burden on and an abrogation of freedom of food manufacturers to have to label whether GMO are a part of the product. . . when requiring it is actually sensible public policy in addition to one of facilitating the freedom of the many to choose. I'm no genius. . . but I'm reasonably well educated such that I'm not being fooled by the wordsmiths who craft intricately carved BS out of BS. I'm well aware of who's "manipulating" me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... icides-map

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/

The whole idea of "developed nations" enters into this debate. I've also linked to an interactive Human Development Index map which might help in interpreting the data in the Guardian link. In terms of "highly developed" nations the US still leads the way in gun homicide per capita, even though the data Steve3007 linked to shows higher incidence of gun homicide per 100k than the US. The two maps need to be examined concurrently, especially in light of the US / Latin American drug trade issues. which would explain the higher per capita gun homicide rates in Latin America.

It is in the context of this morass that the issue of gun legislation plays out for me.

I don't believe that arming school teachers is any more of a workable solution than outlawing guns. They're two almost polar opposites that exist for the purpose of fanning the flames of the media circus that passes for public discourse in the US. This media circus is so pervasive that it drowns out sensible alternatives. There should be extensive background checks and waiting periods for all first gun purchases as well as mandatory training and safety education for all non military gun owners. Licensing contingent upon training and safety education might be a good idea and the license must be shown at all gun and ammunition purchases. Forging or tampering with this license would be a felony. Sales of guns and ammunition to minors should be prohibited. Parents of minor children should have to keep their guns locked away such that they cannot be gotten into by children. Parents of children who are victims of accidental shootings who didn't comply with this should be prosecuted and heavily fined if found negligent.

These are sensible regulations which do not imply outlawing guns.

Notes to the gun people:

1. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time where "the army" was the well regulated citizens' militia. Everyone had to bring their own weapons as there was no existing provision at the time for issuing weapons to the rank and file. They did not envision either a standing army, the technological advances and how they would impact society, government, and defense or the degree to which the military would become the first avenue of development for technology along with the economic incentives/realities of this partnership (which Eisenhower warned us about).

2. The 2nd Amendment is no more "sacred" than anything else. While I get the idea that the constitution embodies principles that are quite valuable (in some cases essential) in terms of equanimity and good governance, nothing in it is a priori and the framers couldn't foresee everything. The framers recognized this and that is why the amendments exist. The whole "strict constructionist" thing is bullcrap.

3. Practically speaking, private citizens can't get the "good stuff" anyway. Post 1986 automatic weapons are not available for private sale even if the person completes the paperwork, background checks, waiting period, and tax stamp. The "against tyranny" contingent must know how vastly outgunned they are. I do see the logic of their argument but, honestly, parity is not possible in the context of our present situation. We're dealing with a government that has drone aircraft, sonic weapons, serious SMG capability, gas, grenades, and all sorts of tactical goodies. So. . . while it's nice in theory, the 2nd amendment remains tied to history when, at the time of the American Revolution, theory and reality were much closer.

[Naughtorious]

People using the deaths of others via fear and motive to push political agendas. I thought we were called the human race, I don't see anything human in this; and this regards the majority of the population. We must've went wrong somewhere down the line, if our human population is nothing more than a pack of wild wolves that are only loving and nice when they get what they want.

[Fiveredapples]

I hate this so-called 'gun control debate' as it's invariably misused or misunderstood, not to mention all the fake or selective statistics and terrible inferences people help themselves to.

This is a 2nd Amendment issue, or, more generally, a Constitutional issue. If you fail to appreciate that, then everything you say or believe about this topic is wrong or irrelevant.

I mean, my God, it's about the Bill of Rights no less. The USA is a republic. What does that mean? It means we're not a democracy. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that our Constitution is not laws which bestow rights to the people (our citizens and legal residents). No, the Constitution are the rights we the people have which no government or majority (that's why we're not a democracy) can deny us. The Constitution is our safeguard against tyranny, whether tyranny by government or by the majority. These rights are why we're a free people. If our government could take away or infringe upon our Constitutional rights, or if the majority could, then we wouldn't be a free people -- because our freedoms would always be in the hands of those powers. Once you permit a government or a majority to undermine any part of the Constitution, you have effectively undermined the very document which makes you a free people; therefore, you've stopped being a free people. The Constitution can be amended, of course, but not by taking away rights. You can add rights to the people, as the Bill of Rights has, but you don't subtract or limit rights which are there with the explicit purpose of being untouchable. This is what this debate is about. If you fail to realize it, you're likely to fall prey to the enemy, which is anyone who is trying to undermine the Constitution.

[PaulNZ]

Right, so now we see the NRA's response to that dreadful tragedy one week ago. "Armed guards in schools". If they have their way there would be armed soldiers and policemen on every corner, in every building, in the 'land of the free'. Really, what's happening to America. It's supposed to be a leader of the free society, it is failing dreadfully.

I agree but this does demonstrate that the two positions on this topic are poles apart. One solution being offered is much tighter gun control and the abolition of military style weapons, the other solution is arm everybody with a firearm. It seems to me that the old policy of mutually assured destruction or a version of it is being applied to one of these solutions.

It is an archaic law which is no longer relevant but it cannot be denied that it is a part of the American psyche and considered by many as being (partly) what differentiates America from most other developed countries, so in essence it has become part of the national identity. That being the case, gun control is always going to become an emotional topic on both sides of the argument.

Personally, not being part of that culture, it seems obvious to me that only the State needs to be armed in some fashion. The rest of society needs to lead by example and allow the law to deal with those that break the law, in whatever fashion.

Self defence has always been an option for anyone as long as the force used is reasonable and in proportion to the threat; this includes criminals. If you point a gun at me and I am armed, my response is more likely going to be that I shoot you in self defence, whether I am the criminal or the victim of the crime.

If neither of us had a gun, nobody will be shot. I can only control what I do personally with regard to guns. If only the criminal has the gun, it is likely that his position is far stronger than mine, and as a consequence he is less likely to shoot me in self defence and shooting me for other reasons is unlikely.

A petty criminal such as a burglar with a drug habit is not motivated by sex or violence but by drugs. If armed with a firearm and confronted by an occupant, the motivation to use it would only be in self defence, or as a tool to ensure escape by threat of violence. In any case, the natural inference to draw from the scenario is that less people get shot if there are less guns present in the situation.

I cannot say catagorically that more guns equals more gun deaths or visa versa as that is not always the case in the statistics. There are cultural reasons, education and other factors at play. However, from the table below (although it is on the Guardian site I believe the source for the statistics is the UN), it is possible to see that some control over ownership seems to work generally speaking:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... world-list

Paul

[Quotidian]

I cannot say catagorically that more guns equals more gun deaths or visa versa as that is not always the case in the statistics.

Actually, it is pretty clear-cut. Consider for instance USA, UK, Canada, and Australia. In respect of standard of living, education, average net income, life expectancy, education, and so on, these countries are all fairly close. In respect of 'death on account of firearms', the USA is much higher than those countries. Sure there are places that have higher rates, but that is not something to brag about.

But, considering the multiple major issues facing the US of A at the moment, this is only one amongst many problems on the 'critical issues' list. Hope they sort it out.

[Fiveredapples]

We sorted it out a long time ago: it's called freedom.

Oh gee, why couldn't our Founding Fathers have foreseen that guns could be used to commit crimes! Why weren't they savvy enough to realize that guns are effective tools for killing! Damn them and their myopia. What we needed were geniuses to stand up to those ignoramuses and say, "Guns kill people."

[Supine]

I hate this so-called 'gun control debate' as it's invariably misused or misunderstood, not to mention all the fake or selective statistics and terrible inferences people help themselves to.

This is a 2nd Amendment issue, or, more generally, a Constitutional issue. If you fail to appreciate that, then everything you say or believe about this topic is wrong or irrelevant.

I mean, my God, it's about the Bill of Rights no less. The USA is a republic. What does that mean? It means we're not a democracy. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that our Constitution is not laws which bestow rights to the people (our citizens and legal residents). No, the Constitution are the rights we the people have which no government or majority (that's why we're not a democracy) can deny us. The Constitution is our safeguard against tyranny, whether tyranny by government or by the majority. These rights are why we're a free people. If our government could take away or infringe upon our Constitutional rights, or if the majority could, then we wouldn't be a free people -- because our freedoms would always be in the hands of those powers. Once you permit a government or a majority to undermine any part of the Constitution, you have effectively undermined the very document which makes you a free people; therefore, you've stopped being a free people. The Constitution can be amended, of course, but not by taking away rights. You can add rights to the people, as the Bill of Rights has, but you don't subtract or limit rights which are there with the explicit purpose of being untouchable. This is what this debate is about. If you fail to realize it, you're likely to fall prey to the enemy, which is anyone who is trying to undermine the Constitution.

I thought a republic was a form of democracy, that is a representative democracy.

At any rate... in reality the U.S. Supreme Court has declared itself the sole and final interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, that branch of Government decides what the Constitution says, irrespective if their interpretation is right or wrong.

[Rederic]

We sorted it out a long time ago: it's called freedom.

Oh gee, why couldn't our Founding Fathers have foreseen that guns could be used to commit crimes! Why weren't they savvy enough to realize that guns are effective tools for killing! Damn them and their myopia. What we needed were geniuses to stand up to those ignoramuses and say, "Guns kill people."

Ah yes, the land of the free & the home of the brave. Do you honestly believe you are the only country where the people are free & brave?