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

[UniversalAlien]

It appears that the computer is much more dangerous than the gun - It has all that information that those good natured save the world from itself anti-gun neo-fascists {an opinion based on the millions of deaths caused by gun bans - 56,000,000 in the 20th Century - A fact]. For example what do you think of this:

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

See full article here: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php/i ... e_ID=17847

As this debate has progressed - And as the gun control ideologues have continued to shoot their best shots, only to have their opinions destroyed by truth and facts, the more I see that their misgotten ideology is not only a threat to the 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' of Americans - But in fact their ideology is a threat to the life and liberty of all peoples of this planet.

Again, and this is proven fact: "More guns, less crime"

[Stormcloud]

I pity people who live by the gun - Being filled with so much paranoia, fear and insecurity there can be no genuine peace in your minds. One wonders if such a life? with such a state of mind is worth the protecting. No matter how many statistical figures you reel off I feel in no way threatened by gunfire down under.

[Lucylu]

Universal Alien, I do hear what you're saying, and I have been interested to read the other side of the situation (which I hadn't previously allowed myself to listen to) but I also have some questions- both practical ones and also philosophical ones, if you don't mind.

Imagine, hypothetically, in the year 2508, Earth is about to be destroyed by a huge comet. We send off one space ship full of children and the best and brightest we have, off to the nearest viable uninhabited planet. Would you give them guns? If we have an inherent violence within us, surely it is better, given the opportunity, to take guns out of the equation altogether. If there were no armed Governments that they needed to defend themselves from (as seems to have been your main concern in a previous post), would you agree that there was then no need for guns? A clean slate to start a new history?

If you can agree the ideal is for everyone to be safe from harm then you might be able to better understand why the idea of adding more guns in order to feel safer seems paradoxical. Perhaps initially, in the short term it would have this effect and calm anxiety for some individuals, but when looking at the big picture and what we want our society to be, it seems to oppose our basic morals and be a step in the wrong direction. If we resolve our conflicts by using force then we have no real impetus to communicate and change our selves. I appreciate that taking guns out of the equation is not a viable option at the moment but I just worry that it is delaying our inevitable progress and this inner work will have to be done at some point any way.

I feel that guns, like religion, may be a necessary evil that helps people to feel safe in the current world (despite the obvious damage they both do in the wrong hands) and I hope that one day they will not be needed anymore. But maybe I'm naive, I don't know. We do seem to be becoming less violent over time e.g we would never stand for someone to be publicly hung, drawn and quartered anymore, as we would of a thousand years ago (in England).

Can someone in the US (or from another country that allows guns) tell me, what specifically is required in order to buy and keep a gun?

In practical terms, I am interested to know what the rules are: Is it just a case of going in to a shop, filling in a form and buying a gun? Do you have to attend training classes and have your licence renewed every few years? Is your medical record and police record checked?

Also, I do feel its important (on both sides) to be very careful when reading statistics as they can very easily be twisted in to whatever shape the author wants to portray and ignore other relevant factors. It is very tempting to hear what we want to hear and discard what we don't as nonsense.

[UniversalAlien]

LucyLu said:

If you can agree the ideal is for everyone to be safe from harm then you might be able to better understand why the idea of adding more guns in order to feel safer seems paradoxical. Perhaps initially, in the short term it would have this effect and calm anxiety for some individuals, but when looking at the big picture and what we want our society to be, it seems to oppose our basic morals and be a step in the wrong direction. If we resolve our conflicts by using force then we have no real impetus to communicate and change our selves. I just worry that it is delaying our progress.

'IF' the world was the way I and probably many other idealist would like it to be we would never, or almost never, need a gun for protection and guns would only be used for sport and collecting {I like target shooting but have no interest in shooting defenseless animals but again paradoxically they say hunters and hunting is used for conservation}. What I have tried to show throughout this thread is the failure of gun control to achieve its intended objective and as a matter of historical record has led to much more deaths and contributed to much of the genocide of the 20th Century. So what is the problem? The problem is there is something wrong with the nature of Man in that he can not evolve above his somewhat bestial nature - People kill people, guns have no mind of their own - and if a gun was not available other means and instruments of death would be and are being found. The mass murderer at that movie theater in Colorado {USA} who killed a bunch of people a few years ago was not technically insane and they say he had his house wired with bombs and again paradoxically the movie theater he picked in Colorado did not allow guns! - he picked the easiest target- And say he did not get his hands on guns as his mental illness was known - he then could have walked into the movie theater with one or more bombs and the devastation and death would have been more horrendous. Again the cliche - guns don't kill people, people kill people.

As far as the future, assuming there is a future, I believe in live and let live and though we should have a United Planet we should always allow for cultural differences. The US has a gun culture which is deeply rooted in its history starting with the Second Amendment of the Constitution {and the causes for that amendment} and continuing to this day. If other countries such as England feel satisfied in keeping its population unarmed {and some might say defenseless} that is their prerogative - Still, and IF, we ever achieve a United Planet maybe the countries of the world can do some compromising in allowing citizens a basic right to self protection while at the same time having reasonable gun control that does not interfere with that right and attempts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerously insane persons - No solution will make everyone happy - And no law will ever give us complete security as life always has an element of insecurity built into the paradigm of what it is.

[Spiral Out]

If guns had never existed then this thread would read something like "Sword Control and Mass Murder". Of course 'mass murder' would indicate something a bit different but the concept would be identical.

The main point is that violence is just as much a fundamental trait in Humans as it is in all animals (although we don't call it "violence" with animals for some reason). The other point is that we would focus our dismay on some other tool of said violence, whatever it may be.

[Wilson]

If guns had never existed then this thread would read something like "Sword Control and Mass Murder". Of course 'mass murder' would indicate something a bit different but the concept would be identical.

The main point is that violence is just as much a fundamental trait in Humans as it is in all animals (although we don't call it "violence" with animals for some reason). The other point is that we would focus our dismay on some other tool of said violence, whatever it may be.

By that logic, why don't we make hand grenades legal? Or submachine guns? Or bazookas? Or nuclear weapons? After all, the second amendment said "the right to bear arms", it didn't specify the type of arms.

And just because we all have the capacity for violence doesn't mean that we should celebrate it or make it easy to exercise that capacity. We all have the capacity for stealing, murder, fraud, and cheating, too.

Obviously guns have infinitely more lethal potential than knives or swords. A weak man or woman can easily kill multiple people with a gun but would be overwhelmed quickly if wielding a knife or swinging his or her fists.

[Spiral Out]

By that logic, why don't we make hand grenades legal? Or submachine guns? Or bazookas? Or nuclear weapons?

And by the other side of that logic why don't we make owning anything and everything that can be used to inflict any degree of harm illegal? Why not make owning a tree branch illegal because it can be used to bludgeon someone to death?

So where is the reasonable cutoff point Wilson? How many people should any one person be able to kill with any particular device, whether or not that device is considered a "weapon"? Give me a number.

After all, the second amendment said "the right to bear arms", it didn't specify the type of arms.

It is understood that "arms" means firearms.

And just because we all have the capacity for violence doesn't mean that we should celebrate it or make it easy to exercise that capacity.

Nobody is advocating the celebration of our capacity for violence. Making it "easy" is relative to one's particular characteristics and that is a good point in favor of firearms ownership as I point out below**.

We all have the capacity for stealing, murder, fraud, and cheating, too.

That's correct. What's your point?

Obviously guns have infinitely more lethal potential than knives or swords. A weak man or woman can easily kill multiple people with a gun but would be overwhelmed quickly if wielding a knife or swinging his or her fists.

**This is a great point in favor of firearms ownership! What a wonderful device a firearm is for such weak women to use against a big strong man to prevent his intent on raping or otherwise harming them from happening!

If the entire anti-gun argument is based on the relative "ease of inflicting mass harm" then I guess we'll also have to ban big strong people from being anywhere near a large group of small children or otherwise weak and helpless people. So that means that no bodybuilders can be allowed around elementary schools or nursing homes. How many 5 year-olds or 95 year-olds can a 'roid-raging muscle-head on a killing spree kill either with a bat, knife, ax or even with their bare hands?

The only reason this topic is not called "Sword Control and Mass Murder" is because nobody is using swords to commit mass murders, but if guns were not around then that's exactly what would happen. And also without the presence of guns then perhaps people in general would not be as weak and helpless.

[Wilson]

By that logic, why don't we make hand grenades legal? Or submachine guns? Or bazookas? Or nuclear weapons?

And by the other side of that logic why don't we make owning anything and everything that can be used to inflict any degree of harm illegal? Why not make owning a tree branch illegal because it can be used to bludgeon someone to death?

So where is the reasonable cutoff point Wilson?

The reasonable cutoff point is whatever we decide. In my opinion, the cutoff point is guns.

After all, the second amendment said "the right to bear arms", it didn't specify the type of arms.

It is understood that "arms" means firearms.

Understood by whom? Nuclear arms are considered 'arms' by weapons inspectors. The founding fathers knew only flintlocks and muskets so they never considered "arms" to be the kind of guns we use today.

If the entire anti-gun argument is based on the relative "ease of inflicting mass harm" then I guess we'll also have to ban big strong people from being anywhere near a large group of small children or otherwise weak and helpless people. So that means that no bodybuilders can be allowed around elementary schools or nursing homes. How many 5 year-olds or 95 year-olds can a 'roid-raging muscle-head on a killing spree kill either with a bat, knife, ax or even with their bare hands?

The only reason this topic is not called "Sword Control and Mass Murder" is because nobody is using swords to commit mass murders, but if guns were not around then that's exactly what would happen. And also without the presence of guns then perhaps people in general would not be as weak and helpless.

You seem to be saying that since we all have this innate capacity for violence, we shouldn't outlaw our means of exercising that capacity. Except that you apparently do want to draw the line at nuclear weapons and submachine guns. So it really comes down to where we draw the line. For me the line should be drawn approximately where the number of additional lives lost to gun violence was enough to overcome the pleasure people get from shooting guns and the sense of security (false, in most cases, in my opinion) they give. The fun from shooting is not to be minimized, not the sense of security that people feel. Those are worth something. But if we had had the same gun restrictions as England, for example, for the past 20 years, say, the murder rate would be much smaller, the number of children dying from a loaded knife would be smaller, the number of suicides would be somewhat smaller (because it would be more difficult to kill oneself), the number of drive by knife throwings would be smaller than the number of current drive by shootings, and the number of killings committed during robberies and assaults would be smaller. There's just no question about that. The number of deaths in those banned-gun circumstances wouldn't be zero, but it would be much smaller. Whether the improved death rate would be enough to override the pleasures of gun ownership is an individual decision. For me it would be.

Of course there are huge numbers of guns out there now, so we couldn't magically get rid of them overnight. So the transition period would be prolonged and difficult and might cause a few deaths - very few - where a victim had a gun under the old rules. But nobody's proposing a full ban on guns. Just common sense restrictions.

[Lucylu]

Personally, I think a person's individual rights do not preclude our right as a society to be free from harm. We all accept, for example, that driving a car is a big responsibility and in the wrong hands is a grave danger to society, and that it is important to properly teach and train a person to drive before they are allowed to do so and that they have to be objectively tested. They can also have that licence taken away if they are seen to be mentally or physically unfit. It seems reasonable that being allowed to own a gun should be treated in the same manner.

I also feel that the damage caused by a gun is in a different league to that caused by a knife and that it is perfectly reasonable to draw the line at the point where someone intentionally buys a gun. But then Im in England, so its more clean cut. If someone bought a gun here, they would know it was illegal and they would obviously be buying it for malicious intent. There are obviously also opportunistic killers who may use a kitchen knife (or a tree branch!), but the difference is perfectly plain to me. I for one feel much safer in a society where we are all unarmed and men are expected and taught to respect women, than I would in a society in which a gun is supposedly my only defense.

[UniversalAlien]

You see this is not a debate based upon reality or FACTS - The anti gunners are not accepting realithy and are espousing personal opinions and prejudices to suit what they like - a prelude to fascism. So let me repeat the same post I just posted based upon reality and not your personal opinion:

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
Original source: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php/i ... e_ID=17847

Why should I bother to repost it you are not going to read it are you? - you can read it it is few posts back - For now I'm more convinced than ever that the anti-gunners represent crime and are indirectly or directly responsible for crime and the fascist mentality that supports crime on a worldwide scale - they are one of the reasons man can not evolve to a higher state - they are anti-man and anti civilization.

"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" - But be it the state or individuals apparently some like outlaws and fascists, don't they ?

[Robert66]

There is no doubt little hope of a successful appeal to those who are against gun control to base their arguments on evidence. The great Spiral Out needs no more than to restate his opinion: eg 'I'm not buying any of that one bit ... and ...As I had stated, "there is no discrepancy in overall violent incidents relative to domestic violence, hate crimes, random assaults, street fights, bullying, organized crime, corruption, etc." meaning that violence will manifest itself regardless of the outlets available' and we are expected to take this as the final word on the matter.

I asked:

'Violence using guns' subsiding would be seen as a good result, would it not?

to which Spiral Out replied: 'Not necessarily when it ultimately results in other forms of prolonged violence, which is inevitable'. So I suppose we must accept that a quick bullet in the head is preferable to the prospect of more 'bitch-slapping' or emotional abuse. '...where is your evidence?' I asked, and got this in response:

'Where's the evidence? Look around you and pay attention to what you see. There's your evidence.'

Never mind that when I look around I may see something different to Spiral Out. If I don't see what Spiral Out sees, then I am obviously wrong.

When I state: 'Human violence differs greatly across the planet if measured by a propensity to act violently, and more pertinently the kind of violent action undertaken' the response is:

'Not true. Every person has the potential for a level of violence that they would never think possible. Every single person. They simply have not been exposed to the necessary circumstances. Human violence does not differ greatly across the planet when the violence being taken into account does not differentiate between any particular type or method of violence, unless one is trying to manipulate statistics in order further some ideology'.

When the omniscient Spiral Out looks around he sees a Hobbesian world of pain, or possible pain. It is no good saying otherwise: the potential for a young child to club their siblings to death with an oak branch makes them every bit as violent as the many mass murderers to be found in the US, or Rwanda, or ....

Meanwhile, I can expect to be "shot down" for daring to propose that in a place where gun control has been quite effectively achieved, not only have mass murders stopped, but many other deaths have been prevented.

Universal Alien has obviously conducted quite a search in order to find the most misleading use of statistics available. The Australian Bureau of Statistics makes available their findings. I encourage anyone who prefers to base their argument on evidence to have a proper look.

And if I may be so bold as to insert my opinion here, since this appears to be normal on these forums:

Believing in crackpots who obviously love weapons is foolish, and the ordinary people of the United States would do well to vote for, support when in office and generally encourage their political leaders to show some courage and stand up to the gun lobby. Which is what happened in Australia. But of course there would be little chance of that in a nation which tends to not vote; in a nation containing people who in fact prefer to arm themself against the government. "Stone the flamin' crows, are these people the full quid?"

-- Updated June 21st, 2014, 6:54 pm to add the following --

Robert66: That's an interesting correction from a person who actually lives in the country in question.

I think your point about what Universal Alien says illustrates my point about the apparent paranoia and hysteria of some of the pro-gun lobby causing unnecessary polarization on an issue where there is more common ground than people think.

But, with you being Australian, I'd be interested on your thoughts about this: It seems clear that the american love of guns, and their conviction that they need to be personally armed to protect against oppressive governments, stems in large part from American history: from the fact that America was founded, relatively recently, in an act of throwing off an oppressive government.

Australia seems to me to have a similar frontier spirit. But not exactly the same. Former colony, but no revolutionary war. Do you think that history - in some ways similar to the US and in some ways not - has its own effect on Australians' attitudes to guns and to their role in protecting individuals from governments?

While there is an argument for linking current conditions to historical foundations, my feeling is that it is drawing a long bow to attribute the (contested) levels of violence occurring now in Australia and the US 'in large part' to these foundations. Australia, in 1996, was very similar to the US in regard to gun law. At that time, the states were charged with gun control, police in each state were mostly operating independent of other states, and had no access to adequate records as these did not exist. The political leadership I referred to was by the then PM John Howard (and I wrote that as someone who strongly disagreed with almost every other thing he and his government said or did during their decade in power) and the value lay in his standing up to the states, and offering the ultimatum of a national referendum on the issue. In other words, if the states weren't prepared to give up their powers in relation to gun control, the nation would be asked to vote on whether the constitution should be changed to allow for federal power to be enacted. And the states relented, finally, amidst all manner of objections, like those we read in this forum: "guns don't kill people etc", "It's not the semi-automatics we need worry about, it's handguns" etc etc. And the results speak for themselves (unless, like Universal Alien, you prefer to get your information via let's call them "dubious sources")

A bit more opinion, if I may:

Australians are prepared to allow themselves to be regulated when they can see that it is in the best interests of the nation to do so. And this is the case in spite of constant bleatings about the "nanny state" and "the Federal government is trying to take more power away from the states". In the US (and I will no doubt be corrected if I am wrong) there are states which still have no law to state that a citizen must wear a seatbelt. There are states where taxpayers fund museums which present creationism as fact, where dinosaurs and humans appear together in exhibits. And states where people are put to death despite numerous unsound convictions.

And now I await the judgment of the self-ordained keepers of the real truth, whose opinions are as good as fact because they say so and any who disagree are wrong. Wilson got it right: 'Don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies.' Maybe we should start a fantasy forum.

[Stormcloud]

............I fantasise children becoming ADULTS and throwing away childish things.

[Spiral Out]

throwing away childish things.

What 'childish things' might those be?

>>>

The great Spiral Out

Recognize.

[Stormcloud]

Re the childish things N#238, I'll leave you to figure that out - you're the one who purports to have all the answers.

[Wooden shoe]

Hello Robert.

A good post!

The question for me is do we want to live in a civilized nation where citizans use the law of the land to settle their disputes, and create laws and regulations for the safety of all, instead of moving to a state where everyone goes around armed.

The next move would be living in heavily fortified, walled compounds with guards armed with machine guns and land mines everywhere around the walls, travelling in armored vehicles.

Regards, John.