Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2022, 7:38 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2022, 5:56 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2022, 5:34 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2022, 2:17 am
Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.

It's a fair consideration, no doubt a product of retrograde euthanasia laws.

On the downside, guns make it easy for young, healthy people to make an irreversible error. I've heard it reported that most people who didn't die after a suicide attempt were glad they survived. Then again, perhaps that's why they survived? Maybe there was a lack of total conviction in their actions? Still, for sick and elderly facing a rough life end, having a gun around may be a blessing.

Still, it's a digression. The issue is that, if guns are so easy to get, then you end up with more lethally-armed nutters that you otherwise would. I don't think machine guns belong in urban settings, aside from Ukraine's situation. (Not that the US would ever be an enticing invasion target, guns or no guns).

Very true on both accounts. Most decisions to commit suicide are performed within the hour of the attempt. In the absence of guns, most attempts are unsuccessful.

The US will never be invaded militarily by humans for exactly that reason, though since that is such a statistical unlikelihood regardless, it isn't a reasonable indication for unrestricted gun access.

Yes, fewer guns would mean fewer impulsive errors. Still, this is perhaps an unpopular view but, there are eight billion humans in the world and ...

The US is impossible. Allies on either side, long oceanic distances, the strongest military. Ultimately, the point of America's gun proliferation is for Americans to target other Americans.

Not quite. Ultimately the point of selling guns is to make money for the manufacturers. Identical to the purpose of cigarettes not being lung cancer, it's to make money.

The statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" has a bit of truth. There are plenty of other things in this world that render guns almost useless. Minimisation is needed! Ammunition is a big issue. The excessive use of bullets and obsessive ownership of ammunition is way out of control. I say "1round can be taken home with you per visit to the shooting range!" The old saying "black powder will break your defences" has much truth. The old wooden forts totally banned black powder and projectiles. The use of fire was much more of a hazard. Of course, this is before the fire department. What buro should or shouldn't be used to call for help. The fire buro uses a thought control program that creates "Dixie-Fires" because fire is better cause of death then bullets. Rather barbaric? Thought control is the new fire arm. The internet is a weapon of mass destruction capable of harming more people faster then weapons can.

Burning a person alive is a better cause of death? I think that is more torture than taking a bullet that can end your life quickly. Imagine the searing heat melting your clothing to your skin and the abject cooking of your skin and muscles while you are still alive, Shoot me instead.
1 bullet at the firing range? How do you gauge how well you handle your weapon? In the heat of the moment, you fire one bullet, you miss, then what?
Educating people in being responsible gun owners would be more effective. Mentally ill ad felons cannot legally purchase a firearm. However, again the word legally has not crossed the mind of the criminal when they break into your home. A gun is useless unless somebody can pull the trigger.

The second amendment was created so that a tyrannical government will not occur, that we can remain free. We have a tyrannical president who doesn't understand what a bullet is "8 bullets per round." He is a puppet that wants to take assault weapons away but he can't define what an assault weapon is. Who is going to turn in their gun? I say over my dead body, and trust that I will likely take the person who tries to remove the gun with me.

Mounce574 wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2022, 6:48 pm Gun control will not solve anything.

Far better to have uncontrolled guns, would you say?

Mounce574 wrote: ↑November 6th, 2022, 3:41 am Who is going to turn in their gun? I say over my dead body, and trust that I will likely take the person who tries to remove the gun with me.

Good thinking Mounce your wisdom is incredible!

Australia and the United Kingdom prohibit the possession of firearms- why do they still have deaths caused by guns? Why do they have more crime per capita thsn the United States. The long-term effects of gun control doesn't resolve anything. More people died in the 9/11 attacks without a shot being fired. The Oklahoma City Bombing resulted in 658 deaths. No shots fired. Gun control will not result in less deaths, criminals will just resort to other tactics.

Australia has fewer gun deaths in a decade than the US has in a week.

- The US has over 40,000 gun-related deaths each year, and that includes the incredible damage done by mass shootings.
- Australia has about 200 gun-related deaths each year.

The US has 10 times more people than Australia and 200 times the gun deaths. Based on raw numbers, if the US had Australia's policies, then you would have 2,000 gun deaths per year instead of over 40,000.

Gun regulation works, and makes for a safer, happier society.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 1:45 am Australia has fewer gun deaths in a decade than the US has in a week.

- The US has over 40,000 gun-related deaths each year, and that includes the incredible damage done by mass shootings.
- Australia has about 200 gun-related deaths each year.

The US has 10 times more people than Australia and 200 times the gun deaths. Based on raw numbers, if the US had Australia's policies, then you would have 2,000 gun deaths per year instead of over 40,000.

Gun regulation works, and makes for a safer, happier society.

Just to be clear, the (realistic) goal of realistic gun control in the US, isn't to drop the gun deaths from 40K to 2K or some other low number. It's to prevent it from climbing to 50K in the future.

Mounce574 wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2022, 11:24 pm Australia and the United Kingdom prohibit the possession of firearms- why do they still have deaths caused by guns? Why do they have more crime per capita thsn the United States.

That last claim is patently false.

79 people per 1,000 victimized- United Kingdom
38 people per 1,000 victimized- United States
101 people per 1,000 victimized- Australia- particular note 42% are sexual assault crimes.

Mounce, you are deliberately avoiding the issue - this is about gun deaths, not sexual harassment at work - and I also doubt your statistics, given that you have been proved to have provided wrong (and unsourced) information about gun deaths in Australia.

I am Australian, so you can't lie about us to me to shore up your apparent ideological belief that weapons of war belong in local communities.

I still have no determinate position on gun control. On one hand, the right to bare arms is a reality. To hunt, to protect one's self against wild-life let alone other humans... you could even argue that armed civilians protect the populace from government abuses.

But it's a sad day when irresponsible and unstable individuals get their hands on automatic weaponry and commit mass murder. Then what do we do? We lock them up for life or execute them. But really, perhaps it was just the fact they had access to a weapon that can cause so much harm from such a personal distance. Probably playing too many video games.

I think the real thing to think about is "why are we manufacturing so many weapons of mass destruction"? WWI rolled around and the tanks started rolling down the city streets of Europe. A war directly caused by industrial revolution. Reasonable anarchists of the era started calling for the universal unification of the proletariat to prevent mass warfare.

Then Stalin decided to pass around ak-47's to any hackneyed backwater militia group that proclaimed the cause of communism.

Point is, we shouldn't be manufacturing these weapons in the first place. The only reason we are is because one nation is against another and we have to manufacture them lest the other nation has all the power.

Certainly this dynamic will end in a world-wide realization of some sort.

I am Australian, so you can't lie about us to me to shore up your apparent ideological belief that weapons of war belong in local communities.

Off topic but I would like to mention that I am an American with a Canadian father that spent 3 years in Perth, Australia as a toddler. Meat pies are still my favorite food.

d3r31nz1g3 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 8:53 pm I still have no determinate position on gun control. On one hand, the right to bare arms is a reality. To hunt, to protect one's self against wild-life let alone other humans... you could even argue that armed civilians protect the populace from government abuses.

But it's a sad day when irresponsible and unstable individuals get their hands on automatic weaponry and commit mass murder. Then what do we do? We lock them up for life or execute them. But really, perhaps it was just the fact they had access to a weapon that can cause so much harm from such a personal distance. Probably playing too many video games.

I think the real thing to think about is "why are we manufacturing so many weapons of mass destruction"? WWI rolled around and the tanks started rolling down the city streets of Europe. A war directly caused by industrial revolution. Reasonable anarchists of the era started calling for the universal unification of the proletariat to prevent mass warfare.

Then Stalin decided to pass around ak-47's to any hackneyed backwater militia group that proclaimed the cause of communism.

Point is, we shouldn't be manufacturing these weapons in the first place. The only reason we are is because one nation is against another and we have to manufacture them lest the other nation has all the power.

Certainly this dynamic will end in a world-wide realization of some sort.

I am Australian, so you can't lie about us to me to shore up your apparent ideological belief that weapons of war belong in local communities.

Off topic but I would like to mention that I am an American with a Canadian father that spent 3 years in Perth, Australia as a toddler. Meat pies are still my favorite food.

I lost faith in the USA being able to do anything about this legally. Morally, there is no reason to resort to lethal self defense with so many nonlethal methods available, ecept for people who are handicapped severely. My new response to people with bloodlust for guns is to call them wimps for exactly that reason. I tried for years to argue with them, and it makes no difference. Once people have fixated on a belief, they ignore anything against it and repeat anything they think supports it. That applies for many other things besides guns. On religious beliefs, I respect others if they respect me, but on guns, I dont know any excuse for adulation of the power to kill other people. If people really had a sense of morality who do so, they'd be sad about having to resort to it, instead of waving them like flags.

ernestm wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 9:01 pm

d3r31nz1g3 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 8:53 pm I still have no determinate position on gun control. On one hand, the right to bare arms is a reality. To hunt, to protect one's self against wild-life let alone other humans... you could even argue that armed civilians protect the populace from government abuses.

But it's a sad day when irresponsible and unstable individuals get their hands on automatic weaponry and commit mass murder. Then what do we do? We lock them up for life or execute them. But really, perhaps it was just the fact they had access to a weapon that can cause so much harm from such a personal distance. Probably playing too many video games.

I think the real thing to think about is "why are we manufacturing so many weapons of mass destruction"? WWI rolled around and the tanks started rolling down the city streets of Europe. A war directly caused by industrial revolution. Reasonable anarchists of the era started calling for the universal unification of the proletariat to prevent mass warfare.

Then Stalin decided to pass around ak-47's to any hackneyed backwater militia group that proclaimed the cause of communism.

Point is, we shouldn't be manufacturing these weapons in the first place. The only reason we are is because one nation is against another and we have to manufacture them lest the other nation has all the power.

Certainly this dynamic will end in a world-wide realization of some sort.

I am Australian, so you can't lie about us to me to shore up your apparent ideological belief that weapons of war belong in local communities.

Off topic but I would like to mention that I am an American with a Canadian father that spent 3 years in Perth, Australia as a toddler. Meat pies are still my favorite food.

I lost faith in the USA being able to do anything about this legally. Morally, there is no reason to resort to lethal self defense with so many nonlethal methods available, ecept for people who are handicapped severely. My new response to people with bloodlust for guns is to call them wimps for exactly that reason. I tried for years to argue with them, and it makes no difference. Once people have fixated on a belief, they ignore anything against it and repeat anything they think supports it. That applies for many other things besides guns. On religious beliefs, I respect others if they respect me, but on guns, I dont know any excuse for adulation of the power to kill other people. If people really had a sense of morality who do so, they'd be sad about having to resort to it, instead of waving them like flags.

What you're saying isn't untrue, but the right to bare arms originates from a time where a bear was a serious threat.

I would not trek the wild without a firearm.

Mounce574 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 4:11 pm 79 people per 1,000 victimized- United Kingdom
38 people per 1,000 victimized- United States
101 people per 1,000 victimized- Australia- particular note 42% are sexual assault crimes.

Sources?