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

[Spiral Out]

Question to Robert66 and Rederic:

Do you propose to ban private ownership of ALL firearms? What about knives? Baseball bats?

[Grotto19]

@UniversalAlien When I talked about statistics I meant real statistics not made up ones. I am referring to real numbers from a credible source, not absurd manufactured fabrications. Firearm crime, firearm misuse and accidents, and exonerations for using a firearm for defense should all be a matter of public record. As in real records from the department of corrections, the ATF, and other governmental bodies.

@Spiral Out You are too intelligent to analogize firearms and baseball bats and knives as the same thing. It takes a great deal more conviction to kill someone with a Melee weapon than it does with a firearm. Banning firearms certainly would not end murder. People will kill with a sharpened pencil if driven enough. But it is a hell of a lot easier to work up the nerve to do it with a firearm than it is to do it with a knife.

[UniversalAlien]

What we see here, going on for almost two years, since I started this thread is 'extreme bias' by the anti-gun, blame human actions on a machine, crowd. This bias causes them to deny reality and facts - they ask for statistics and when you give them the statistics they deny them, claim they are made up - WHY do I start to believe they are trolls supported by the anti-gun minority {in the USA}. If they are from Australia or UK and are happy with their restrictive gun laws and feel safe living at home that way fine - stay happy. Personally I believe they post on a debate like this out of a deep envy for Americans Still having the right to defend what is theirs, including their lives. I sometimes wonder if some of the anti-gun rhetoric may also be advocated by ex-felons who have lost the right to own firearms. But of course this is just my imagination similar to the imaginary world of a safe disarmed world that the anti-gun crowd would like you to believe in - preach that philosophy to terrorists, give them something to laugh about when they are not cutting off heads or blowing people up - And they do it without guns

[Spiral Out]

It takes a great deal more conviction to kill someone with a Melee weapon than it does with a firearm. Banning firearms certainly would not end murder. People will kill with a sharpened pencil if driven enough. But it is a hell of a lot easier to work up the nerve to do it with a firearm than it is to do it with a knife.

I understand the rationale behind gun control and what you've said above is certainly logical. But there is an underlying principle at work here that no gun control advocate wants to admit to because they're trying to create and maintain the illusion of moral superiority.

As I have explained earlier in this thread, and I think what is also the reason Robert66 and Rederic have yet to reply to my questions, is the fact that this issue fundamentally boils down to instituting a kill limit, and consequently there are difficult questions to answer and reasons to offer, such as what this kill limit is to be and then be able to logically explain why.

As you've said Grotto, banning any particular type of weapon will not stop people from killing other people. This is an unfortunate fact of life, and cannot be eliminated completely. Therefore the proposed goal is to make it as difficult as possible for a person to kill other people, and also for a person to kill the least number of people as possible in any given single incident. Therefore, some line must be drawn.

The difficult question is where does one draw this line. Even more difficult is to try to justify where you've drawn this line. This line represents the kill limit. Of course, in order to maintain appearances, people (especially gun control advocates) will invariably either deny the principle of the kill limit or will say that the kill limit should be zero.

However, denying the principle of the kill limit is to deny the fundamental reason to institute a ban of certain weapons, and to say that the kill limit should be zero is to lose one's sense of the reality of Human nature and of a social existence.

So given that there does exist the principle of the kill limit, what is the limit and why, and how do you realistically put this limit into effect and then enforce it?

You'll start to understand why knives and baseball bats come into play here.

[Robert66]

Spiral Out I have answered that question already. If you were to read my posts you will know that what I have argued is:

When it comes to gun control, you and I are mostly in agreement. That's right - I agree there is the principle of a kill limit. What I don't agree with about is the location of that limit.

I don't have a problem with knives. I have been threatened by a would-be thief with a knife. The great thing about that scenario was that all I needed to do was run (no loss, no injury, not dead). A knife is a length of sharp metal, and a baseball bat a length of timber. What makes them useful is a handle. Are you going to ask me if I think the fitting of handles to lengths of metal or timber should be banned?

Questions (which, judging from what has happened in this discussion so far, will probably not be answered, maybe not even read):

What is the topic of this thread? Where would I find a problem with mass murder?

I think UniversalAlien is cranky with me, and we were only just getting to know one another. Now he has gone to his room, and shut the door, and left me out here with so many questions to ask him, like:

Where do you find all your fantastic statistics? The Ecclesia organisation - what are they like? Is Howard Nemerov a reliable source, someone I could trust to write with authority on Australian gun control? Do you think the Australian Bureau of Statistics, or the Australian Institute of Criminology might be helpful, if I were interested in finding out what's happening in that country? Is it OK to post stuff on a forum like this if it is untrue? (such as: 'All guns were banned in Australia, then the crime rate went so high, they had to rescind the laws" - remember that one? or: 'The gun control lobby will be celebrating news of the latest mass murder in USA' - such an elegant put-down)

But he can't hear me ... can you hear me UniversalAlien? can you hear me ...

...

[Cut to Major Tom - sorry - UniversalAlien, sitting in his tin can, far above the world, trying to pick up a signal, but getting a lot of lunatic interference]

UA [muttering to himself]: " ... those damned trolls, trying to ruin my plans ... wait a minute ... what's this ... sounds like Charlton ... could it be? What's he saying? ...

[Fuzzy image on screen, ghostly figure speaking to a group which looks like children in a classroom]: " ... and so that's why guns are so great ..." [Interrupting child] "Why are guns great?" ... "Because (What's your name, son? ... ) Because Tommy, there are bad people everywhere, but if you have enough guns, you don't need to worry. If a bad person tries to hurt you, or take something from you, well all you need to is shoot some holes in them, and then they won't hurt you" [Children all clap]

[Rederic]

Spiral Out I have answered that question already. If you were to read my posts you will know that what I have argued is:

When it comes to gun control, you and I are mostly in agreement. That's right - I agree there is the principle of a kill limit. What I don't agree with about is the location of that limit.

I don't have a problem with knives. I have been threatened by a would-be thief with a knife. The great thing about that scenario was that all I needed to do was run (no loss, no injury, not dead). A knife is a length of sharp metal, and a baseball bat a length of timber. What makes them useful is a handle. Are you going to ask me if I think the fitting of handles to lengths of metal or timber should be banned?

Questions (which, judging from what has happened in this discussion so far, will probably not be answered, maybe not even read):

What is the topic of this thread? Where would I find a problem with mass murder?

I think UniversalAlien is cranky with me, and we were only just getting to know one another. Now he has gone to his room, and shut the door, and left me out here with so many questions to ask him, like:

Where do you find all your fantastic statistics? The Ecclesia organisation - what are they like? Is Howard Nemerov a reliable source, someone I could trust to write with authority on Australian gun control? Do you think the Australian Bureau of Statistics, or the Australian Institute of Criminology might be helpful, if I were interested in finding out what's happening in that country? Is it OK to post stuff on a forum like this if it is untrue? (such as: 'All guns were banned in Australia, then the crime rate went so high, they had to rescind the laws" - remember that one? or: 'The gun control lobby will be celebrating news of the latest mass murder in USA' - such an elegant put-down)

But he can't hear me ... can you hear me UniversalAlien? can you hear me ...

...

[Cut to Major Tom - sorry - UniversalAlien, sitting in his tin can, far above the world, trying to pick up a signal, but getting a lot of lunatic interference]

UA [muttering to himself]: " ... those damned trolls, trying to ruin my plans ... wait a minute ... what's this ... sounds like Charlton ... could it be? What's he saying? ...

[Fuzzy image on screen, ghostly figure speaking to a group which looks like children in a classroom]: " ... and so that's why guns are so great ..." [Interrupting child] "Why are guns great?" ... "Because (What's your name, son? ... ) Because Tommy, there are bad people everywhere, but if you have enough guns, you don't need to worry. If a bad person tries to hurt you, or take something from you, well all you need to is shoot some holes in them, and then they won't hurt you" [Children all clap]

Hey, you're not bad, for an aussie that is.

[Spiral Out]

When it comes to gun control, you and I are mostly in agreement. That's right - I agree there is the principle of a kill limit. What I don't agree with about is the location of that limit.

Great! Then where do you draw your line for an acceptable kill limit, and please provide your reasoning in order to justify why you draw that line where you do.

I don't have a problem with knives. I have been threatened by a would-be thief with a knife.

Well, if that "would-be thief" had a gun then I doubt he would have used that either, since he didn't use the knife. But we're not talking about "would-be thieves" here, we're talking about gun control and mass murder. If that "would-be thief" had been a murderer with a knife, or a baseball bat for that matter, then you'd be dead.

Where would I find a problem with mass murder?

Look to any region of the world that has ever experienced war. Look to Imperial China. Look to Feudal Japan. Look to the Crusades. Look to the Inquisition. Look to the Witch Trials. Look to Nazi Germany and the use of gas chambers. Look to Jonestown and the use of poisoned drinks. Look to Syria's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens. Look anywhere in the world throughout the history of Humankind.

There are numerous examples of mass murders that did not involve the use of guns.

[Grotto19]

I could not agree more about the kill limit Spiral Out. That is exactly what it is about despite people being unable to think of it in that way. Just as the speed limit on roads is truly an accident limit. If we really wanted to cut roadside fatalities to zero we would set the max speed to something like 15MPH. We don’t because that would be too prohibitive, so we look at what level of roadside fatalities are an acceptable sacrifice in order to move ourselves and our goods at a faster pace.

As for the “kill limit” on weapons (be they firearms or others) obviously can never be zero nor even close to it. But what the kill limit philosophy brings into question is regarding each potential legislation what is being sacrificed and what is being gained. To assess this we need to look at real statistics of places who have made changes to firearm ownership legislation and measure without bias what was lost and what was gained. This is confounded of course by some things which cannot be measured or are subjective, like what value do you assign to a feeling of security, or how many crimes were not even committed for fear that the victim might be armed. How the influx of more firearms lowers the price on the black market for criminals. These factors are not easily measured, but at least the outcomes can be.

[Spiral Out]

If we really wanted to cut roadside fatalities to zero we would set the max speed to something like 15MPH.

And if we really wanted to cut homicides to zero we would have to physically incapacitate people against their will and to the point that they could not harm themselves or anyone else. But then who would have the capacity to incapacitate these people? So the zero kill limit is both logically and morally impossible.

Therefore, gun control advocates must have some realistic number greater than zero for this kill limit.

Yet they cannot justify what that kill limit should be because they are trying to maintain the illusion of moral superiority and thus would have no tenable moral reasoning for any number greater than zero.

This is why not a single person can answer my question. It's quite an embarrassment for those who are attempting to form an argument supporting an idea as untenable as gun control.

[Vijaydevani]

For what it is worth, we have gun control in India. Licences are very hard to come by and few have them. And I can say that we do not have the kind of stuff that happens in the USA. Right to bear arms and such I do not want to comment on, but the fact is, gun violence is very rare. Mass murders are unheard of except when terrorists attack.

-- Updated October 14th, 2014, 6:30 am to add the following --

Oh and of course, I do not recall a single incidence of a rampage in a school in our history.

[Theophane]

Therefore, gun control advocates must have some realistic number greater than zero for this kill limit.

Yet they cannot justify what that kill limit should be because they are trying to maintain the illusion of moral superiority and thus would have no tenable moral reasoning for any number greater than zero.

What is the value of human life that we should seek to impose a kill-limit?

[Rederic]

Question to Robert66 and Rederic:

Do you propose to ban private ownership of ALL firearms? What about knives? Baseball bats?

I've answered this so many times. No, not a complete ban on firearms.

A ban on automatic weapons, yes. Greater restrictions on who can own firearms & stiffer regulations on how firearms are bought or inherited.

[Robert66]

Spiral Out, in answering your question about where an acceptable kill limit would be located, I must say this is not an easy task. I do however appreciate the validity of your point, that some line must be drawn, that arguing for a "zero kill limit" ignores fundamental realities.

I have learnt greatly from this forum discussion, especially the fact that what applies in Australia may have far less chance of applying elsewhere, for reasons to do with existing weapon numbers, and the nearby presence of populations who could potentially seek to take criminal advantage of law changes. I have also learnt that tightening of gun control laws was attempted in USA in 1994, but the legislation failed to continue beyond its 10 year limit, due to the many complications arising: it is no simple matter to determine laws pertaining to weapon categories, clip sizes etc, and I am certainly not expert.

I still argue that useful changes could be made, even in the USA. Law change could: make it more difficult for people with particular mental illnesses to obtain weapons; prevent circumvention of laws through purchase from gun shows; link the efforts of law enforcement agents in all the states, allowing for proper registration of weapons and adequate records within a common database; and the buying back of weapons, on a voluntary basis.

Some may scoff at the last suggestion on that list, but to me it is of great importance. In Australia (I know, I know, here he goes again ... but I am Australian, so please forgive me) about half a million weapons were voluntarily handed in. Research into the consequences of that occurrence (I mean real research ... here I am making a distinction between actual research and agenda-laden research - yes, I am referring to you, UniversalAlien, though of course you can no longer hear me) shows that gun death has lessened significantly, particularly in the realm of suicide. A connection appears to have been severed in many households, between the presence of a gun and the ability of an individual, in a moment of madness or severe depression, to use that weapon to take their own life. Less emphatically suggested, however entirely plausible, is a connection between 1996 gun control legislation and the subsequent absence of mass murder in Australia.

The use of certain weapons should be confined to strictly regulated circumstances, such as very secure gun clubs. Not being expert, I am not able to list those weapons, but something like an FN P90 would be on it, I think. Of course many will vehemently disagree, but my feeling is that some freedoms are impossible to justify in a societal context.

[UniversalAlien]

For what it is worth, we have gun control in India. Licences are very hard to come by and few have them. And I can say that we do not have the kind of stuff that happens in the USA. Right to bear arms and such I do not want to comment on, but the fact is, gun violence is very rare. Mass murders are unheard of except when terrorists attack.

-- Updated October 14th, 2014, 6:30 am to add the following --

Oh and of course, I do not recall a single incidence of a rampage in a school in our history.

Great! Great civilization the India of today isn't it? But why do stories like this in your well gun-controlled country bother me? Why do some of us feel gun control caters to the jungle mentality?

Teenage Sisters Allegedly Gang-Raped, Murdered In India

NPR's Julie McCarthy reports today on another alleged gang rape and murder in India — this one involving two teenage sisters from the lowest Hindu caste whose bodies were found hanging from a mango tree.

Julie says the two girls, ages 14 and 15, were killed in a village about 140 miles east of the capital New Delhi......

The Press Trust of India says charges have been filed against seven people, including two police constables. Local media report that one of the policemen allegedly participated in the attack. The other is said to have refused to listen to relatives who reported the two girls missing.......

See whole article here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... d-in-india

-- Updated October 14th, 2014, 3:05 pm to add the following --

Another intersiting articla on gun-control in India:

Gun Control in India

The world watched in horror as the terrorists prowled and murdered for hours through the streets of a major city in India. The mayhem went all but unabated. No one tried to stop them -- because no one could stop them. None of the citizens were armed.

India has a long history of gun control. Under British occupation, the citizens of India had no rights to private gun ownership. Even Mahatma Gandhi protested the firearms prohibition:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." (M. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth.)

See whole article here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... india.html


WOW! Mahatma Gandhi protesting gun control by the British!

The great failure of society is not a lack of gun control but the poor quality of education that causes delusional people to accept a false ideology in the name of peace, that in fact endangers public safety and is a prelude to war.

[Vijaydevani]

For what it is worth, we have gun control in India. Licences are very hard to come by and few have them. And I can say that we do not have the kind of stuff that happens in the USA. Right to bear arms and such I do not want to comment on, but the fact is, gun violence is very rare. Mass murders are unheard of except when terrorists attack.

-- Updated October 14th, 2014, 6:30 am to add the following --

Oh and of course, I do not recall a single incidence of a rampage in a school in our history.

Great! Great civilization the India of today isn't it? But why do stories like this in your well gun-controlled country bother me? Why do some of us feel gun control caters to the jungle mentality?

I was not trying to say that it is a great thing or that we are a great civilization. I have no such illusions. I was simply stating the facts. Gun control here is such that there is great deal of back ground check before a licence is issued. The licence is renewed every three years after checking the three year record of the person. Any criminal act, and the gun goes. I personally hold a licence, and do bear a firearm. But only one is allowed per person and nothing about a .32 NB ( whatever that might be called in the USA. I am obviously not a gun guy. I just have one for protection an have never had cause to use it.)

What this extensive back ground check does is that it becomes very tough for criminals and kids to lay their hands on guns. Also since guns are extremely few, even getting them off the black market is tough. The result is few guns which everyone who owns one is paranoid about. I keep it in my personal safe always, and so does everyone else who owns one. Even if I have to clean it, I do not let anyone around me even if I am sure it is not loaded. This paranoia comes from having something that is rare and therefore valuable.

You probably are bothered because there are already a lot of guns out on the streets. Gun control in the USA now would be a very tough thing because it involves first trying to get the huge numbers of arms already out back in. So I can sympathize. It is not easy. Also gun control might not solve a lot of your gun violence. But I can assure you, that with gun control, at least your kids in school will be safer than they are today. That alone should make it worth it.