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

[Spiral Out]

What do you suggest?

It would take me an inordinate amount of time to create and then document such a complex structure of concepts, but I shall ponder it and perhaps list out some of the primary principles in future posts.

Do you mean that if gun owners were required by law to keep their guns in gun safes then you agree that this would mean it simply wouldn't be possible for them to fall in to the wrong hands, and for example be picked up by a minor who would like to take it in to school?

That's not what I meant. I meant that there are always ways around any safety measure, no matter how "fool proof" it might seem.

And no I am not saying that this would mean that there would be no crime but in terms of illegal access to firearms, do you agree this would be safer? Maybe it should be mandatory?

Safer than what? A genuinely safer condition means the removal of violent people (violent without just cause) from existence.

Gun safes are a good for storing weapons that aren't for immediate use such as a handgun or shotgun for home protection.

There would be a better safety device for quick access (not sure if one exists at this point) in the event of home invasion (something you people over there in the UK are dealing with right now) that would serve the purpose more effectively and as such would create a safer environment for me and my family. So when you say "safer" I suppose that is relative to the context. Safer for one is not necessarily safer for another. That's just the way the real world works.

The kill limit is always zero. Assault and murder are always illegal (except in warfare which is a different topic). Numbers are irrelevant. We are talking about minimizing violence wherever possible.

Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my question. This is a critical point in relation to the real intent of gun control:

The real intent of the ban on assault weapons and that of gun control in general is to limit the number of deaths that any one person can inflict in any one particular "event". So in essence, there is a "kill limit" being imposed. Otherwise, all weapons would be banned outright. But they are allowing some weapons while disallowing other weapons.

And what is the only criteria for their consideration of what is and what is not allowed? That criteria would be the aforementioned "kill limit", although they can't admit to such a thing because that's not politically correct. But that's exactly what it is. Why do you think they banned high-capacity ammo clips!

So, what is the appropriate kill limit???

I am not saying I want to ban weapons, but I am saying I ban violence, as do the laws in both our countries. I know that there is still a lot of violence but I believe that it wont always be this way and that things are improving.

We can't ban violence. It is Human nature. That's why the politicians (who are inherently not qualified for such things) try to limit, through arbitrary and ineffective means such as gun control, the means for the violent to effect their violence upon others. They don't understand that such violence will simply find another more insidious outlet of expression. But it makes them look like caring and sensitive heroes, and that's all that really matters to politicians.

For example there has been a huge drop in domestic violence and subsequent murders (here in the UK) over the past few decades. It isn't definitively known why but it is felt that it is probably due to the increased education of women, improvements in housing and increased opportunites for women to leave their husbands. This is real progress.

I have no doubt that it is the improvement in the conditions of the social environment that has caused the improvement in the interaction of the people within that environment. That is real progress indeed.

Education, opportunity and treating people with respect, dignity and giving them a voice to be heard is the answer, not limiting their choice of weapons they wish to use as an outlet for their inexpressible frustrations because of the effect of not being afforded an education, opportunity, respect, dignity or a voice to be heard.

It is not yours or anyone else's right to cause me physical harm. It is my right to be safe. Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person".

In order for any entity to grant anyone an inalienable right, they first must have the authority and the inherent ability to effect that right upon that person and to be able to ensure that such a right is not transgressed upon. Such a principle cannot exist proactively. It only exists functionally as a reactively punitive effort.

There is no genuine "right" to safety because there can be no guarantee of safety. The proposal that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" is just the artificial posturing of a perhaps intentional ignorantly-hopeful collection of idealists. Sure, it's a great thing to strive for, but to call it an inalienable right is somewhat of a stretch of reason.

Besides, isn't such "security of person" along with "life" and "liberty" indeed the freedom and the ability to protect oneself against those (any entity) that would do us harm? Humans have been arming themselves with various tools against the hostility of animals and other Humans since the very beginning.

Democracy is the best we have at the moment. If you feel that you would like more say and that the system isn't what you want it to be you can change it from the inside. You always have the right to run for local elections and work your way to a position of influence.

Running for political office is only realistically possible for those with a massive amount of financial backing. Changing the system from the inside first requires one to be an insider. If you already have financial means to run for office then you inherently have no fundamental necessity to run for office since the status quo already serves your interests and needs. Vicious circle.

I agree that politics seems largely obsessed by financial issues as they are essentially an administrative body, but there are also other charities and agencies that work alongside the Government such as Social Services which work exclusively on social issues. You are free to support them any way you like.

I could support charitable institutions if I weren't taxed so heavily. I'd run for office to change that from within but I don't have the financial resources to launch a political election campaign.

There are apparently many people who are unaware of the fact that you shouldn't leave a gun lying around when there are children in the house or your son has serious social and mental health issues. We cant just say, 'oh well, I didn't do it, so its not my business. People are just violent'. Isn't it more responsible to either educate these people or not allow them a gun?

Yes, proper education, opportunity, interpersonal consideration and effective legal principles are the correct and effective way to address the issue of Human violence.

When I bring attention to the fact that all people have the natural propensity for violent behaviors, I'm not suggesting that nothing can, or should, be done about it. What I'm saying is that selecting their choice of outlet for that violence is not the answer, it is the identification and the subsequent neutralization of their apparent need to express that violence that is what requires implementation.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Shadowfax]

What types of weapons are reasonable and acceptable and what should the "kill limit" be relative to any particular weapon?

Why give civilians the right to an offensive weapon when they are in need of defence? Surely a tranquilliser gun of some sort, or some other technology which can temporarily incapacitate a person will do the job.

[Spiral Out]

Why give civilians the right to an offensive weapon when they are in need of defence?

Weapons aren't inherently offensive or defensive in themselves. It is the intended use of those weapons that determines that characteristic.

Any weapon can be used either non-lethally or lethally and offensively or defensively.

Surely a tranquilliser gun of some sort, or some other technology which can temporarily incapacitate a person will do the job.

In relation to my response above, any weapon must have the capacity to be used either non-lethally or lethally and offensively or defensively in order to be necessarily effective in any situation.

You're trying to place the responsibility of the method and mode of the use of the weapon on the weapon itself. You're feeding into the gun control insanity.

[Lucylu]

Surely a tranquilliser gun of some sort, or some other technology which can temporarily incapacitate a person will do the job.

That's a very interesting idea. After a couple of seconds though, I got a terrible fear, as a women, that I could be paralysed and raped while I was still conscious. That would be worse than being shot dead I think. I suppose its 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'. A man with a weapon could force me to submit without actually using the weapon. I do like the idea that there could be a tranquilizer gun permitted for self protection.

It would take me an inordinate amount of time to create and then document such a complex structure of concepts, but I shall ponder it and perhaps list out some of the primary principles in future posts.

I would really like to hear what you feel are the steps that need to be taken to address the problems we're talking about. I think that has been frustrating me- as it feels as if you are very willing to say no to many ideas, but unwilling to come up with anything better.

there are always ways around any safety measure, no matter how "fool proof" it might seem.

Yes but, as you have said before, a gun safe is about as safe as it gets. It makes reasonable sense that someone is far less likely to be able to access a gun which is in a gun safe, rather than one which is not. I have been thinking about the home protection idea with this too. Obviously it is best that a person could access their own guns quickly when needed for personal protection. I expect a specialized gun safe of some kind could be created and I'm sure someone will make a fortune off of it.

The real intent of the ban on assault weapons and that of gun control in general is to limit the number of deaths that any one person can inflict in any one particular "event".

Perhaps 'they' simply want to limit the potential for massacres to occur. Is that so crazy? In this day and age when there is still so much violence it is only logical that our access to weapons be limited. Guns are legal for home protection, and you are free to use them recreationally, but asking to keep assault rifles in your home is a different matter. I feel like we've already gone over these things and will have to agree to disagree.

Appropriate kill limit? I feel that any gun which is used for sport rather than NEEDED for basic home protection is in a different category. And yes this is a subjective line. But do you really feel that it is perfectly fine for every adult over the age of 18 to be able to have as many weapons and assault rifles and 'high capacity ammo clips' in their homes as they please? Is this necessary? Why not bombs and missile launchers?

There is no genuine "right" to safety because there can be no guarantee of safety.

I understand your point. It is not a proof of reality to make a declaration or law. I realise I am an idealist at times, but I do believe in civil society. And the creation of a law or a declaration cannot just be dismissed. If that were true you would have to throw away your Constitution. Yes, we are just primal animals at the root but we have such extraordinary capacities beyond that. Imagine what can happen over the next few thousand years, when there is no poverty and no disease. I agree our environment is all important and that means that violence doesn't have to be natural and common place. When we evolve further we may not even want violence/ weapons? If we accept it as part of ourselves we wont overcome it, is what I'm saying. Change takes energy after all.

Besides, isn't such "security of person" along with "life" and "liberty" indeed the freedom and the ability to protect oneself against those (any entity) that would do us harm? Humans have been arming themselves with various tools against the hostility of animals and other Humans since the very beginning.

Your right to own guns is not at threat. I feel as if you are, again, sacrificing democratic, civil society in favour of complete personal liberty. Remember your Constitution states that "Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." I see it as a gain, but you seem to see it as a loss? I'm not saying we should all go around like drones, wrapped in cotton wool, up to our eyes in laws, but little shifts can make a big difference.

If you already have financial means to run for office then you inherently have no fundamental necessity to run for office since the status quo already serves your interests and needs.

I see you have a healthy mistrust of politicians but there are also many who are in for the right reasons. People who are in politics and/or rich are also human. They can also have their child killed at school, they can also get cancer, they can also see their parents die in pain. I don't understand why you think they are so different? They have to do PR when talking to the public- that's the nature of the beast.

I'm not suggesting that nothing can, or should, be done about it. What I'm saying is that selecting their choice of outlet for that violence is not the answer, it is the identification and the subsequent neutralization of their apparent need to express that violence that is what requires implementation.

Ultimately, yes. Identifying and treating the causes are key but stopping the flow of blood is also important.

[Grotto19]

Much of this has been reduction to the absurd. The well documented fact regarding societies is that changes, even subtle ones, do alter the numbers. So yes adding the requirement of “gun safes” or education will absolutely have an impact. The question is always will the desired change produce an impact worth the cost (not just monetary, but also precedent set, and unrest).

I am in general in support of people being able to own firearms. However it does seem peculiar to me that owning a firearm is often not subject to the same standard to which we hold other highly dangerous things. Even something such as an automobile, an object which has far more utility value than it has as a weapon. They require licensing before one can legally operate one, an age requirement, restrictions on its use or operator control when intoxicated, and a strict registration system tracking ownership and transfer of ownership. I can’t imagine how any of these limitations applied to firearm ownership would cause more harm or cost than the good they would provide.

If someone wishes to own a functional firearm but is unwilling to prove they know how to operate and store it safely, understand the rules for use, or are unwilling to take responsibility for that weapon (via registration), than I would be quite comfortable saying that they shouldn’t have one, and would vote for legislation to that effect.

[Rederic]

Post by Rederic » Today, 10:24 am

Spiral Out. Do you believe that the US has a problem with gun crime & mass shootings or is everything fine? I don't mean violence in general but just gun crime, which is what the OP was about.

Post by Spiral Out » Today, 1:44 pm

Rederic. Do you believe that the UK has a problem with knife crime and home invasions or is everything fine?

Evasion noted.

Why don't you want to answer the question? Would it perhaps weaken your position?

Just to remind you, the OP was about "Gun Control & Mass Murder".

[UniversalAlien]

LucyLu said:

Remember your Constitution states that "Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest."

NOT TRUE. This was part of 'the transmittal page of the Constitution and the Resolutions of the Constitutional Convention', and until recently was rarely even shown - It is not part of the basic Constitution and its guaranteed rights. I suppose right to a world without violence and guns liberals dug up this page to show justification in gun bans and confiscations [part of their future agenda} - But like their claim that The Second Amendment only applied to 'the Militia" [meaning police and military}, a study of history and facts, shows that too is fallacious.

As far as gun control goes there is already a large body of laws even in the US. Many years ago you could buy almost any type of gun with no identification and guns were sold through the mail and in the 18-1900s mail order catalogs had almost any type of gun available to anyone who wanted to buy one. Today all new guns purchased in the US require a background check of the purchaser.

[Rederic]

Today all new guns purchased in the US require a background check of the purchaser

Another myth exploded. http://mic.com/articles/22816/40-percen ... arry-pratt

[UniversalAlien]

And now some further philosophical musings on gun control especially as it applies to Great Britain, one of the most stringent gun control nations in the world. England, at least in the 20th Century, had fairly comprehensive gun control which was extended to a draconian degree in the later part of the 20th Century.

They used to say the 'The Sun never sets on the British Empire'. To me, and mainly because of the draconian British gun control, it seems a dark moon is now over the UK. Remember in the mid 20th Century Britain came very close to a Nazi invasion. Such a thing can't happen today you say? The world, if anything is more unstable than ever; What would happen if all hell broke loose so to speak - Is your government justified because of a few loose cannons {nuts] in virtually disarming most of your population? Are you really safer? And how about the increase in violent home invasions attributable to your current disarmed population?

I love the British science fiction series 'Dr. Who' which has been running in various forms for many, many years. In this series what often happens is an 'alien' force attempts to take over a country, often Britain and the Doctor has to solve the problem. The program is very creative in the nature of the alien monsters and the Doctor has to solve the dilemma which often threatens all human life. Now I would like to write an episode for the series. In this episode an alien group decides that Britain is ripe for a complete takeover; But first, and to facilitate matters they believe disarming the country is the first step - Simply program a 'nut' to kill a bunch of people {children} and get the government to virtually outlaw self-defense and firearms - To do this they also take over your politicians so they will vote the way they want. Now with a defenseless population the aliens can complete their nefarious plans - And all this is done under the guise of making the public safe! As the episode progresses the Doctor comes to the rescue and wakes up the people to the fact that not only are they not safe - but that they are in imminent danger of a complete alien takeover which will mean the loss of all civil liberties and the final setting of the Sun over what remains of the once great British Empire.

Wake up England, your politicians are not making you safe.

[Rederic]

Spiral Out, you say that whatever I write is illogical. I, on the other hand, feel that your arguments are some of the most illogical pieces it's ever been my pleasure to read. You simply form your opinions according to what you prefer them to be, and then build your arguments, rather than letting logic guide you wherever it may. It's a very common characteristic among humanity, one which I find ridiculous and sad, and it makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation on any subject where there is disagreement. So I won't be responding to you in the future. Unless there's absolutely no alternative.

Rederick, your avatar is, for me, off putting, because you write like an intelligent guy, and that image makes one wonder. I'm sure you chose it for shock value, and it is distinctive, but I wish you'd change it to something nicer. Unless that is indeed a photo of yourself, in which case, nice hair.

This was taken on a good day.

-- Updated July 6th, 2014, 1:30 am to add the following --

And now some further philosophical musings on gun control especially as it applies to Great Britain, one of the most stringent gun control nations in the world. England, at least in the 20th Century, had fairly comprehensive gun control which was extended to a draconian degree in the later part of the 20th Century.

They used to say the 'The Sun never sets on the British Empire'. To me, and mainly because of the draconian British gun control, it seems a dark moon is now over the UK. Remember in the mid 20th Century Britain came very close to a Nazi invasion. Such a thing can't happen today you say? The world, if anything is more unstable than ever; What would happen if all hell broke loose so to speak - Is your government justified because of a few loose cannons {nuts] in virtually disarming most of your population? Are you really safer? And how about the increase in violent home invasions attributable to your current disarmed population?

I love the British science fiction series 'Dr. Who' which has been running in various forms for many, many years. In this series what often happens is an 'alien' force attempts to take over a country, often Britain and the Doctor has to solve the problem. The program is very creative in the nature of the alien monsters and the Doctor has to solve the dilemma which often threatens all human life. Now I would like to write an episode for the series. In this episode an alien group decides that Britain is ripe for a complete takeover; But first, and to facilitate matters they believe disarming the country is the first step - Simply program a 'nut' to kill a bunch of people {children} and get the government to virtually outlaw self-defense and firearms - To do this they also take over your politicians so they will vote the way they want. Now with a defenseless population the aliens can complete their nefarious plans - And all this is done under the guise of making the public safe! As the episode progresses the Doctor comes to the rescue and wakes up the people to the fact that not only are they not safe - but that they are in imminent danger of a complete alien takeover which will mean the loss of all civil liberties and the final setting of the Sun over what remains of the once great British Empire.

Wake up England, your politicians are not making you safe.

I think you need to make a distinction between fact & fantasy.

[Spiral Out]

Lucylu,

But do you really feel that it is perfectly fine for every adult over the age of 18 to be able to have as many weapons and assault rifles and 'high capacity ammo clips' in their homes as they please? Is this necessary?

It's neither necessary nor relevant to crime statistics. Since when is necessity the primary driver for what should be?

Why not bombs and missile launchers?

The inverse of that absurd, unrealistic and tired argument is "why not just ban any and all weapons altogether"?

I realise I am an idealist at times, but I do believe in civil society.

I believe in civil society as well. Societies needn't be devoid of firearms in order to be civil, just devoid of uncivilized people.

I feel as if you are, again, sacrificing democratic, civil society in favour of complete personal liberty.

That's not an either/or proposition. Personal liberties do not preclude civil societies.

[Robert66]

Does UniversalAlien really need to make a distinction between fact and fantasy, as suggested by Rederic? Or should he be allowed, like a modern Socrates, to muse upon a subject, bringing all manner of fantastic and wild ideas into play?

While we are fantasizing, what if the same alien invaders landed in USA, lets say in fifteen years from now, when schoolkids, and anyone with at least one arm, are issued weapons in the name of "defending the nation"? No doubt our fantasy philosophizer will be O.K. - I can see him weaving through the woods in his camouflage gear, picking off alien intruders a few at a time, before retreating to his foxhole undetected. SpiralOut, meanwhile, will be standing on his front porch, ready to blast those monsters to hell if they dare breach his front gate. Communications will be out of course, but if UniversalAlien could just get a message to SpiralOut. it might read:

"God bless this great nation of ours, Spiral buddy, we were goddamned right to arm ourselves so. It makes me proud to see the way we have all pulled together in our hour of need. We have sisters fighting with brothers, sons with their mothers, great grand uncles and their nieces and nephews, and most importantly states fighting together, all to protect the peace of this great union we call the U.S. of A. Them aliens don't stand a chance - nobody does - when the U.S.A. decides to prove what is right."

[Spiral Out]

Out of desperation, Robert66 has concocted quite an amusing (albeit idiotic) story for us based on his highly emotional interpretations of our statements and for the sole purpose of the intentional misrepresentation of our positions in order to attempt to undermine them. But that's all that story is.

At no time have I ever stated or even implied that my possession of firearms is in any way due to any belief that I must protect myself from despotic governments, alien invaders or any other unrealistic threat. As I have stated numerous times (apparently to no effect), I keep firearms in my home for the protection of my family in the event of a home invasion by criminals.

It is my duty and responsibility to protect my family to the best of my abilities, which is also why I stay in good physical shape and keep up practice in hand-to-hand CQC techniques.

If Robert66 thinks that keeping firearms in one's home for the protection of one's family against real-world potential threats is in any way unwarranted, unjustified or otherwise as moronic as his story, then who's the fool here?

We have a word for people like that: victim.

Try again kid.

Now, would you care to address the criticisms (of the article you had referenced) that I had posed to you way back in post #293?

[UniversalAlien]

Yes, Spiral Out, quite true.

So Robert66 doesn't like my allegorical tale. Let's get back to facts. Britain was once considered one of the 'free world's' great democracies, likened to the US in many ways. I say the facts show Britain is now a totalitarian state. How can I say that? What is the evidence? History, history is the evidence. We have shown time and time again throughout the 20th Century where gun bans and confiscations have led to genocide - a fact. Now you say history doesn't apply to Britain, the British people would never stand for this, right? Guess what the British people have already stood for gun laws which went from rather strict, but at least reasonable to a state of defenselessness where all protection is deemed to the state - to me it is a basic given in any 'free state' that the individual has the right to protect himself and what is his - give up this right and what rights do you really have? If you are not given the right to protect yourself - you have no rights - all rights become what the state declares them to be. Any country which denies the citizens the right to protect themselves, their families and their property is a pure totalitarian state.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an [toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA adjective 1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. 2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

You don't think you have that yet in Britain? Believe all your rights, safety, and property are protected by the state? Feel secure? Now tell me who is really delusional?

[Rederic]

Yes, Spiral Out, quite true.

So Robert66 doesn't like my allegorical tale. Let's get back to facts. Britain was once considered one of the 'free world's' great democracies, likened to the US in many ways. I say the facts show Britain is now a totalitarian state. How can I say that? What is the evidence? History, history is the evidence. We have shown time and time again throughout the 20th Century where gun bans and confiscations have led to genocide - a fact. Now you say history doesn't apply to Britain, the British people would never stand for this, right? Guess what the British people have already stood for gun laws which went from rather strict, but at least reasonable to a state of defenselessness where all protection is deemed to the state - to me it is a basic given in any 'free state' that the individual has the right to protect himself and what is his - give up this right and what rights do you really have? If you are not given the right to protect yourself - you have no rights - all rights become what the state declares them to be. Any country which denies the citizens the right to protect themselves, their families and their property is a pure totalitarian state.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an [toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA adjective 1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. 2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

You don't think you have that yet in Britain? Believe all your rights, safety, and property are protected by the state? Feel secure? Now tell me who is really delusional?

Dear o dear. You really have been watching too many movies. You ought to get out and see a bit of the world for yourself instead of watching Fox News on your television.

By the way, did you know that your government can declare you a security risk & lock you up without trial for as long as it likes. Who would stick up for you? Your right wing friends? I don' t think so, after all you're a terrorist, right?

Must be good to live in the land of the free, or for as long as Uncle Sam says you can.