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

[Spiral Out]

Thanx for your support Newme! Much appreciated.

>>>

Rederic,

Our arguments/counterarguments are going around in circles, all of the objections you're making have already been handled in previous posts. Your arguments have now become nothing more than a collection of red herrings.

>>>

I mean in the same sense that we undergo tests to gain a driving licence and have to be proven to be competent to drive. Considering the added danger with guns that they must be kept properly, I think its reasonable that there could be checks made on the persons circumstances and ability to secure their weapons, away from children/ mentally disabled people etc. I dont mean to imply this as a punishment or an invasion of privacy but just that there should be increased education and checks made around gun ownership. Not everyone is going to be intelligent or capable enough, even if they think they are.

That is a "guilty until proven innocent" type of treatment of citizens in general. It is simply not justifiable.

To reiterate my point:

If the right to engage in an activity must be earned (by the actor) through a requisite of responsible behaviors (by the actor) then the restriction of an activity also must be required to be earned (by the restrictor) through a requisite of irresponsible behaviors (by the actor) as well. If the actor has demonstrated no previous irresponsible behaviors, relative to activities that would preclude firearms ownership, up to the age of legal consent (e.g. 18 yrs), then such person should be allowed ownership of firearms of their choice that are also available to any persons employed by and/or representing any government agency or organization. This is a fair and equitable arrangement between a government and its legal citizens.

Do you not trust the Government to set up an agency of some sort to do this?

Trust is necessarily required on both sides of the equation.

A government that does not trust its citizens is just as dangerous as citizens who do not trust their government.

I'm not disputing your rights to own a gun but isn't owning an assault rifle essentially a recreational pursuit? There are more important things. I don't know where you would draw the line, but a line must be drawn somewhere.

Yes, the subjective line drawing. It always comes to that, doesn't it? So who is right, and more importantly, why are they right??

I'm just not buying this. Sorry. We can all go around saying that everything is neutral until we give it meaning, but that is just a neat way of taking no responsibility for our actions.

You don't have to buy it because I'm not selling it.

And it's actually just the opposite. It's the way to take ultimate responsibility for our actions and not use guns as a scapegoat.

What other function is there for a 1000 rounds per minute assault rifle?

Simply to have fun shooting it at the firing range. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It does not infringe on any of the rights of any other person.

I admit this could be for recreation, but I could say the same of drugs. There must be many people who would use drugs perfectly responsibly and for whom their life would be enhanced by this, but because the minority misuse them( often unfortunately the same people who misuse guns), they are illegal.

More "what-ifs" and "guilty until proven innocent" type of thinking. Unjustifiable.

And, no I dont know about the safes? Enlighten me please

http://www.ftknox.com/vaults/

[Stormcloud]

UniversalAlien, if I were born into your environment I would be a different person and most likely be persuaded, out of fear, to buy a gun so I do understand where you are coming from. But I am me and I live in a different environment, which, despite your statistics, I do not feel threatened, but this does not mean I have not had fearful moments and have not been tempted to consider owning a weapon (which is still very easily obtained despite the law.) However, I do not value life enough to spend it living in fear of some imaginary future event. And while I find steel against flesh abhorrent I do understand your viewpoint having been brought up within a gun culture. Your political affairs are certainly not my business but the damage to humanity concerns me as much as it ought concern any outsider. This forum for me is just a convenient place to get up and have a shout. I am as deeply wounded as any sensitive person by all the carnage - not just to children and women but men also. I am not disconnected from people just because they happen to live on another spot on the planet or don't share blood type. We all live in relationship.

P.S. Spiral. No, I haven't been associated with guns - only the outcome that arrives in the operating theatre.

[Lucylu]

Hi!

So, I'm on board with owning guns and enjoying them recreationally. The question is then how do we limit the number of accidents and deaths which occur due to irresponsible gun ownership? (Lets put aside gang crime as these guns are presumably obtained illegal anyway and gang crime is its own separate issue).

Is it mandatory for guns to be kept in a gun safe at home? And if not, why not? Wouldn't that in itself be enough to prevent many of the thefts and unnecessary accidents/ misuse of guns by minors or the mentally disabled/ill?

If the right to engage in an activity must be earned (by the actor) through a requisite of responsible behaviors (by the actor) then the restriction of an activity also must be required to be earned (by the restrictor) through a requisite of irresponsible behaviors (by the actor) as well.

I see what you mean about the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance but given the potential dangers of irresponsible gun ownership, this seems a little defensive. I just don't understand why it would be such a hardship to have a process of education and training around gun ownership, when applying for a licence. For example, the proper storage of guns in gun safes, how to shoot defensively, rather than offensively etc. I don't see it as an effront to my rights or an accusation that I'm a criminal just because I was expected to take driving lessons and a 'theory test' on road safety. Its just being practical. Again, my focus here is on making owning a gun as safe as possible, while not infringing your personal rights.

such person should be allowed ownership of firearms of their choice that are also available to any persons employed by and/or representing any government agency or organization. This is a fair and equitable arrangement between a government and its legal citizens.

Out of interest, why do you limit this sense of being able to have the same weaponry as the Government to just guns? Why not also have bombs or missile launchers or tanks for example? Isn't this subjective line drawing? Aside from having handguns at home, would you agree to keep the more specialized weapons used for sport, such as semi automatic or automatic weapons at registered shooting ranges, in gun safes. Remember when the 'right to bear arms' was first espoused automatic weapons were not even invented. These sites are registered and checked by the Government aren't they? That way they can make sure that there are adequate security checks etc but your own home and personal privacy aren't invaded. How about that? Even if you have a gun safe at home- how are you going to transport the guns back and forth to the range? Wouldn't it be safer to just leave them there?

A government that does not trust its citizens is just as dangerous as citizens who do not trust their government.

Agreed.

Presumably, you do agree that laws are necessary (at this point in history) and they are created through a democratic process which fosters or at least aspires towards the greatest good for the greatest number? The creation of a law is ultimately line drawing but hopefully it is made as objectively as possible. It seems as if your Government is very fair minded and that your views and rights are being taken in to account. The line may not always fall exactly where you want it to as an individual, but that's the nature of compromise.

Thanx for your support Newme! Much appreciated.

I thought that was nice too! You've done very well to come under attack from several people at once and calmly hold your ground. Kudos!

[Robert66]

Hello gun control debaters. In the interest of objectivity, I offer the following links:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/C ... 08/22.html

This first link is to an article (from 2008) which reviews the available evidence on the effects of Australia’s National Firearms Agreement on homicide and suicide rates in the decade following the NFA. I have chosen this article because, to quote from it:

'The main thrust of this article ... has been to raise some methodological concerns with the existing studies – in particular, regarding robustness to small changes in the time period and the model specification.'

This is a FAIR appraisal of the three studies which attempted to answer the question "Do gun buy-backs save lives?" Whoever reads this article, from either side of the debate, will find it objective. Despite the concerns raised in the article in regard to methods used, and difficulties which any study would face in reaching definitive conclusions, several significant findings were made, which are quoted below:

'The three studies therefore agreed on several key points. First, firearm suicides dropped after 1997, and this drop was statistically significant and large in magnitude. Second, firearm homicides dropped substantially, although statistical tests may not find this drop to have been statistically significant. And third, although it cannot be ruled out, there does not appear to have been substantial method substitution, since non-firearm death rates also decreased. Despite what would appear to be considerable agreement, however, the interpretation of the findings in the three papers was quite different, and the debate in the Australian media over the results has been quite heated. Ozanne-Smith et al (2004) and Chapman et al (2006) argued that the statistical evidence favours the conclusion that firearm deaths fell and the NFA was effective. Baker and McPhedran, on the other hand, have interpreted the evidence as showing that the NFA had no effect.'

'to the extent that the available evidence points anywhere, it is towards the conclusion that the NFA reduced gun deaths.'

'although we cannot rule out the possibility that non-firearm suicide and homicide would have fallen faster in the absence of the NFA, the fact that overall violent deaths have fallen since 1996 suggests there has not been substantial method substitution.'

'that while Australia averaged one mass shooting per year in the decade prior to 1997, there were no mass shootings in Australia during the decade 1997-2006. They therefore argued that the NFA was successful in its key aim of preventing further firearms massacres.'

Here is a link to a discussion paper which presents in a very readable form the findings of the same authors of the above article: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf

And here is a link to an article which features an encouraging concession made by the "Second Amendment Guy" Alan Gottlieb, and has a link to a previous Washington Post article on the subject:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 2bmjm.html

[Cogito ergo sum]

Stop giving kids hardcore narcotics masquerading as medicine and you will see this go away. Just like you assume that people on the streets using meth will preform a violent crime then why wouldn't the 13 year old white kid from a suburb who is prescribed Adderall, which is an amphetamine, preform a violent crime as well? Oh yea because that hits to close to home for the elitist white liberals and republicans,or whatever party you choose to be corrupted by, who want to separate us even more. Meth is meth whether its from Tyrone on the street corner in Philly or Dr.Punjab in his office it has the same negative effects.

[UniversalAlien]

Stop giving kids hardcore narcotics masquerading as medicine and you will see this go away. Just like you assume that people on the streets using meth will preform a violent crime then why wouldn't the 13 year old white kid from a suburb who is prescribed Adderall, which is an amphetamine, preform a violent crime as well? Oh yea because that hits to close to home for the elitist white liberals and republicans,or whatever party you choose to be corrupted by, who want to separate us even more. Meth is meth whether its from Tyrone on the street corner in Philly or Dr.Punjab in his office it has the same negative effects.

Sometimes a good debate might lead to the truth.......For example:

34 School shooters/school related violence committed by those under the influence of psychiatric drugs

Fact: At least 34 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 167 wounded and 78 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs). The most important fact about this list, is that these are only cases where the information about their psychiatric drug use was made public. (See full list below)

The below list includes individuals documented to have been under the influence of psychiatric drugs and not only includes mass shootings, but the use of knives, swords and bombs.

See whole article here: http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Still think gun control will solve the crime and mass murder by the deranged problem? And what drugs have you been taking recently?

The old saying still holds: "Guns don't kill people - People kill people";
Unless of course your under the influence of one of those miraculous psychiatric drugs that gives a gun a mind of its own!

Maybe it was a mistake to title this thread "Gun Control and Mass Murder" - it should have been titled "Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Murder".

[Lucylu]

Sometimes a good debate might lead to the truth

Lets hope so!

If its true that many of these school shootings are drug related, it is at least a step forward (for myself at least) in understanding how something so awful can possibly happen. At least we can all agree that stopping incidents like this is the real aim. So it is important to look at all areas and work together.

I do feel that the answer lies not just in one specific area still but on many levels of the same event; in this case, the current ideas of best medical practice, the doctors themselves, the parents (the gun owners), the individual who actually commits the crime and, I dare say, the glorification of guns in films/TV/ games. To my mind, the parents are just as culpable as the shooter for allowing a minor with known mental health issues access to guns.

There is a case to be made that it is not only the mental health of the gun owner but also the other members of their household that must be shared when a gun is purchased and that new cases of mental illness can flag up certain people/ households for further checks/ training in gun safety. It is irresponsible gun ownership PLUS a minor under the influence of drugs and mental health issues which both played their part.

[Spiral Out]

Robert66,

In response to your link to the article by Christine Neill (economist) & Andrew Leigh (economist/politician), I'm curious as to why a couple of economists have written a paper that focuses on the social/criminal effects of a firearms buyback program instead of focusing on the economic effects.

(I noted that there is a fair amount of guesswork and assumption in that report due to the fundamental lack of some key data sets. Also, there is a significant amount of subjective and selectively-omitting terminology in that report as well. They also appear to be attempting to justify, rationalize and defend their findings although they admit to their data being suspect due to numerous factors which they reveal.)

It was noted in the paper that: "This paper therefore provides evidence that reduced access to firearms lowers firearm death rates, and may also lower overall death by suicide and homicide." Well, relative to such self-evident and circular logic, there are no deaths by homicide or suicide using light sabers either, since there is no access to them.

Either way, I personally am not contesting the proposition that limiting the overall availability of firearms reduces the amount of crimes committed with firearms, that in itself is pretty obvious. What I am contesting is the assertion that limiting firearms reduces overall violent crime rates or makes any particular society inherently more safe.

[Wilson]

Either way, I personally am not contesting the proposition that limiting the overall availability of firearms reduces the amount of crimes committed with firearms, that in itself is pretty obvious. What I am contesting is the assertion that limiting firearms reduces overall violent crime rates or makes any particular society inherently more safe.

Spiral Out, I fully understand your belief that those of violent persuasion would simply substitute other weapons for guns. But it seems obvious to me that you say that not because it is the logical conclusion but because it is the conclusion that is in line with your core belief that an armed electorate will protect us against government tyranny. In other words, emotion trumps logic. You want for there to be no rational argument available to gun opponents that you cannot refute.

Here are a couple of illustrations of where your assesertions go wrong.

A terrorist has the choice between a nuclear device or automatic weapon or a conventional bomb. If his availability to the nuclear bomb is thwarted, and he has to substitute one of the others, the death toll would be dramatically reduced. (This is an illustration of the effect that choice of weapon has on the carnage, it is not a gun control argument directly. However, as I've said before, the language in the Constitution was "right to bear arms", and it didn't exclude nuclear arms and it didn't exclude or include semi-automatic arms, neither of which was available when the amendment was written.)

A disturbed school kid has the choice between automatic or semi-automatic weapons or pistols or knives or fists, the death toll will almost certainly be dramatically different with each category of weapon. No guarantee that he couldn't kill twenty people with knives or fists, but highly unlikely.

An abusive husband becomes enraged with his wife. If he has a gun, the chance that she will die is greatly increased. A knife could kill her, but it's not as obvious as a means of putting the fear of God into the bitch, so would be less likely to find its way into his hand, and even if used the first blow would be less likely to be fatal than a gunshot wound.

Gangs with guns would be more dangerous and frightening than gangs with knives. In fact, gangs wouldn't have the appeal that they do to young minds if they didn't have the scariness of the power of guns. I wouldn't worry about a tiny gang member killing me.

Drive by shootings would have to be replaced by drive by knife throwings. Give me this one point, at least.

There are reasonable arguments that a gun advocate could use against some aspects of the gun control platform. But this one is a cold dead loser.

[Philosch]

Just to weigh in on this debate as a chance to reiterate a position I've held on seemingly unrelated topics, I'm going to jump in. As with almost all social ills and debate, the root causes and therefore the more effective and permanent solutions to those ills, often go by the way side in favor of the more expedient and seemingly obvious remedies despite contradictory or highly controversial evidence. This is an inherent flaw in most socio-political debate. Indeed the very title of the thread suggests a conclusion or at least a premise that one is supposed to just assume is true. "Gun control and Mass Murder", as if there is by default, a relationship between the 2 and the debate that ensues is merely to try and define what that relationship is or should be. The OP seems to suggest by the mere title that these 2 topics are inexorably linked.

Mass Murder is a subject onto itself, with myriad complexities rooted in the human psyche and yes even some basic biological factors rooted in the mere animalistic instincts we all possess. To solve it at it's root would no doubt require great leaps of insight into the workings of a human psychology and physiology, but also great leaps in the social understanding of how to deal with mental illness and whether human liberties can be limited when the potential for future violence has been uncovered in a given individual, etc.

Gun control on the other hand is the passing of laws meant to limit and regulate the use of an inherently dangerous piece of equipment which is certainly not unprecedented in a modern society. The US constitution grants the right to “bear arms” but fails to specify what type of “arms”. It is reasonable to conclude that not allowing people to carry around their own bazookas or small nuclear weapons is a good thing for society. Freedoms are necessarily curtailed for the overall good of society so trying to argue against any form of gun control is just not reasonable. But just in saying this, if you can limit a right for safety reasons then you can limit a right based on psychological evidence. Both of these topics eventually boil down to “state” or “government” control verses personal liberty.

Some of you are suggesting that the personal liberty involved with possession of a firearm isn’t that big of a deal when you weigh it against “dead” children laying in a school yard (Red herring) and others are suggestion the personal liberty should never be infringed upon or that there is simply no evidence that suggests carrying guns causes any problems, that to the contrary it creates more problems when people don’t carry guns (red herring).

While I carry a pistol and I hunt on a regular basis I see no reason to reject reasonable control over the types of guns and also reasonable checks on the general competency of the people who want to carry or use them. I can see that making sure a mental patient doesn’t get ahold of “any” kind of “object” capable of inflicting massive casualties is also a societal “good”. But, I also flat out reject the notion that restricting guns is somehow going to make the world a safer place with regards to maniacs bent on destruction.

The two subjects ultimately have very little to do with each other. There will always be tragedy and danger from our own kind. Eliminating all guns from society is just a Band-Aid, and not an effective Band-Aid at that. Severely restricting the use of guns by people who have never broken any laws without being able to prove it helps solve the problem is short sighted. It just seems to make sense on the surface but it doesn’t address the root cause. This is just what we do on every social problem that manifests itself. Teenage pregnancy-free condoms or give free abortions, Aids-pass out free needles, too many poor people-give them money, gov. not enough money-print some more...and on and on. I'm not making light of any of these problems, I would just like us to address them with more thought, more real research, more science, more philosophy even. Of course if people are starving you give them food initially to "fix" the immediate situation but you have absolutely NOT solved the problem. People don't make enough money....hmmmm...then just pass a law that says everyone has to make at least $20 an hour....but we all know that won't work, even though for a brief moment before inflation and the market place kick in, people would all be making a good wage. It's the quick fix that always entices, it's the tool of the wily politician looking to sway the uninformed. That's what Gun Control is to Mass Murder.... a quick fix that will not solve the problem.

Until such time we learn to thoroughly and precisely identify the people who are likely to commit atrocities and until such time when we are then willing to isolate those individuals or otherwise remove them from the population at large the problem of “mass” or any other kind of murder is here to stay.

[Wilson]

Philosch, gun control and mass murder are NOT separate issues; they are of course not the same but guns are the what makes most mass murder easily doable. I think you should self-examine and consider whether your attitude toward gun control might be slanted slightly more toward the self-interest of the pleasures of gun ownership than it should be when compared to the public good. In other words, is the fun and feelings of safety you get from guns more important to you than the public welfare? I'm not being as critical as it may sound; there are things that I wouldn't want to give up either, even if the public would benefit. I'm simply suggesting that you examine carefully whether your own gun pleasures are screwing up your ability to analyze the issue logically. Honesty with oneself is generally the best policy.

[Rederic]

Stop giving kids hardcore narcotics masquerading as medicine and you will see this go away. Just like you assume that people on the streets using meth will preform a violent crime then why wouldn't the 13 year old white kid from a suburb who is prescribed Adderall, which is an amphetamine, preform a violent crime as well? Oh yea because that hits to close to home for the elitist white liberals and republicans,or whatever party you choose to be corrupted by, who want to separate us even more. Meth is meth whether its from Tyrone on the street corner in Philly or Dr.Punjab in his office it has the same negative effects.

Sometimes a good debate might lead to the truth.......For example:

34 School shooters/school related violence committed by those under the influence of psychiatric drugs

Fact: At least 34 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 167 wounded and 78 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs). The most important fact about this list, is that these are only cases where the information about their psychiatric drug use was made public. (See full list below)

The below list includes individuals documented to have been under the influence of psychiatric drugs and not only includes mass shootings, but the use of knives, swords and bombs.

See whole article here: http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Still think gun control will solve the crime and mass murder by the deranged problem? And what drugs have you been taking recently?

The old saying still holds: "Guns don't kill people - People kill people";
Unless of course your under the influence of one of those miraculous psychiatric drugs that gives a gun a mind of its own!

Maybe it was a mistake to title this thread "Gun Control and Mass Murder" - it should have been titled "Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Murder".

You just made my point for me. You allow unrestricted access to guns for people with psychiatric illnesses & then say that it's not the unrestricted access to guns that is the problem, it's the illness & the drugs used to treat that illness that is the problem. Call me old fashioned if you like, but if the mentally ill were unable to access automatic weapons, then a lot of children who have been killed by the mentally ill would still be alive, wouldn't they?

[Philosch]

Wilson,

I appreciate your comment but I have examined this and many other issues as I've mentioned in great depth. I disagree and they are separate issues, they're just not totally un-related. I'm perfectly okay with reasonable gun control that was not my point. As for me being honest with myself, I might say the same to people who are afraid of or have no use for guns not recognizing their inherent bias also, but alas I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would not be so presumptuous and would appreciate that in return. My point actually was broader then just gun control and mass murder. It was about the notion of quick fix type arguments. If it could be shown that private gun ownership was in general a threat to public welfare I would have to concede the point. I was hinting that we address the more intractable problem of mental health and/or violence as a means of solving problems and as a means of self-expression. That's the main point I was trying to drive home. Of course we should not allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons or Saran gas or what have you. I have no need for an automatic rifle either but an automatic rifle can be used recreationally under controlled circumstances where a nuclear weapon or Saran gas cannot. We could continue and many people in this thread have already gone back and forth on the details of how much control and what types and so on and so forth. That's all beside the point to me. I would just like to see these discussions address the real fundamental philosophical questions rather than focus on the same old tired and obvious arguments based on personal biases.

There is a line I once heard used which is "one should look at the solutions to any problem and go with the one that allows the most freedom while still being effective". If it could be shown that creating more or very restrictive gun laws was the only effective means to reduce the incidence and devastation of mass murder then I would be onboard. Unfortunately I haven't seen the evidence for that. What I have seen is the reluctance of a society to address the mental health issues that plague a great many people in any meaningful way. It's harder and much more expensive. This issue is not alone as far as not being addressed at it's fundamental core either, that was my point. Until we stop politicizing these problems, we will NOT make any progress in solving them.

[Wilson]

Philosch, I think my self-exam suggestion applies much more to the average gun advocate than you, so I apologize. Personally I try very hard to go where logic takes me on all these issues, but I have my own prejudices, like everyone else. Like you I deplore the amazing ability of most people to discard logic and just believe whatever makes them feel better. Not in my nature, and just seems weird to me.

Regarding mental illness, we do need to do more, but only where it makes sense. Limited resources, and a lot of ineffective therapy, so we have to an honest cost-benefit analysis. May need to reconsider some of the laws regarding involuntary commitment.

[Lucylu]

Philosch! Where, oh where, have you been?!!

I'm at a loss to think of how to catch mental health and social problems at the root. Is it even possible? Sometimes it feels as if we are becoming so overcrowded and people are having children in order to be happy and to have a reason to get up in the morning, rather than facing their own problems before having children.

Why aren't we all teaching meditation in schools for example, as this is proven to help people be calmer and more happy? Why aren't we funding training camps for young men instead of young offender's prisons? Why are sensitive children told they are weak instead of gifted?

(Excuse my vent this evening)