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

[LuckyR]

There are always unjust people,everywhere. Gun crime would be much reduced if private gun ownership were not a legal right.

That is a tautology. Auto fatalities would also be much reduced if owning an automobile were not a legal right. The relevant question is whether any legal right should be revoked for everyone because 2-3% of people will abuse it. (Only about 1% of firearms owned by Americans are ever used in crimes).

Arguing about gun ownership in the US is akin to arguing about whether Covid could be isolated to China. It's way too late. Regardless of the potential law changes in the US in the future, there are so many guns in the country that evil doers will be able to acquire one to do evil for hundreds of years (the functional lifetime of a gun).

BUt you could make unlicensed possession of a firearm a capital offence. Or give the right to police to seize all firearms not properly registered with a competent owner.
If they can crush untended cars, and ban people from driving then it does not take any imagination to make it illegal for criminals to not be allowed guns, and to melt down unregistered weapons.

I said "potential law changes", if you think anything you wrote qualifies as such in a country that can't pass legislation on registration data bases, then all I can say is we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Belindi]

There are always unjust people,everywhere. Gun crime would be much reduced if private gun ownership were not a legal right.

That is a tautology. Auto fatalities would also be much reduced if owning an automobile were not a legal right. The relevant question is whether any legal right should be revoked for everyone because 2-3% of people will abuse it. (Only about 1% of firearms owned by Americans are ever used in crimes).

That's not the relevant question for practical purposes. For practical purpose of saving lives you need to study which people need cars, or guns.

[Sculptor1]

Cars and drivers are licenced and attract penalties such as banning for abuse of the rules. Let's call it "Car Control".
It seems obvious that were we to allow any moron the right to drive a car without registration, number plates, insurance and a test of competency then there would probably be a lot more fatalities.

The argument is about why would you not want to introduce "Gun Control" similar to car control.

Because guns are not relevantly similar to cars.

NO.
Both are dangerous.
Both are more dangerous in the hands of the untrained.
Both require a degree of competence.
Issues of mental competence are important in both cases.

The latter require training and experience to operate safely. Guns don't (there were 549 accidental deaths from guns in 2021, compared to 42,000 from traffic accidents). The purpose of auto licensing is to assure that competence. Incompetence is not the issue with gun homicides. No amount of training & experience will reduce intentional homicides. Licensing would serve no useful purpose; it only creates costs and inconvenience for the 99% of gun owners who do not commit gun crimes.

I agree, however, that persons with histories of violent crime should not be allowed to possess firearms. That is the current law. Unfortunately, as with most other crimes these days, violators receive only a slap on the wrist.

Children are also dying, and killing their parents from "accidents" because people are not required to receive basic training or required to keep gun cabinets.

[Sculptor1]

That is a tautology. Auto fatalities would also be much reduced if owning an automobile were not a legal right. The relevant question is whether any legal right should be revoked for everyone because 2-3% of people will abuse it. (Only about 1% of firearms owned by Americans are ever used in crimes).

Arguing about gun ownership in the US is akin to arguing about whether Covid could be isolated to China. It's way too late. Regardless of the potential law changes in the US in the future, there are so many guns in the country that evil doers will be able to acquire one to do evil for hundreds of years (the functional lifetime of a gun).

BUt you could make unlicensed possession of a firearm a capital offence. Or give the right to police to seize all firearms not properly registered with a competent owner.
If they can crush untended cars, and ban people from driving then it does not take any imagination to make it illegal for criminals to not be allowed guns, and to melt down unregistered weapons.

I said "potential law changes", if you think anything you wrote qualifies as such in a country that can't pass legislation on registration data bases, then all I can say is we'll have to agree to disagree.

Is there a database of cars?
Is there a income tax database?
Is there one for the collection of property tax?
Are there any others you can think of?
Do you live on another planet or something?

[GE Morton]

That is a tautology. Auto fatalities would also be much reduced if owning an automobile were not a legal right. The relevant question is whether any legal right should be revoked for everyone because 2-3% of people will abuse it. (Only about 1% of firearms owned by Americans are ever used in crimes).

That's not the relevant question for practical purposes. For practical purpose of saving lives you need to study which people need cars, or guns.

Moral considerations always trump "practical" ones. And no one is qualified to decide whether someone else "needs" a gun, any more than whether they "need" a car, or a lawnmower, or a Playstation, or Coca-Cola. You're advocating authoritarianism.

About half of the 42,000 annual traffic fatalities in the US are caused by drunk drivers. If you want to save lives you need to focus on the people who are misusing a tool, not on the tool, whether a gun, a car, or matches and petrol. --- and not punish people who use them properly.

[Sculptor1]

That is a tautology. Auto fatalities would also be much reduced if owning an automobile were not a legal right. The relevant question is whether any legal right should be revoked for everyone because 2-3% of people will abuse it. (Only about 1% of firearms owned by Americans are ever used in crimes).

That's not the relevant question for practical purposes. For practical purpose of saving lives you need to study which people need cars, or guns.

Moral considerations always trump "practical" ones. And no one is qualified to decide whether someone else "needs" a gun, any more than whether they "need" a car, or a lawnmower, or a Playstation, or Coca-Cola. You're advocating authoritarianism.

Garbage.
I suppose its because of all those mass mowings causing the death of so much innocent grass that you equates guns with mowers.

About half of the 42,000 annual traffic fatalities in the US are caused by drunk drivers. If you want to save lives you need to focus on the people who are misusing a tool, not on the tool, whether a gun, a car, or matches and petrol. --- and not punish people who use them properly.

Duh. The police are equipped with the means of stopping, arresting and preventing a drun kfrom driving a car. Yet you still think that gun ownership is sacred.

[GE Morton]

Because guns are not relevantly similar to cars.

NO.
Both are dangerous.
Both are more dangerous in the hands of the untrained.
Both require a degree of competence.
Issues of mental competence are important in both cases.

Those are all true. But, except for "mental competence," they are only relevant to the rate of accidental deaths. Not to deliberate homicides.

Laws already prohibit firearm possession by persons "adjudicated as a mental defective" or who has been "committed to a mental institution." Few homicides are actually committed by such persons, and such persons are no more likely to commit crimes with guns than persons without that history:

"Data from 838 violent gun offenders from a nationally representative sample of state prison inmates were analyzed. Those with and without a history of psychiatric hospitalization were compared on a range of offense characteristics, including relationship to the victim, number of victims, location of the offense, and source of firearms.

"Results:
"Inmates with a history of hospitalization constituted 12% of all violent gun offenders and accounted for 13% of the sample’s victims. They were less likely than those without a previous hospitalization to victimize strangers (odds ratio=.52) and were no more likely to commit gun violence in public or to have multiple victims.

"Prohibiting all individuals with a history of psychiatric hospitalization from purchasing firearms, absent expanded background checks, was estimated to reduce the number of gun violence victims by only 3%."

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10. ... .201600385

No amount of training or operational competence will reduce intentional homicides. Indeed, training and competence will guarantee more accurate, deadlier shooters.

[GE Morton]

Duh. The police are equipped with the means of stopping, arresting and preventing a drun kfrom driving a car. Yet you still think that gun ownership is sacred.

They are also empowered to stop and arrest persons with criminal histories in possession of firearms, and also persons who threaten others with them. I.e., as with drivers, they're empowered to arrest persons who are using guns (or cars) unlawfully.

[Belindi]

That is a tautology. Auto fatalities would also be much reduced if owning an automobile were not a legal right. The relevant question is whether any legal right should be revoked for everyone because 2-3% of people will abuse it. (Only about 1% of firearms owned by Americans are ever used in crimes).

That's not the relevant question for practical purposes. For practical purpose of saving lives you need to study which people need cars, or guns.

Moral considerations always trump "practical" ones. And no one is qualified to decide whether someone else "needs" a gun, any more than whether they "need" a car, or a lawnmower, or a Playstation, or Coca-Cola. You're advocating authoritarianism.

About half of the 42,000 annual traffic fatalities in the US are caused by drunk drivers. If you want to save lives you need to focus on the people who are misusing a tool, not on the tool, whether a gun, a car, or matches and petrol. --- and not punish people who use them properly.

Responsible adults are qualified to help make moral and civil laws by electing their representatives. If you don't exert yourself to help to make just laws, who else will do it?

[GE Morton]

Responsible adults are qualified to help make moral and civil laws by electing their representatives.

The only "moral laws" are those consistent with sound moral principles. And the latter are not determined by majority rule. Populism doesn't produce moral wisdom. Indeed, it usually conflicts with it.

[Belindi]

Responsible adults are qualified to help make moral and civil laws by electing their representatives.

The only "moral laws" are those consistent with sound moral principles. And the latter are not determined by majority rule. Populism doesn't produce moral wisdom. Indeed, it usually conflicts with it.

Populism! Who said anything about populism? I said something about democracy.

[GE Morton]

Populism! Who said anything about populism? I said something about democracy.

Those are one and the same.

[Sculptor1]

Because guns are not relevantly similar to cars.

NO.
Both are dangerous.
Both are more dangerous in the hands of the untrained.
Both require a degree of competence.
Issues of mental competence are important in both cases.

Those are all true. But, except for "mental competence," they are only relevant to the rate of accidental deaths. Not to deliberate homicides.

The danger of guns DOES relate to the incidence if deliberate homicides.
And to untrained people, and competence. Innocent people get killed.
So I find it puzzling that you seem to be draggin the bottom of the barrel.
ANd guns of course facilitate deliberate homicides too.
Guns enable people to murder that would not even be able to cut up a beef steak, let alone chose a more personal form of murder such as with a knife.

Laws already prohibit firearm possession by persons "adjudicated as a mental defective" or who has been "committed to a mental institution." Few homicides are actually committed by such persons, and such persons are no more likely to commit crimes with guns than persons without that history:

I think you must be incorrect. Either in terms of actual legislation, ,or the prosecution of it.
You must be in denial of the basic facts since nutter get hold of guns all the time perfectly leaglly.

[LuckyR]

Arguing about gun ownership in the US is akin to arguing about whether Covid could be isolated to China. It's way too late. Regardless of the potential law changes in the US in the future, there are so many guns in the country that evil doers will be able to acquire one to do evil for hundreds of years (the functional lifetime of a gun).

BUt you could make unlicensed possession of a firearm a capital offence. Or give the right to police to seize all firearms not properly registered with a competent owner.
If they can crush untended cars, and ban people from driving then it does not take any imagination to make it illegal for criminals to not be allowed guns, and to melt down unregistered weapons.

I said "potential law changes", if you think anything you wrote qualifies as such in a country that can't pass legislation on registration data bases, then all I can say is we'll have to agree to disagree.

Is there a database of cars?
Is there a income tax database?
Is there one for the collection of property tax?
Are there any others you can think of?
Do you live on another planet or something?

I am not saying that there doesn't exist the technology to do what you are suggesting, I'm saying there is no political will to do so. And without the political will, it is essentially impossible to get it done.

[Sculptor1]

BUt you could make unlicensed possession of a firearm a capital offence. Or give the right to police to seize all firearms not properly registered with a competent owner.
If they can crush untended cars, and ban people from driving then it does not take any imagination to make it illegal for criminals to not be allowed guns, and to melt down unregistered weapons.

I said "potential law changes", if you think anything you wrote qualifies as such in a country that can't pass legislation on registration data bases, then all I can say is we'll have to agree to disagree.

Is there a database of cars?
Is there a income tax database?
Is there one for the collection of property tax?
Are there any others you can think of?
Do you live on another planet or something?

I am not saying that there doesn't exist the technology to do what you are suggesting, I'm saying there is no political will to do so. And without the political will, it is essentially impossible to get it done.

Yet the majority are in favour of extending gun control.