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

[Belindi]

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

Those are one and the same.

I suspected you of thinking they were the same.Better look them up!

[GE Morton]

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

Those are one and the same.

I suspected you of thinking they were the same.Better look them up!

Ok.

"n. Populism:

"1. a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite."

" n. Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... q=populism

What is the difference?

[GE Morton]

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.

Well, you're just ignoring the argument. The vast majority of gun homicides are not due to lack of training or "incompetence" (whether construed as lack of skill or as a "mental defect") --- only about 500 of the 21,000 annual gun homicides can be blamed on such factors. And of course guns are dangerous --- so are cars, matches, knives, baseball bats, etc. All of which truisms have nothing to do with training or incompetence, the assurance of which is proffered as the rationale for licensing.

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.

I've given you one study. There are others reaching the same conclusion. Dismiss them if you wish. Unfortunately, persons you characterize after-the-fact as "nutters" are rarely persons with histories of diagnosed mental deficiencies. Most murderers are quite sane and "mentally competent."

[Belindi]

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

Those are one and the same.

I suspected you of thinking they were the same.Better look them up!

Ok.

"n. Populism:

"1. a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite."

" n. Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... q=populism

What is the difference?

The difference is that populism is appeal to the people with little or no effort to be democratic, but instead relies on empty promises, emptionalism, and disinformation.

[Sculptor1]

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.

Well, you're just ignoring the argument. The vast majority of gun homicides are not due to lack of training or "incompetence" (whether construed as lack of skill or as a "mental defect") --- only about 500 of the 21,000 annual gun homicides can be blamed on such factors. And of course guns are dangerous --- so are cars, matches, knives, baseball bats, etc. All of which truisms have nothing to do with training or incompetence, the assurance of which is proffered as the rationale for licensing.

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.

I've given you one study. There are others reaching the same conclusion. Dismiss them if you wish. Unfortunately, persons you characterize after-the-fact as "nutters" are rarely persons with histories of diagnosed mental deficiencies. Most murderers are quite sane and "mentally competent."

That's very funny.
Only 500 homicides per year can be blamed on incompetance. More deaths than the total number of gun deaths in the UK for a generation.

[UniversalAlien]

In the United States, gun control, gun bans and outlawing guns does not work.

But what if Americans took the full meaning and implications of the Second Amendment more seriously and literally

How about really having a well armed militia

Private citizens who upon passing a training program and being licensed accordingly and then being properly insured for liability
because of the inevitable occasional accident - were granted the right to carry a concealed gun and use it to stop lunatics and terrorists
in their tracks. Another words when circumstances dictates they become automatic deputies licensed to use deadly force

Time and time again the so called lunatics who I consider terrorists whatever their motivation, pick 'soft targets' such as schools,
churches, and shopping malls where there is no one there to stop them in time - Dialing 911 {emergency} is not a sufficient option
- by the time police arrive many are already dead.

This new legally licensed militia I am suggesting will be scattered throughout the population and trained for armed and often
lethal response to lunatics and terrorists.

And what is their reward you might ask ? - Exactly that, a reward - an agreed sum, say one million dollars, for stopping a mass
shooting in progress - Otherwise they receive no compensation and may even have to pay for the liability insurance necessary
for such a program to work as there will be occasional accidents.
- Let's see the statistics after those cowardly killers of unarmed civilians see their like minded villains slain in the act.

[GE Morton]

"n. Populism:

"1. a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite."

" n. Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... q=populism

What is the difference?

The difference is that populism is appeal to the people with little or no effort to be democratic . . .

Er, Belindi, "appeal to the people" is precisely what democracy is --- by definition.

but instead relies on empty promises, emptionalism, and disinformation.

Heh. And politicians in democracies do not?

[Belindi]

"n. Populism:

"1. a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite."

" n. Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... q=populism

What is the difference?

The difference is that populism is appeal to the people with little or no effort to be democratic . . .

Er, Belindi, "appeal to the people" is precisely what democracy is --- by definition.

but instead relies on empty promises, emptionalism, and disinformation.

Heh. And politicians in democracies do not?

What would you have? No democracy?

[GE Morton]

What would you have? No democracy?

A constitutional republic. Representatives are elected by majority rule, but the powers of government are narrowly limited by a written constitution, which majorities cannot override. What are the limits? Thomas Jefferson's answer:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

---First Inaugural Address

Specifically, majorities would not have the power to vote themselves free lunches.

[Ecurb]

A constitutional republic. Representatives are elected by majority rule, but the powers of government are narrowly limited by a written constitution, which majorities cannot override. What are the limits? Thomas Jefferson's answer:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

---First Inaugural Address

Specifically, majorities would not have the power to vote themselves free lunches.

Which "pursuits of industry and improvement" require the use of high-powered, automatic rifles? Isn't limiting the sale of such weapons exactly what Jefferson recommends, if it "restrain(s) men from injuring one another"?

Of course the "circle of (Jefferson's) felicities" involved slave labor at Monticello, and a slave mistress. Did he consider himself "free to regulate (his) pursuits of industry and improvement" in this manner? Apparently. The state helped him thus pursue industry by nabbing any runaways, and returning them to the fold.

By the way, the majority does not vote irself free lunches. Those who benefit from safety nets are in a minority. The majority votes to help others, not themselves. Bravo for the majority!

[GE Morton]

Which "pursuits of industry and improvement" require the use of high-powered, automatic rifles? Isn't limiting the sale of such weapons exactly what Jefferson recommends, if it "restrain(s) men from injuring one another"?

Er, no. Merely owning a firearm, automatic or not, injures no one. Prohibiting them imposes restraints on millions of persons who are not injuring one another.

Of course the "circle of (Jefferson's) felicities" involved slave labor at Monticello, and a slave mistress. Did he consider himself "free to regulate (his) pursuits of industry and improvement" in this manner? Apparently. The state helped him thus pursue industry by nabbing any runaways, and returning them to the fold.

Jefferson advocated for the abolition of slavery all his life.

https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jeffe ... d-slavery/

And raising that hoary objection is simply a lazy ad hominem, with no relevance to Jefferson's view of the purpose of government.

By the way, the majority does not vote irself free lunches. Those who benefit from safety nets are in a minority. The majority votes to help others, not themselves. Bravo for the majority!

That is false: some 52% of US households receive some sort of government benefit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmat ... -benefits/

It is true that many who do not receive direct benefits still support the programs --- because they pay very little for them (in 2020 the lower 50% of taxpayers paid 7% of the income tax the government collects). They are "humanitarians by proxy" --- willing to help others, as long as someone else is footing the bill.

[Mounce574]

Has anyone thought of the fact that the more politicians try to control guns, the more murder rates also increases? Just like the war on drugs didn't decrease the use of the drugs, it just made it harder to discover who uses them unless the addict overdoses. This is just an observational thought. When Biden proclaimed outlawing assault weapons, that began the rolling ball of school and public shootings increasing.

[Ecurb]

Has anyone thought of the fact that the more politicians try to control guns, the more murder rates also increases? Just like the war on drugs didn't decrease the use of the drugs, it just made it harder to discover who uses them unless the addict overdoses. This is just an observational thought. When Biden proclaimed outlawing assault weapons, that began the rolling ball of school and public shootings increasing.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? No doubt increased murder rates and calls for gun control go hand in hand; if nobody was murdered, nobody would be crying for gun control. Which causes which is unclear.

[Mounce574]

The chicken would logically come first because an egg has to be incubated to hatch.
Gun control doesn't work - Current event Nashville Covenant School Shooting. The shooter killed 6 people. Per the "manifesto," the school was chosen because it had less security.
Ted Cruz, last year, proposed a bill that would pay for armed police officers to be available to all schools. Increased security measures are to be implemented as well. Increasing the availability of mental health services was included. Connecticut's representative objected to it; enacting this bill would have stopped this shooter from making access to the school. The person shot out the glass on the side door to gain entry- If armed officers were present, 6 innocent people would still be alive.
This person legally owned all 3 firearms used. 152 rounds were fired. 10 round magazines- obviously multiple carried, a backpack full of more magazines. Supposedly sent text messages to a friend before the shooting stating they were going to die today and would be on the news. INTENTIONALLY TARGETED.
Was that person sane? Could increased security have prevented this tragedy?

I own multiple weapons. I would never go to a school and just kill people. I would never kill a person because I didn't like them. Self-defense (including protecting my family, friends, and a fallen officer, I'm sure you get the point), hunting and target practice at a range are the only reasons I would consider shooting someone.
Gun control punishes legal law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will still have guns. The word Criminal- they don't give a crap about the law and intentionally were going to do whatever crime, regardless if they have a gun or not. If we stopped everyone from owning a gun, that eliminates their ability to defend themselves and their family. Imagine someone broke into your house and they have a gun. You don't. Do you say "Please don't shoot me and my children" "You know it is illegal to own a gun" or "I'm calling the police." Do you think any of that would prevent the perpetrator from causing you and your family harm? I highly doubt it.

Why is it we blame guns for homicides? If someone kills someone with a knife, car, or any other object, we blame the person. Use a gun and magically it is the gun's fault. The gun wouldn't fire if it wasn't in a person's hand.

[Ecurb]

The chicken would logically come first because an egg has to be incubated to hatch.
Gun control doesn't work - Current event Nashville Covenant School Shooting. The shooter killed 6 people. Per the "manifesto," the school was chosen because it had less security.
Ted Cruz, last year, proposed a bill that would pay for armed police officers to be available to all schools. Increased security measures are to be implemented as well. Increasing the availability of mental health services was included. Connecticut's representative objected to it; enacting this bill would have stopped this shooter from making access to the school. The person shot out the glass on the side door to gain entry- If armed officers were present, 6 innocent people would still be alive.
This person legally owned all 3 firearms used. 152 rounds were fired. 10 round magazines- obviously multiple carried, a backpack full of more magazines. Supposedly sent text messages to a friend before the shooting stating they were going to die today and would be on the news. INTENTIONALLY TARGETED.
Was that person sane? Could increased security have prevented this tragedy?

I own multiple weapons. I would never go to a school and just kill people. I would never kill a person because I didn't like them. Self-defense (including protecting my family, friends, and a fallen officer, I'm sure you get the point), hunting and target practice at a range are the only reasons I would consider shooting someone.
Gun control punishes legal law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will still have guns. The word Criminal- they don't give a crap about the law and intentionally were going to do whatever crime, regardless if they have a gun or not. If we stopped everyone from owning a gun, that eliminates their ability to defend themselves and their family. Imagine someone broke into your house and they have a gun. You don't. Do you say "Please don't shoot me and my children" "You know it is illegal to own a gun" or "I'm calling the police." Do you think any of that would prevent the perpetrator from causing you and your family harm? I highly doubt it.

Why is it we blame guns for homicides? If someone kills someone with a knife, car, or any other object, we blame the person. Use a gun and magically it is the gun's fault. The gun wouldn't fire if it wasn't in a person's hand.

I haven't seen statistics, buy I'd bet anything that it's far safer not to have personal protection firearms in your house than to have them. Guns lead to accidents, suicides, and murders committed by family members. Everyone thinks, "That would never happen with me." But it does happen.

In addition, an armed home invader is far more likely to shoot someone who is threatening him with a gun. Even in the case of armed home invasions, owning a gun increases the home owner's danger. (see Brianna Taylor)

I suppose some people might need personal protection firearms: mafia soldiers, abused women whose exes are threatening to kill them, and few others. The vast majority are simply increasing their own risks by owning guns. In fact, I think it's cowardly to own a personal protection firearm, because acting irrationally out of fear is cowardly. And thinking a gun will protect you is irrational.

Also, eggs came before chickens. The first foul that we might call a "chicken" was hatched out of an egg (its parents were slightly different birds). That''s how evolution works.