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

[Pattern-chaser]

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

Simple observation might indicate that anyone in possession of a gun is potentially a risk. Someone without a gun is not. I know it gets more complicated from that point on, but the basic fact is (possession of a) gun = risk.

[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

Simple observation might indicate that anyone in possession of a gun is potentially a risk. Someone without a gun is not. I know it gets more complicated from that point on, but the basic fact is (possession of a) gun = risk.

It is true a gun equals a risk. It is untrue that a criminal without a gun is not a risk. Maybe you mean a lesser risk.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is untrue that a criminal without a gun is not a risk. Maybe you mean a lesser risk.

Sorry, yes. A lesser risk. The thoughts in my head were zero risk (of gunshot injury).

[Robert66]

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.

Bingo!

[Robert66]

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

Accept my apology or not - either way, I don't care. As for self-righteous arrogance, and parroting, and people making up information to suit themselves, from what you write you are yet another law-abiding gun owner unwilling to confront the truth, so you spray pseudo arguments all over these pages.

'People associate guns with death -- this is not necessarily true.' It is necessarily true. Death by gunshot is very common, and much more common in places where more guns are owned.

'People associate guns with criminals -- this is nonsense. A lot of people own guns, but do not use them in criminal activity.' And a lot of criminals do use guns. To kill people. Which is one reason why I started this thread. Also when there are more guns around, it is not just criminals but the mentally ill especially suicidal people who use guns to kill. Of course most gun owners are decent and responsible like you (I wish I had a dollar for every time I have been reminded of this fact) but it is beside the point, and those who like me want to have better gun control enforced are not calling for a total ban.

'As long as people keep the focus on guns, then they can avoid the real problems.' If the huge number of people shot to death is not a real problem I don't know what is.

'They are a tool like a hammer' - and one of their jobs is to kill. OMFG and FFFS!!! What don't people get about More Guns = More Death by Gunshot?

[AverageBozo]

Accept my apology or not - either way, I don't care. As for self-righteous arrogance, and parroting, and people making up information to suit themselves, from what you write you are yet another law-abiding gun owner unwilling to confront the truth, so you spray pseudo arguments all over these pages.

'People associate guns with death -- this is not necessarily true.' It is necessarily true. Death by gunshot is very common, and much more common in places where more guns are owned.

'People associate guns with criminals -- this is nonsense. A lot of people own guns, but do not use them in criminal activity.' And a lot of criminals do use guns. To kill people. Which is one reason why I started this thread. Also when there are more guns around, it is not just criminals but the mentally ill especially suicidal people who use guns to kill. Of course most gun owners are decent and responsible like you (I wish I had a dollar for every time I have been reminded of this fact) but it is beside the point, and those who like me want to have better gun control enforced are not calling for a total ban.

'As long as people keep the focus on guns, then they can avoid the real problems.' If the huge number of people shot to death is not a real problem I don't know what is.

'They are a tool like a hammer' - and one of their jobs is to kill. OMFG and FFFS!!! What don't people get about More Guns = More Death by Gunshot?

Robert, this is probably your best post on this thread.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't think something like more guns = more gun deaths trumps the idea of limiting a person's freedom.

Wow! So you will accept the deaths of your fellow citizens just to preserve an unnecessary 'freedom'?

[LuckyR]

I don't think something like more guns = more gun deaths trumps the idea of limiting a person's freedom.

Wow! So you will accept the deaths of your fellow citizens just to preserve an unnecessary 'freedom'?

Side question, if I snapped my fingers and made all mass shootings of the past, present and future have never happened, would your attitude about guns change as an important priority?

[Steve3007]

A really minor point: Aren't there too many F's in the second initialism in the topic's title?

[Sy Borg]

A really minor point: Aren't there too many F's in the second initialism in the topic's title?

Not for Frank Booth!

[Steve3007]

Fair point.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't think something like more guns = more gun deaths trumps the idea of limiting a person's freedom.

Wow! So you will accept the deaths of your fellow citizens just to preserve an unnecessary 'freedom'?

Side question, if I snapped my fingers and made all mass shootings of the past, present and future have never happened, would your attitude about guns change as an important priority?

If guns did not lead to violence and death in RL, I would not be so opposed to them. My opposition is a simple pragmatic response to the misery and devastation caused by guns.

[Sy Borg]

Ideally, the gunshot suicides of the elderly and the seriously ill should not be included as gun-related deaths. They would not happen if societies dealt more maturely with end-of-life options.

[LuckyR]

I don't think something like more guns = more gun deaths trumps the idea of limiting a person's freedom.

Wow! So you will accept the deaths of your fellow citizens just to preserve an unnecessary 'freedom'?

Side question, if I snapped my fingers and made all mass shootings of the past, present and future have never happened, would your attitude about guns change as an important priority?

If guns did not lead to violence and death in RL, I would not be so opposed to them. My opposition is a simple pragmatic response to the misery and devastation caused by guns.

The reason I ask is that gun related accidents happen almost exclusively to gun owners. Bad for them, but they presumably weighed the risks and benefits of gun ownership and made their choice. Very few non gun owners suffer from gun accidents.

Similarly, gun related suicides are exclusively among gun owners. Again, bad for them but minimal impact on the nongun owner society.

Homicides, of course is where guns become dangerous to non gun owners. However among homicides, most are restricted to certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods where legislators don't tend to live. The exception to this trend is mass shootings. Mass shootings, while miniscule in overall gun death numbers garner out of proportion media attention mainly because they commonly involve middle and upper class victims who 1) run the media and 2) don't live in areas that they would otherwise likely be a homicide victim. Thus why these incidents commonly bring calls for gun reform, while crazy high homicide numbers on the South side of Chicago (and similar neighborhoods) don't.

Bottom line, money talks, on both sides of this issue.

[Robert66]

Similarly, gun related suicides are exclusively among gun owners.

Not so. Many have shot themselves with another's gun, usually Dad's.