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

[Sy Borg]

300-million Americans own more that 300-million firearms - some even own machine guns, 100% legally. If there was anything to fear about 300-million law abiding citizens owning guns, it would already have happened.

And it has, and the deaths continue to mount: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -shootings

For decades, American school shootings have driven a booming school security industry. Last year’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 people dead, has helped expand the market for products that allow schools to monitor what students are doing on their computers for signs of violence or self-harm. Tech companies are now offering a range of products that help schools track the websites kids are visiting and the searches they are making; that monitor everything students are writing in school emails, chats and shared documents; or that even attempt to track what students are posting on their public social media accounts.

In terms of gun deaths per country, the US is in the company of Mexico, Paraguay, South Africa, the Philippines, Colombia, Guatemala and El Salvador. https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

This has happened due to a rule that made sense at the time, when the nation had just thrown off an oppressor. The amendment should have been adjusted to reflect modern technology. However, thanks to the lobbying and connections of the arms industry, rules are maintained so as to maximise their profits.

Then the media affiliated with the arms industry pushes to little people to fight for their profits by framing the Amendment as protecting democracy. The irony is that gun advocates' preferred candidate recently tried to kill off American democracy, and they continue to support him.

The gun debate is not in any way about defending democracy - that much has been made clear. Yet people persist is spreading this myth, as though 2020 didn't happen.

[-TheLastAmerican]

However, thanks to the lobbying and connections of the arms industry, rules are maintained so as to maximise their profits.

Then the media affiliated with the arms industry pushes to little people to fight for their profits by framing the Amendment as protecting democracy. The irony is that gun advocates' preferred candidate recently tried to kill off American democracy, and they continue to support him.

The gun debate is not in any way about defending democracy - that much has been made clear. Yet people persist is spreading this myth, as though 2020 didn't happen.

So, A., otherwise "intelligent" people have been unable to formulate a winning argument that can overcome a marketing strategy, and

B. "little people" are too stupid to submit your wisdom?

This disgusting arrogance is why 300-million law abiding citizens are not only ignoring you, but do not trust you, in my humble opinion. When you make people that you disagree with, your inferior enemy, you shouldn't be surprised when the see you as their despotic enemy.

[-TheLastAmerican]

If you are unable to convince little people of the virtue of your argument, you are no better than the people that believed it was virtuous to enslave African Humans like they were livestock, or that believe it was virtuous to annihilate Native Americans that wee too stupid to submit to having their land taken and their culture wiped out, in my humble opinion.

[-TheLastAmerican]

When I read Summa Theologica by Aquinas so many years ago, it was what inspired my interest in philosophy.

Not once in the entire read did Aquinas accuse anyone that might disagree with him, of being too stupid to comprehend his infinite superiority...

Get it?

[Pattern-chaser]

Thus insuring that we will never be ruled by anything as antiquated and obscene as a Queen, or King.

No, your votes do that.

P.S. We Brits have not been ruled by our figurehead-Queen (or -King) for many centuries. We have an elected body that governs, as you do. Many other modern monarchies are the same.

So, the Queen, is just make-believe for you subjects, to keep you humble?

Never forget that is was English subjects that brought the ownership of African humans to the Americas - and England colonized and subjugated more more 'uncivilized colored people' than any nation on Earth - to take their natural resources.

Such paragons of humanity!

My country is just as as yours; attacking us has no effect on what I'm saying, and it does not offend or provoke me. Our saving grace, in this topic, is that guns are quite well controlled, and not widely available.

[AverageBozo]

300-million Americans own more that 300-million firearms - some even own machine guns, 100% legally. If there was anything to fear about 300-million law abiding citizens owning guns, it would already have happened.

Hasn’t it?

[-TheLastAmerican]

300-million Americans own more that 300-million firearms - some even own machine guns, 100% legally. If there was anything to fear about 300-million law abiding citizens owning guns, it would already have happened.

Hasn’t it?

By default, not one single Law Abiding Citizen has shot up any schoolyards - those folks were obviously insane mental cases (excuse me - persons that have mental problems), one of whom acquired his firearm from his equally insane mental case mother (excuse me - person that has mental problems), all of whom should have been locked-up long ago, at Taxpayer's expense...

I am getting tired of being accused of being a little person, or a member of a militia, or of watching Red Dawn, or of being too stupid to comprehend absurdly inadequate arguments, in response to valid observations like the one I just made.

[Pattern-chaser]

By default, not one single Law Abiding Citizen has shot up any schoolyards - those folks were obviously persons that have mental problems

Now you seek to differentiate the many people who own guns, but are unlikely to do anything unlawful with them, and those who own guns and are likely to act unlawfully. The trouble with this is that telling the difference is next-to-impossible. So we are left with the inescapable factual statement that forms the title of this topic: more guns = more death by gunshot. Better still: fewer guns = less death by gunshot. And the best of all: no guns = no death by gunshot. You are willing to accept death by gunshot to retain your personal armoury. Many feel this attitude is mistaken, including me.

[-TheLastAmerican]

By default, not one single Law Abiding Citizen has shot up any schoolyards - those folks were obviously persons that have mental problems

Now you seek to differentiate the many people who own guns, but are unlikely to do anything unlawful with them, and those who own guns and are likely to act unlawfully. The trouble with this is that telling the difference is next-to-impossible. So we are left with the inescapable factual statement that forms the title of this topic: more guns = more death by gunshot. Better still: fewer guns = less death by gunshot. And the best of all: no guns = no death by gunshot. You are willing to accept death by gunshot to retain your personal armoury. Many feel this attitude is mistaken, including me.

My personal armory... Ad hominem - Fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the character, motive etc. of the person(s) associated with the argument

[Pattern-chaser]

My personal armory... Ad hominem - Fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the character, motive etc. of the person(s) associated with the argument

Not at all. I simply comment on your stance that unconstrained gun ownership is a Good Thing. I am addressing your message, not you, the messenger. So this is not ad hominem but the opposite, as it should be.

[Pattern-chaser]

Fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic...

OK, the topic is: What don't people get about "More Guns = More Death by Gunshot"?

What don't you get?

[-TheLastAmerican]

Fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic...

OK, the topic is: What don't people get about "More Guns = More Death by Gunshot"?

What don't you get?

LESS/no respect for other people, their opinions, their beliefs, their Rights, especially their Right to life (not referring to the abortion issue), combined with the destruction of the nuclear family, and the pandemic of single-female-parent-households that lack strong moral male figures to train their children what being a moral person actually is, is the root of the increase of violence and homicide in all societies, in my humble opinion.

What is the basis for this opinion? Simple observation of the degradation of communities controlled by progressive liberals, over time.

[AverageBozo]

300-million Americans own more that 300-million firearms - some even own machine guns, 100% legally. If there was anything to fear about 300-million law abiding citizens owning guns, it would already have happened.

Hasn’t it?

By default, not one single Law Abiding Citizen has shot up any schoolyards - those folks were obviously insane mental cases (excuse me - persons that have mental problems), one of whom acquired his firearm from his equally insane mental case mother (excuse me - person that has mental problems), all of whom should have been locked-up long ago, at Taxpayer's expense...

Weren’t those shooters law-abiding citizens prior to the moment they committed mass murder?

Or is (mental) illness a crime?

I am getting tired of being accused of being a little person, or a member of a militia, or of watching Red Dawn, or of being too stupid to comprehend absurdly inadequate arguments, in response to valid observations like the one I just made.

I am accusing you of nothing. Perhaps you are too sensitive for dispassionate argument.

Your opinion that not one single law-abiding citizen has been a shooter at a schoolyard is not a valid observation. As I have indicated, prior to committing murder any of these shooters could have been obeying the law.

[-TheLastAmerican]

Weren’t those shooters law-abiding citizens prior to the moment they committed mass murder?

Absolutely not. The Sandy Hook shooter had a clear history of mental illness - I am not going to waste time or space citing the batman killer in Aurora Colorado etc., etc., etc., all of whom were clearly mentally ill before committing their atrocities.

Or is (mental) illness a crime?

Not according to liberal progressive policies wherein it is illegal to even question the stability of a mentally ill person, much less void their right(s) temporarily or permanently, thus leaving communities at the mercy of the mentally ill and thereafter arguing to revoke the Rights of law abiding Citizens in retaliation for the failed philosophy.

[AverageBozo]

I meant to ask, “Weren’t any of those shooters…?”