Philosophy Discussion Forums

The trouble is that many effects have multiple causes and many causes act through intermediate causes. The decline in religion, the decay of the family, the public tolerance of perverts and perversion --- all are directly feeding mass killings. Anybody that would kill his mother and children is not stopped by not having a gun --- and who would want such a person anywhere around the public? NO ONE would.

So, just by the numbers, guns are being bought more and more by people who used to make up the anti-gun demographics, like black women, and single moms. Biden is a huge failure in providing a sense of security, in backing the police, in winking at violent city leaders who are almost all Democrats
27 of Top 30 Crime-Ridden Cities Run by Democrats
Samantha Aschieris / @samantharenck / November 04, 2022

I heard it long ago and can't forget the gun seller who said that Biden was the best gun salesman of his lifetime !!!

Baby Augustine wrote: ↑January 14th, 2023, 5:21 pm The trouble is that many effects have multiple causes and many causes act through intermediate causes. The decline in religion, the decay of the family, the public tolerance of perverts and perversion --- all are directly feeding mass killings. Anybody that would kill his mother and children is not stopped by not having a gun --- and who would want such a person anywhere around the public? NO ONE would.

So, just by the numbers, guns are being bought more and more by people who used to make up the anti-gun demographics, like black women, and single moms. Biden is a huge failure in providing a sense of security, in backing the police, in winking at violent city leaders who are almost all Democrats
27 of Top 30 Crime-Ridden Cities Run by Democrats
Samantha Aschieris / @samantharenck / November 04, 2022

I heard it long ago and can't forget the gun seller who said that Biden was the best gun salesman of his lifetime !!!

A misrepresentation, Republicans only run 3 of the 34 most populous cities in the US. The fact they aren't successful at the ballot box doesn't imply crime fighting skills.

Crime, as the effect of the over abundance of firearms, is not an issue where either party can claim any advantage.

As to guns, the real tragedy of guns is suicides, with murders much lower and mass murder a very minor issue.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 21st, 2023, 9:03 pm
A misrepresentation, Republicans only run 3 of the 34 most populous cities in the US. The fact they aren't successful at the ballot box doesn't imply crime fighting skills.

While local poobahs (mayors and city council critters, prosecutors, judges) are partially responsible for crime rates, the major responsibility lies with state legislatures. They fail to enact laws which keep repeat offenders off the streets --- Repubs because they think it would cost too much, and Dems because they are committed to the "victims of society" theory of crime and the Pollyanna "rehabilitation model" of criminal justice.

Crime, as the effect of the over abundance of firearms, is not an issue where either party can claim any advantage.

Crime is not an "effect of an overabundance of firearms." Most crimes don't involve firearms, not even violent crimes (only 10% of violent crimes involve a firearm).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

https://www.thecentersquare.com/nationa ... 8f566.html

As to guns, the real tragedy of guns is suicides, with murders much lower and mass murder a very minor issue.

Homicides comprise 43% of gun deaths; suicides 54%. The former figure is not "much lower." Suicides may be a tragedy for the families and friends of the deceased, but it is not a public tragedy.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 21st, 2023, 10:23 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 21st, 2023, 9:03 pm
A misrepresentation, Republicans only run 3 of the 34 most populous cities in the US. The fact they aren't successful at the ballot box doesn't imply crime fighting skills.

While local poobahs (mayors and city council critters, prosecutors, judges) are partially responsible for crime rates, the major responsibility lies with state legislatures. They fail to enact laws which keep repeat offenders off the streets --- Repubs because they think it would cost too much, and Dems because they are committed to the "victims of society" theory of crime and the Pollyanna "rehabilitation model" of criminal justice.

Crime, as the effect of the over abundance of firearms, is not an issue where either party can claim any advantage.

Crime is not an "effect of an overabundance of firearms." Most crimes don't involve firearms, not even violent crimes (only 10% of violent crimes involve a firearm).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

https://www.thecentersquare.com/nationa ... 8f566.html

As to guns, the real tragedy of guns is suicides, with murders much lower and mass murder a very minor issue.

Homicides comprise 43% of gun deaths; suicides 54%. The former figure is not "much lower." Suicides may be a tragedy for the families and friends of the deceased, but it is not a public tragedy.

Well since less than 10% of homicides are by strangers, the vast majority of murders are committed by the same "families and friends" that you pooh poohed in the suicide stat. The "public tragedy" of murder being 4% if you are trying to imply that being killed out in public ie. by a stranger, makes your self made "definition" of the term.

What the takeaway message should be is: don't hang out with murderers and you're unlikely to be murdered.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 4:23 am
Well since less than 10% of homicides are by strangers, the vast majority of murders are committed by the same "families and friends" that you pooh poohed in the suicide stat.

Er, no. Not the same family and friends. Most people have more than one of those.

[/quote]The "public tragedy" of murder being 4% if you are trying to imply that being killed out in public ie. by a stranger, makes your self made "definition" of the term.[/quote]

Whether the murder is committed by a stranger or a relative or acquaintance is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether it was justified. Anyone who kills someone unjustly (or commits any other "real" crime) represents a threat to the public at large. Suicides do not.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:05 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 4:23 am
Well since less than 10% of homicides are by strangers, the vast majority of murders are committed by the same "families and friends" that you pooh poohed in the suicide stat.

Er, no. Not the same family and friends. Most people have more than one of those.

The "public tragedy" of murder being 4% if you are trying to imply that being killed out in public ie. by a stranger, makes your self made "definition" of the term.[/quote]

Whether the murder is committed by a stranger or a relative or acquaintance is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether it was justified. Anyone who kills someone unjustly (or commits any other "real" crime) represents a threat to the public at large. Suicides do not.
[/quote]


There are always unjust people,everywhere. Gun crime would be much reduced if private gun ownership were not a legal right. Knife crime is much reduced when knives cannot be sold to minors.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:12 am
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).

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:35 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:12 am
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).

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:35 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:12 am
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).

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.

1% is a huge number . SInce there are more forearms than people in the USA.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 1:22 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:35 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 11:12 am
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.

Nationally, at least 11,047 people have died in gun violence so far this year, excluding suicide

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 1:22 pm
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).

Agree.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 2:45 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 1:22 pm
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).

Agree.

Not to mention building them DIY.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 2:20 pm Nationally, at least 11,047 people have died in gun violence so far this year, excluding suicide

You're off by a factor of 10 (if "this year" is 2023 to date):

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 2:16 pm
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. 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.