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

[JustLogic]

Your perspective of more guns=more gun related deaths is valid but the counter point is that people should have the right to buy a gun. See it's about freedom and I dont think something like more guns= more gun deaths trumps the idea of limiting a person's freedom.

[Sculptor1]

Go ahead, make my day.

I just can't get enough of people explaining why they must have guns, why more people should have guns (eg teachers, even school kids), how a well-armed society is a polite society, how people are all equally violent in potential, how there is nothing you can do about guns and gun death because freedom so why bother trying?, how the government is coming for you so be ready, why the second Amendment is sacred and why you can't argue with that (ie you can't make any further amendments!)

So please do enlighten me, because I don't see why the US wants to persist with what seems to be a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare.

There are more guns in the USA than people. Surely more are needed?
The US military has double to carbon footprint of domestic cars.
Americans are 25% of the world's prisoners.
The US is imploding

[Sculptor1]

So please do enlighten me, because I don't see why the US wants to persist with what seems to be a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare.

It's simple and obvious. American people perceive reality as "a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare", and act accordingly. Empirical observation of their doings confirms this. QED.

If I were a rugged individualist, like the pioneers of the American frontier, I would be completely self-reliant.

I wouldn’t depend on the police to protect my life, my liberty or my property when I can provide all the protection I need myself.

It’s a self-reliance thing. I’m an adult—I can take care of myself.

If you were a mythical being, from a past that never really existed you'd have lots of characteristics that the mythical being had.

[Sculptor1]

Go ahead, make my day.

I just can't get enough of people explaining why they must have guns, why more people should have guns (eg teachers, even school kids), how a well-armed society is a polite society, how people are all equally violent in potential, how there is nothing you can do about guns and gun death because freedom so why bother trying?, how the government is coming for you so be ready, why the second Amendment is sacred and why you can't argue with that (ie you can't make any further amendments!)

So please do enlighten me, because I don't see why the US wants to persist with what seems to be a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare.

I believe the thinking is that if George Floyd had had a gun, then his murderers would have at least paused before murdering him.

Gee

If he'd had a gun, he'd have died in 9 seconds rather than 9 minutes.

[Gee]

I believe the thinking is that if George Floyd had had a gun, then his murderers would have at least paused before murdering him.

OK, well, now it all makes sense. Floyd should have gotten with the program and armed himself. Logically then he was partly to blame for his own death. How soon after birth should US citizens do the logical thing and arm themselves? And what advice should worried parents give their little ones as they strap on their holster ready for school?

"Remember, Junior, you just can't be sure if a cop won't kneel on your neck for nine minutes, so shoot first and don't worry everything will be fine. Have you brushed your teeth?"

I apologize. When you stated that you wished to be "enlightened", I took it to mean that you wanted to understand the problem. I was wrong. Apparently you just wanted to share your ignorance, to insult the US, and complain about the people.

Gee

I am the one who should apologise. I am sorry. From outside it does seem insane, but of course the vast majority of US citizens are normal, decent, peace lovers. But it seems to me you don't agree with "the thinking" you describe - thinking which would appear to be part of the US problem. And if people think having a gun isnecessary, even if it merely delays being murdered, it does seem like futile thinking. Is there more to it?

If you are willing to talk about this rationally, then I am willing to accept your apology. Of course it is insane to kill people for no good reason, but as the George Floyd case made clear -- a gun is not necessary for that to happen. So what killed George Floyd? Ignorance, self-righteous arrogance, bias, and a system that divides people into the "good guys" and the "bad guys". It is even apparent in this thread; if you read the posts, you will find that the criminals are the "they", whereas the good guys are us. Anyone, who has killed with a gun is assumed to be a criminal, but is this true? What about self-defense, is that criminal also?

I suspect that no one in this thread has owned a gun, been threatened by a gun, and had to point a gun at another person (outside of military experience) -- because no one is speaking from personal experience. They are quoting statistics, parroting news articles, and generally making up their information to suit themselves. Am I right? Of course admitting that one has had this experience is somewhat detrimental to their credibility because the other posters will see this person as a quasi-criminal and will attack the person's points, or just go on an emotional rampage.

I have owned guns, had them in my house for most of my adulthood, been threatened with a gun, pointed a gun at another person, but personally know of no one who has been killed by a gun. I know of one person who was killed in a car accident, and others who were hurt badly. I know of three different people who died because of a mistake made by a surgeon. My experience seems to agree with the statistics that I found in Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventab ... s_of_death

Death caused by medical malpractice is above 20%, from auto accidents is below 2%, and from guns is even lower. So I don't see the reason for all this drama.

People associate guns with death -- this is not necessarily true. One does not need to kill a person in order to stop him/her; a shot in the leg will stop a person without killing, but only experienced people seem to know this.

People associate guns with criminals -- this is nonsense. A lot of people own guns, but do not use them in criminal activity. There are a lot of crimes committed that have no guns involved, and often the police will raid a house for a suspected crime, but find no evidence of that crime -- the news will then state that guns were found in the house like that has some relevance. It has none. This is just the police trying to justify the fact that they scared the hell out of someone and tore up their house.

I have notice something about guns -- they are very obedient. They tend to stay where you put them and do what you want them to. They are a tool like a hammer, but they are represented as an object of fear or power depending on which end is pointed at you. The real problem seems to be centered around fear and or power, because it is not guns. According to the statistics, we would be wiser to be afraid of a doctor, who thinks that we need surgery.

As long as people keep the focus on guns, then they can avoid the real problems. Why would they do that?

Gee

[Gee]

Go ahead, make my day.

I just can't get enough of people explaining why they must have guns, why more people should have guns (eg teachers, even school kids), how a well-armed society is a polite society, how people are all equally violent in potential, how there is nothing you can do about guns and gun death because freedom so why bother trying?, how the government is coming for you so be ready, why the second Amendment is sacred and why you can't argue with that (ie you can't make any further amendments!)

So please do enlighten me, because I don't see why the US wants to persist with what seems to be a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare.

I believe the thinking is that if George Floyd had had a gun, then his murderers would have at least paused before murdering him.

Gee

If he'd had a gun, he'd have died in 9 seconds rather than 9 minutes.

You have a valid point. It is debatable as to which scenario would have been better for him, 9 seconds or 9 minutes, but if he had had a gun, the police would have gotten away with his murder.

Would that be because Floyd was more or less guilty???

Gee

[LuckyR]

OK, well, now it all makes sense. Floyd should have gotten with the program and armed himself. Logically then he was partly to blame for his own death. How soon after birth should US citizens do the logical thing and arm themselves? And what advice should worried parents give their little ones as they strap on their holster ready for school?

"Remember, Junior, you just can't be sure if a cop won't kneel on your neck for nine minutes, so shoot first and don't worry everything will be fine. Have you brushed your teeth?"

I apologize. When you stated that you wished to be "enlightened", I took it to mean that you wanted to understand the problem. I was wrong. Apparently you just wanted to share your ignorance, to insult the US, and complain about the people.

Gee

I am the one who should apologise. I am sorry. From outside it does seem insane, but of course the vast majority of US citizens are normal, decent, peace lovers. But it seems to me you don't agree with "the thinking" you describe - thinking which would appear to be part of the US problem. And if people think having a gun isnecessary, even if it merely delays being murdered, it does seem like futile thinking. Is there more to it?

If you are willing to talk about this rationally, then I am willing to accept your apology. Of course it is insane to kill people for no good reason, but as the George Floyd case made clear -- a gun is not necessary for that to happen. So what killed George Floyd? Ignorance, self-righteous arrogance, bias, and a system that divides people into the "good guys" and the "bad guys". It is even apparent in this thread; if you read the posts, you will find that the criminals are the "they", whereas the good guys are us. Anyone, who has killed with a gun is assumed to be a criminal, but is this true? What about self-defense, is that criminal also?

I suspect that no one in this thread has owned a gun, been threatened by a gun, and had to point a gun at another person (outside of military experience) -- because no one is speaking from personal experience. They are quoting statistics, parroting news articles, and generally making up their information to suit themselves. Am I right? Of course admitting that one has had this experience is somewhat detrimental to their credibility because the other posters will see this person as a quasi-criminal and will attack the person's points, or just go on an emotional rampage.

I have owned guns, had them in my house for most of my adulthood, been threatened with a gun, pointed a gun at another person, but personally know of no one who has been killed by a gun. I know of one person who was killed in a car accident, and others who were hurt badly. I know of three different people who died because of a mistake made by a surgeon. My experience seems to agree with the statistics that I found in Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventab ... s_of_death

Death caused by medical malpractice is above 20%, from auto accidents is below 2%, and from guns is even lower. So I don't see the reason for all this drama.

People associate guns with death -- this is not necessarily true. One does not need to kill a person in order to stop him/her; a shot in the leg will stop a person without killing, but only experienced people seem to know this.

People associate guns with criminals -- this is nonsense. A lot of people own guns, but do not use them in criminal activity. There are a lot of crimes committed that have no guns involved, and often the police will raid a house for a suspected crime, but find no evidence of that crime -- the news will then state that guns were found in the house like that has some relevance. It has none. This is just the police trying to justify the fact that they scared the hell out of someone and tore up their house.

I have notice something about guns -- they are very obedient. They tend to stay where you put them and do what you want them to. They are a tool like a hammer, but they are represented as an object of fear or power depending on which end is pointed at you. The real problem seems to be centered around fear and or power, because it is not guns. According to the statistics, we would be wiser to be afraid of a doctor, who thinks that we need surgery.

As long as people keep the focus on guns, then they can avoid the real problems. Why would they do that?

Gee

Well experience with guns vary dramatically community by community. I too don't personally know someone injured or killed by a gun. So what? In many communities everyone knows someone who has been shot by a gun. There is more than one's personal experience.

Your comparison of gun deaths to other causes, confuses me. The comparison isn't between guns, medicine and cars, it's between the US, Switzerland and Australia (in guns).

As to the admittedly small statistical risk of death by gun when compared to other causes, you're right it is small. But among theoretically improvable stats in the US compared to other nations, it is an outlier.

[Gee]

Lucky;

I deleted the rest of that post because it was getting too long.

Well experience with guns vary dramatically community by community. I too don't personally know someone injured or killed by a gun. So what? In many communities everyone knows someone who has been shot by a gun. There is more than one's personal experience.

I don't believe you here and would like to know how you intend to support the statement that "everyone knows someone who has been shot". The statistics simply do not support that statement, unless you are saying that everyone knows about George Floyd, but that is not the same thing -- is it?

If you are thinking that I live in some protected community, please consider that I live in the suburbs outside of Detroit.

Your comparison of gun deaths to other causes, confuses me. The comparison isn't between guns, medicine and cars, it's between the US, Switzerland and Australia (in guns).

I doubt that you are confused and suggest that you do not want to understand the problem. Do you honestly expect me to believe that US citizens are lobbying Congress and marching in the streets so that we can compare well with Switzerland and Australia? Don't try so hard to be funny.

As to the admittedly small statistical risk of death by gun when compared to other causes, you're right it is small. But among theoretically improvable stats in the US compared to other nations, it is an outlier.

The first rule in problem solving is to identify the problem. If you skip this first step, you will spend a fortune in money and time accomplishing nothing. So what causes the higher death rate by guns in the US?

When I was looking up statistics, I noted that Wiki broke down the deaths as follows: Suicide: 19,766; homicide: 11,101; accidents: 852; unknown: 822. So suicide is about 2/3 of the rather small death statistic.

I have a lot of schizophrenia in my family, so I have also studied statistics on mental health issues. Do you know that most male schizophrenics die of alcoholism in the streets, of suicide, or in prison? The females do a little better as the medication seems to work for more of them. I know that Michigan is horrible in dealing with its mentally handicapped (a former Governor described our care of the mentally handicapped criminal) and wonder how many other states leave the handicapped to the streets and suicide.

How successful are Switzerland and Australia at dealing with the mentally handicapped? What are their suicide rates?

Gee

[LuckyR]

Lucky;

I deleted the rest of that post because it was getting too long.

Well experience with guns vary dramatically community by community. I too don't personally know someone injured or killed by a gun. So what? In many communities everyone knows someone who has been shot by a gun. There is more than one's personal experience.

I don't believe you here and would like to know how you intend to support the statement that "everyone knows someone who has been shot". The statistics simply do not support that statement, unless you are saying that everyone knows about George Floyd, but that is not the same thing -- is it?

If you are thinking that I live in some protected community, please consider that I live in the suburbs outside of Detroit.

Your comparison of gun deaths to other causes, confuses me. The comparison isn't between guns, medicine and cars, it's between the US, Switzerland and Australia (in guns).

I doubt that you are confused and suggest that you do not want to understand the problem. Do you honestly expect me to believe that US citizens are lobbying Congress and marching in the streets so that we can compare well with Switzerland and Australia? Don't try so hard to be funny.

As to the admittedly small statistical risk of death by gun when compared to other causes, you're right it is small. But among theoretically improvable stats in the US compared to other nations, it is an outlier.

The first rule in problem solving is to identify the problem. If you skip this first step, you will spend a fortune in money and time accomplishing nothing. So what causes the higher death rate by guns in the US?

When I was looking up statistics, I noted that Wiki broke down the deaths as follows: Suicide: 19,766; homicide: 11,101; accidents: 852; unknown: 822. So suicide is about 2/3 of the rather small death statistic.

I have a lot of schizophrenia in my family, so I have also studied statistics on mental health issues. Do you know that most male schizophrenics die of alcoholism in the streets, of suicide, or in prison? The females do a little better as the medication seems to work for more of them. I know that Michigan is horrible in dealing with its mentally handicapped (a former Governor described our care of the mentally handicapped criminal) and wonder how many other states leave the handicapped to the streets and suicide.

How successful are Switzerland and Australia at dealing with the mentally handicapped? Sshat are their suicide rates?

Gee

Well do the math. Chicago has about 3500 shooting victims a year (on track for 4500 this year). The median age in the US is 38, so the average person in Chicago has had 133,000 shooting victims in their city, in their life. Since Chicago has a population of 2.7 million, 133,000 victims is 5% of the population, or 1 in 20. Most folks easily know (through family, friends, work, church, and neighborhood) 300 people. Of course these victims are not evenly distributed within the city limits so there are going to be huge swings above and below this 5% number. You and I are obviously below. Good for us.

I brought up Switzerland on purpose. Why? Because of the assault weapons that the government distributes to the population, yet their low shooting rate. Thus I am very aware that it isn't about guns, per se. Switzerland isn't in the thrall of the gun manufacturers with their fear mongering. The Swiss aren't in fear of illegal aliens (bad hombres) coming across the border to rape and pillage. They aren't in fear of Blacks in the inner city, home invasions, drive bys etc.

I brought up the suicide, accident and homicide triad myself thus I am not overly focused on homicides. I am troubled by the suicide stat you cite. Aren't you?

[Steve3007]

On this particular point, I've never bought the "if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns" argument. I think criminals, like everyone else, tend to do what they perceive to be in their own best interests, given the environment in which they live. i.e. they are rational actors to roughly the same extent that others are. So they tend to arm themselves to the extent that they think they need to be armed. In a society where general gun ownership, and gun use by the police, is rarer, gun ownership and use by criminals will naturally also tend to be rarer. The same principle applies to any type of weapon. If I lived in an environment in which I thought most people around me carried a knife I'd probably be more inclined to consider carrying a knife myself. This would be true regardless of whether or not I was a criminal.

I agree with you in the scenario where noone (or very few) have guns and the criminal is deciding whether or not to acquire one. Other nation's experience bears this out. However we are discussing a completely different psychology, namely giving up something that you already have.

Yes, you were talking about giving up something that people already have. In my reply I wasn't really talking about that. I was talking more generally about different cultures. I was just making the point that in arms races the driving force is towards approximate equality of arms. So a society with more weapons in general will naturally tend to have more criminals with weapons. And vice versa.

Obviously, as has been noted before, the US has a lot of guns, a lot of gun crime and a lot of armed criminals. It seems happy enough with that, and sees it as a price worth paying for (a particular conception of) freedom, which is fair enough. But if for some reason it wanted to change it, then I think a slow, incremental change in culture would be required, in which both sides gradually have less and less reason to carry guns (as is generally required in de-escalating arms races), not a sudden, discontinuous move to make most of those guns illegal. Obviously that really would, by definition, leave the guns in the hands of the criminals. It would be the equivalent of one side in arms reduction talks unilaterally giving up its arms and upsetting the balance.

That is the sense in which I don't buy the "if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns" argument. If the argument concludes that it's not possible to de-escalate the arms race simply because unilateral disarmament is not advisable, I disagree with it. Clearly it is possible for a society to exist in which the guns are generally outlawed and the outlaws generally don't have guns. But there's no quick fix. And not all societies want to be like that. As I said, fair enough. It takes all sorts to make a world.

To a criminal, a gun is not superfluous, it is an essential workplace tool.

Not essential to all criminals. Mostly essential to criminals who are likely to face the guns of others when they (so to speak) ply their trade. If I were a criminal in a society where I'm very unlikely to face a victim pointing a gun at me and if acquiring a gun myself was very difficult, dangerous and expensive, I'd probably be more inclined to make do without one. Perhaps stick to my trusty crowbar.

[Steve3007]

If I lived in an environment in which I thought most people around me carried a knife I'd probably be more inclined to consider carrying a knife myself. This would be true regardless of whether or not I was a criminal.

Yes, so by extension, would it not be the case that a law forbidding the possession of any kind of firearm, with significant (i.e. deterrent) penalties attached, that was universally enforced, would improve matters?

Not necessarily. It would depend on the conditions that existed in the society in which that law was imposed prior to the imposition of the law. Although it would depend what you meant by "universally enforced".

As I was discussing with LuckyR above, arms races are primarily about balance. If we're not into gun and knife violence and would prefer there to be less of it, then we'd probably want the balance to be achieved at a lower level of gun/knife ownership.

[Sculptor1]

Go ahead, make my day.

I just can't get enough of people explaining why they must have guns, why more people should have guns (eg teachers, even school kids), how a well-armed society is a polite society, how people are all equally violent in potential, how there is nothing you can do about guns and gun death because freedom so why bother trying?, how the government is coming for you so be ready, why the second Amendment is sacred and why you can't argue with that (ie you can't make any further amendments!)

So please do enlighten me, because I don't see why the US wants to persist with what seems to be a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare.

I believe the thinking is that if George Floyd had had a gun, then his murderers would have at least paused before murdering him.

Gee

If he'd had a gun, he'd have died in 9 seconds rather than 9 minutes.

You have a valid point. It is debatable as to which scenario would have been better for him, 9 seconds or 9 minutes, but if he had had a gun, the police would have gotten away with his murder.

Would that be because Floyd was more or less guilty???

Gee

Floyd is still innocent. Because it is a principle of law that a person is innocent until proven otherwise.
If he was "guilty" of passing a dodgy fiver, then the last time I looked handing a bad $5 to a shop keeper is not a captical offence.

Floyd was only found guilty of being Black. His sentence was to be kneeled on by the neck until dead.

In the end it was better that he did not have a gun, since his death now means something.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I lived in an environment in which I thought most people around me carried a knife I'd probably be more inclined to consider carrying a knife myself. This would be true regardless of whether or not I was a criminal.

Yes, so by extension, would it not be the case that a law forbidding the possession of any kind of firearm, with significant (i.e. deterrent) penalties attached, that was universally enforced, would improve matters?

Not necessarily. It would depend on the conditions that existed in the society in which that law was imposed prior to the imposition of the law. Although it would depend what you meant by "universally enforced".

By "universally enforced" I mean that it would be enforced evenly across society, across men and women, all races, creeds, etc. And, most of all, across the rich and the poor, evenly. And the level of enforcement would need to be sufficient to achieve the desired purpose.

[Sculptor1]

So please do enlighten me, because I don't see why the US wants to persist with what seems to be a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare.

It's simple and obvious. American people perceive reality as "a batshit-crazy ballistic Hollywood Armageddon nightmare", and act accordingly. Empirical observation of their doings confirms this. QED.

If I were a rugged individualist, like the pioneers of the American frontier, I would be completely self-reliant.

I wouldn’t depend on the police to protect my life, my liberty or my property when I can provide all the protection I need myself.

It’s a self-reliance thing. I’m an adult—I can take care of myself.

If I were a mythical being, I would have all the characteristics of that being.
If I were an imaginary stereotype, I'd get along fine.
If I were utterly self reliant, I'd either be superhuman or dead.
But the great thing about being a figment of the imagination I can be anything I want to be.

You've all seen the self reliant pioneer. He's a hermit living in a log cabin. His hair is long because he cannot rely on a barber. His beard is unshaved and long because he cannot depend on buying razors. He eats what he can kill. But he pretends he does not rely on the manufacture of guns and bullets - but everyone gets an exception.
His clothes wore out so he wears skins from his kills. His hat has holes because although he can look after himself he cannot rely on a millner.
He's going a bit crazy because he rarely speaks to those people because that would be dependancy.
He lives alone because he can "look after himself". He has a few odd habits
He's lost some teeth because he does not want to rely on dentists.

Eveyone thinks this is a good idea until a bunch of men decide to co-operate and not relying on police decide to pay Mr Self Reliant a little visit. They kill him and take over his log cabin.

image_2021-07-30_123611.png (121.35 KiB) Viewed 1042 times

[LuckyR]

To a criminal, a gun is not superfluous, it is an essential workplace tool.

Not essential to all criminals. Mostly essential to criminals who are likely to face the guns of others when they (so to speak) ply their trade. If I were a criminal in a society where I'm very unlikely to face a victim pointing a gun at me and if acquiring a gun myself was very difficult, dangerous and expensive, I'd probably be more inclined to make do without one. Perhaps stick to my trusty crowbar.

I agree, guns are not essential to all or even most criminals, but it is to murderers, who are the folks who hurt people with guns. I am less concerned with criminals who carry guns but don't fire them