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

[Sy Borg]

You can spin it any way you like but the US is in deep trouble with its gun laws that are exacerbating divisions. I look forward to your denial. Other nations don't have that problem because they successfully dealt with the issue while the US failed.

Hmmm. Now you seem to be arguing that the US should adopt more gun laws in order not to "exacerbate divisions," rather than to reduce homicides. Is that now your rationale? Many pandering pols will, of course, support such laws for just that reason --- not because they think they will do any good, but to appease constituencies demanding that they "do something."

It depends. Do you think that the current level of school massacres in the US is acceptable? I do think that the divisiveness issue is important, even if you don't see it.

Numerous other developed nations have successful gun regulations ("successful" as in not a regular stream of mass murders of children as per the US) on which US gun regulation could be based.

Ah. Sorry, Greta, but there are no nations with gun laws "successful" in that sense. Nations with restrictive gun laws had negligible rates of "mass murders of children" before they adopted their gun laws, and they remained negligible afterward. They have lower rates than the US for cultural, demographic, and economic reasons, not because of their gun laws.

No, Australia had increasing numbers of massacres and then in the 90s, the government acted. Since then, zero, touch wood.

BTW, the school massacres aren't being perpetrated by black boys which rather undermines the idea that blacks are largely to blame.

[Fooloso4]

Greta:

BTW, the school massacres aren't being perpetrated by black boys which rather undermines the idea that blacks are largely to blame.

Nor are they being perpetrated by criminals who have been let out of jail rather than locked up for life. (This was GE's response to what should be done)

Another shooting today. Two wounded, one in critical condition, at Great Mills High School. The suburban school made U.S. News list of top high schools.

[Rederic]

[quote=Fooloso4 post_id=308088 time=1521593060

Another shooting today. Two wounded, one in critical condition, at Great Mills High School. The suburban school made U.S. News list of top high schools.
[/quote]

Another triumph for freedom!

[GE Morton]

BTW, the school massacres aren't being perpetrated by black boys which rather undermines the idea that blacks are largely to blame.

Nor are they being perpetrated by criminals who have been let out of jail rather than locked up for life. (This was GE's response to what should be done)

You're both right on those points. Mass shootings with random victims are mostly committed by whites. Blacks commit them at a rate slightly higher than their fraction of the population (16% of shootings, 13% of the population), but nowhere near the ratios for homicides overall.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 ... er-s-race/

Nor do most of those shooters have criminal records, though many of them did have histories of behavioral problems. Perhaps the oddest one was the Las Vegas shooting, the worst ever. The shooter was a 64 year-old white man, a retired accountant, a millionaire, and a professional gambler, a long-time customer who had comp privileges at several casinos. He had no criminal record. The day before the shooting he paid off all his debts. His doctor thought he may have suffered from bipolar disorder, but there was no formal diagnosis of that condition.

School shootings and other random mass shootings in public places are a distinct phenomena, differently motivated and commited by a different class of perpetrators from other homicides.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

Nor do most of those shooters have criminal records, though many of them did have histories of behavioral problems.

The shooter was a 64 year-old white man, a retired accountant, a millionaire, and a professional gambler, a long-time customer who had comp privileges at several casinos. He had no criminal record. The day before the shooting he paid off all his debts. His doctor thought he may have suffered from bipolar disorder, but there was no formal diagnosis of that condition.

Yes, behavioral problems do seem to be a red flag, but again, the NRA backed Republicans have repeatedly refused to fund research that might help us identify such links. The other problem is that those who are opposed to gun control measures will reject any attempt to keep guns away from such individuals because to do so would infringe on their rights. As they (you?) see it, it is better to protect the right of one individual to have a gun than to protect the right of others to life.

[jerlands]

GE Morton:

Nor do most of those shooters have criminal records, though many of them did have histories of behavioral problems.

The shooter was a 64 year-old white man, a retired accountant, a millionaire, and a professional gambler, a long-time customer who had comp privileges at several casinos. He had no criminal record. The day before the shooting he paid off all his debts. His doctor thought he may have suffered from bipolar disorder, but there was no formal diagnosis of that condition.

Yes, behavioral problems do seem to be a red flag, but again, the NRA backed Republicans have repeatedly refused to fund research that might help us identify such links. The other problem is that those who are opposed to gun control measures will reject any attempt to keep guns away from such individuals because to do so would infringe on their rights. As they (you?) see it, it is better to protect the right of one individual to have a gun than to protect the right of others to life.

Many behavioral problems are related to the gut-brain axis which is dependant upon health of the gut's microflora. The problem is in statics relating psychiatric disorders to gun violence which is hampered through diagnosis. Statistics depend on diagnosis which requires someone not only be evaluated but the evaluation is competently performed. Currently America is experiencing epidemic rates in chronic degenerative diseases. 50% of the population has one form or another of a chronic condition and all are related to issues stemming from gut imbalances. Essentially that means 50% of our population has some form of psychiatric condition. The reason we don't adopt known resolutions for gut imbalances is due to the way our government is run. Essentially we are poisoning our future by allowing kids to eat foods rich in sugar and starch.

[Fooloso4]

jerlands:

Many behavioral problems are related to the gut-brain axis which is dependant upon health of the gut's microflora.

Outlaw sugar not guns. Force feed probiotics. Mandatory fecal transplants. Problem solved! Thanks!!

[jerlands]

jerlands:

Many behavioral problems are related to the gut-brain axis which is dependant upon health of the gut's microflora.

Outlaw sugar not guns. Force feed probiotics. Mandatory fecal transplants. Problem solved! Thanks!!

That's actually the first step is in recognizing the adverse effects sugar has on the body. Everything else you mentioned is also a good idea except the mandatory fecal transplants but which are thought to greatly improve the health of kids born through cesarean. Spot on!

[GE Morton]

Do you think that the current level of school massacres in the US is acceptable?

You've asked that before, and I answered.

I do think that the divisiveness issue is important, even if you don't see it.

Restrictive gun laws exacerbate divisiveness, not reduce it.

Ah. Sorry, Greta, but there are no nations with gun laws "successful" in that sense. Nations with restrictive gun laws had negligible rates of "mass murders of children" before they adopted their gun laws, and they remained negligible afterward.

No, Australia had increasing numbers of massacres and then in the 90s, the government acted. Since then, zero, touch wood.

Yes, there has been only one mass shooting (Hunt family murders) in Australia since the new firearms law was enacted (1996). But they were rare even before then, averaging about 1 per year. They were not increasing, however; over the 10 years prior to the Port Arthur shooting they were declining:

1987: 4
1988: 1
1989: 0
1990: 1
1991: 1
1992: 1
1993: 1
1994: 0
1995: 0
1996: 1 (plus Port Arthur)

Moreover, most of Oz's mass shootings or spree shootings differed from those getting headlines in the US, in that the victims were not random; most of them (6 of the 10) had specific targets, with bystanders becoming additional victims. As with the Hunt murders, in 3 of them the victims were members of the shooter's own family. There have been no school shootings in Australia, before or after the new law.

While there has been only one mass shooting, there have been 8 addition mass killings in Oz though 2017, including three arson attacks with 15, 10, and 11 victims, a stabbing attack with 8 victims, and a vehicular attack with 6 victims.

(These figures from a Wikipedia list, to which this forum won't allow links. Google for "Australia massacres").

[Sy Borg]

Do you think that the current level of school massacres in the US is acceptable?

You've asked that before, and I answered.

I do think that the divisiveness issue is important, even if you don't see it.

Restrictive gun laws exacerbate divisiveness, not reduce it.

Only in America due to your gun-related cultural sickness. You are touting the societal illness as a reason to avoid acting on the problem.

No, Australia had increasing numbers of massacres and then in the 90s, the government acted. Since then, zero, touch wood.

Yes, there has been only one mass shooting (Hunt family murders) in Australia since the new firearms law was enacted (1996). But they were rare even before then, averaging about 1 per year. They were not increasing, however; over the 10 years prior to the Port Arthur shooting they were declining:

... While there has been only one mass shooting, there have been 8 addition mass killings in Oz though 2017, including three arson attacks with 15, 10, and 11 victims, a stabbing attack with 8 victims, and a vehicular attack with 6 victims.

If we had America's mindlessly short termist gun laws there would be many more deaths since the 90s and almost certainly more massacres. You took your stats from a relatively harmonious period in Australia's history where human rights was a strong focus. It was in the mid 90s that Australia's internal divisions started to show when John Howard explored those divisions for electoral gain and turned political wedging into an art form. If our society had been saturated with guns as in the US there would regular massacres as in the US since the 90s.

[GE Morton]

Here we see the danger of reducing human life to a number. If 250 lives don’t matter then 2 times 250 lives does not matter. When does it matter? How many lives would be lost if such a requirement was imposed?

I ask again: Would you also require training for everyone buying anything with a potential to cause accidental death?

You dismiss the fact that guns are different because they are designed and intended to be used to injure or kill. Other consumer items, thanks to “Nanny-statism”, have become increasingly safer to use.

Yes, of course I dismiss that fact, for the reasons given. For preventing accidental deaths the purpose of the item is irrelevant, because, by definition, accidents are not purposive. What matters is the item's potential for accidents. And many things have more potential for accidents than firearms.

And of course 250 lives lost "matters." All lives matter. But that "mattering" does not not justify banning everything with a potential to cause an accidental death.

An accidental gun death means the person who died was not a target. Otherwise, there is no difference between an accidental and intentional gun death. With any other consumer product safety features reduce death for all involved. A gun that was designed to reduce death or injury would, in your words, be reducing its utility.

That is a non sequitur. Safety features for other items are intended to reduce accidental injuries. Since inflicting injuries upon anyone is not part of their intended purpose, then the features reduce injuries for all involved. The scope of the protections derives from their purposes. It does not follow that a safety feature intended to reduce accidental injuries from firearms must also reduce them for all involved, since inflicting injuries, which is sometimes justifiable, is the purpose of that item.

So why do you advocate a background check system?

Because a denial will cause a delay while the disqualified person seeks a different source, which might prevent a few crimes. And because, if used effectively, it would alert authorities to attempts by disqualified persons to acquire a firearm --- which should be made a felony.

So, you do consider anti-American extremist groups with stockpiles of weapons to be a danger after all.

Yes, since "anti-American extremist group" implies hostile intentions. "Anti-government group" does not.

If the people have a right to arms in order to resist despotism then they have a right to arms that would be effective.

I agree.

The logic of such an argument leads inevitably to an escalating arms race. Fortunately, at least for now, even the Scalia court recognized the wisdom of limiting the arms that would be legally available to individuals.

Whether those limits are wise or not depends upon the degree and probability of despotism.

[jerlands]

So why do you advocate a background check system?

Because a denial will cause a delay while the disqualified person seeks a different source, which might prevent a few crimes. And because, if used effectively, it would alert authorities to attempts by disqualified persons to acquire a firearm --- which should be made a felony.

This idea won't work because people can be denied (disqualified) for any reason deemed by the FBI which may not be known to the applicant.

[GE Morton]

This idea won't work because people can be denied (disqualified) for any reason deemed by the FBI which may not be known to the applicant.

No, they can't. The law specifies the grounds for blocking a sale. Everyone barred by the law will know the reasons for the bar. Mistakes could be made, of course --- someone may turn up on the barred list who should not be on it --- but that would be a defense against any charge, and would usually be easily corrected.

[jerlands]

This idea won't work because people can be denied (disqualified) for any reason deemed by the FBI which may not be known to the applicant.

No, they can't. The law specifies the grounds for blocking a sale. Everyone barred by the law will know the reasons for the bar. Mistakes could be made, of course --- someone may turn up on the barred list who should not be on it --- but that would be a defense against any charge, and would usually be easily corrected.

I know an individual was convicted of embezzlement had that overturned yet the expunction wasn't recorded.

[GE Morton]

Only in America due to your gun-related cultural sickness. You are touting the societal illness as a reason to avoid acting on the problem.

"Cultural sickness"? Societal illness"?

You realize, of course, that meaningless metaphors and ad hominems are not arguments.

If we had America's mindlessly short termist gun laws there would be many more deaths since the 90s and almost certainly more massacres.

The studies disagree with you:

"The 1996‐1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we reanalyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates. (JEL C22, K19)"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 09.00165.x

"The development of legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of firearm-related death is an ongoing interest within the spheres of criminology, public policy, and criminal justice. Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events. The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2122854

You took your stats from a relatively harmonious period in Australia's history where human rights was a strong focus.

That was the period you suggested when you claimed that "Australia had increasing numbers of massacres and then in the 90s, the government acted." Australia did not have increasing numbers of massacres in the decade prior to enactment of the law.