Philosophy Discussion Forums

Lucylu wrote:

Misty wrote:"By owning a gun for personal protection, aren't you treating the world as guilty until proven innocent?"

People own hands that are used for personal protection, does the same question apply?

Hi Misty! No no, my question is open for all. My idiocy is open for scrutiny by all!

Anyway..

We don't 'own' hands. We are born with them. We evidently have evolutionary expectations that we will need to use our hands, to hold on to our mothers, to pick things up, to eat, to make things and if necessary to protect ourselves. We aren't bound to own guns. That is a choice.

It was a while back that this first came up but I think Spiral Out felt that my ideas in placing stricter regulations around owning and buying a gun suggested that the individual was guilty until proven innocent. But doesn't buying a gun for personal protection assume that others are guilty of wanting to harm us. If we then say no, it is 'just in case' and to protect ourselves, then the same can be said of the tighter restrictions on gun ownership. We don't have a choice to have hands, or to own knives for the essential daily activity of cooking and eating, but buying a gun for personal protection is a choice to specifically 'bear arms'.

I know that the very pro gun people like to say that guns are neutral and 'its people that kill people', which is essentially true, but it is also true from the anti gun perspective that guns were designed to shoot and kill others and are, in fact, a weapon.

Its true that you could also take a formula one race car and only drive it around the public streets, keeping to the speed limit, but that isn't really what the F1 car was designed to do. If you want to believe that it is then you are deluding yourself. If you are a proud gun owner, why not admit that you own guns because they are weapons, and you want to- why be defensive and say that they are the same as hands and knives?

I have never owned a gun. And unless someone cuts off my hands I own them, they are mine and they can be used to kill. I chose not to kill with my hands, but I may be confronted with someone who wants to kill or maim me and if I can deter them with my hands, I will do so. How can you put hands and knives in the same category? Knives and guns are in the same category. Knives were invented to cut the skins off of animals centuries ago. Do you ride in or drive a car? If so, you are in a potential weapon. Should all cars be taken away from the public to stop those that use cars to kill? If anyone thinks the devil will go away with removal of guns from the responsible, they are the ones deluding themselves. Have you read what it means to have the right to bear arms?

(Im not sure why but my quotey thing seems to have gone backwards..it should say 'Misty says..')

Lucylu wrote:Should all cars be taken away from the public to stop those that use cars to kill?

No, but they should be registered and be subject to licensing laws, training and supervision.

Lucylu wrote:If anyone thinks the devil will go away with removal of guns from the responsible, they are the ones deluding themselves.

I don't think anyone is saying this.

Lucylu wrote:unless someone cuts off my hands I own them

I don't really agree with this idea of 'owning' ones body. Its a confusing, materialistic label for something axiomatic. This implies a separation of ones mind and body, doesn't it? Ownership is of an object, not one's person. Just as one cannot truly own a slave, or one's children. A person can say that they do, but this isn't a reality. But maybe this confusion between us is just a case of semantics?

Lucylu wrote:Have you read what it means to have the right to bear arms?

As far as I know it is the right to own firearms and to protect oneself with the use of guns. But if I'm wrong, please tell me? My point was that this right implies that the 'Other' is guilty which seems to fly in the face of the same justification against stricter controls over gun ownership. I am only playing devils advocate here, to explore the principal. I didn't mean to say you personally were delusional, I would just prefer sometimes to forego the dialogue in which a gun is held to be neutral. If it is a natural right, then I see no need to pretend that a gun is not a weapon. I would rather that this fact was 'owned', is all I'm saying.

I would probably separate the hand, the knife and the gun into categories: the natural, the tool, the weapon etc. Obviously a knife could be classed as both a tool and a weapon. It is a given that almost anything can be used as a weapon in the wrong hands, but there's no need to belabour the point and refuse to define anything as a weapon. As has been said many times a weapon is only dangerous in the wrong hands. But it is still a weapon nonetheless.

Lucylu wrote:

I would probably separate the hand, the knife and the gun into categories: the natural, the tool, the weapon etc. Obviously a knife could be classed as both a tool and a weapon. It is a given that almost anything can be used as a weapon in the wrong hands, but there's no need to belabour the point and refuse to define anything as a weapon. As has been said many times a weapon is only dangerous in the wrong hands. But it is still a weapon nonetheless.

Hi Lucylu, I am rather glad you took this debate in this direction. You see the debate on gun control is really all about people control isn't it? If we follow this logic about what is and is not a weapon and what is or is not dangerous we will see that we have opened a 'Pandora's Box' for control freaks. Martial artists {ie. karate} have an ability to kill with one decisive blow - they could be very dangerous and the weapon is concealed - should we require registration and psychiatric evaluation for all those who learn karate? I used to be a book dealer and found books on lethal methods in karate - should these books be registered and/or kept locked up lest they get into the wrong hands? Some minds might be considered very dangerous because of ideas about freedom and 'the right to bear arms' - considered revolutionary back in the 1700s - oh yeah we fought a big war over this type of thinking didn't we? - we won and England lost. If England wants to disarm all its citizens and tell them they are safe and keep them in this delusional state so be it - but I do sympathise with the citizens of England who believe self-defense is a 'natural right of man'. One day a deranged martial artist will go on a spree and kill some people {its already happened with knife wielding assailants in Japan and China} - Will your great politicians decide all martial artists are inherently and potentially dangerous and therefore must be state controlled and registered? Or do they already require registration of martial artists in Britain? This forum is obviously being read in Britain should it be censored by your government to keep the people safe from dangerous ideas?

Where do you draw the line Lucylu? Do you want to be safe, really safe? Then give up all rights to individual freedom look for the most totalitarian mind controlling state you can find and just follow politically correct behavior and you will be safe - You will be very, very safe - but will you really be living -will you still own your own mind - Or will the state have taken that too away from you as simply as it took away your right to bear arms

Again gun control is not about guns - it's about people and how to control and enslave them - And history has shown it to be the precursor of genocides costing many millions of lives throughout the 20th Century - You see 'gun control' is far more dangerous than are guns.

Could we move the discussion from the realm of theory to the realm of practicality?

1. Are you in favor of universal background checks in the US, including gun shows?

2. Would you accept a national handgun registry?

3. Should there be penalties for owning guns not on said registry?

4. Should proof of competence be required before someone could legally own a gun?

5. Are there certain types of guns that should be outlawed?

6. Should the availability of bullets be strictly controlled?

Wilson wrote:Could we move the discussion from the realm of theory to the realm of practicality?

1. Are you in favor of universal background checks in the US, including gun shows?

2. Would you accept a national handgun registry?

3. Should there be penalties for owning guns not on said registry?

4. Should proof of competence be required before someone could legally own a gun?

5. Are there certain types of guns that should be outlawed?

6. Should the availability of bullets be strictly controlled?

My 2 cents worth

1. Sure

2. No...pointless

3. (see above)

4. Yes...makes sense and probably would make the most difference

5. On the fence about this....don't really need to do this if number 4 is carried out thoroughly enough

6. No...pointless

Just a note: As you can see by my answers, I'm in favor of control where the control is focused on the human aspect of the problem. Where the control is focused on the "gun" or "ammo" as the problem I'm against it simply because it's pointless, it doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

-- Updated July 9th, 2014, 1:56 pm to add the following --

Also a word about ammo and the issue of gun control gone amok. I live in the State of New York which as those of you in the US know, has gone right off the deep end on this issue. I own an odd caliber deer hunting rifle and as such the ammo is difficult to come by locally. The gun is a bolt action and only holds 4 rounds. Nothing fancy. Now I could until recently order ammo online and have it delivered through the US postal service with no issue. NYS has determined that this is dangerous somehow and is related to gun violence. Now I can have the ammo delivered to a local dealer for an extra fee, or If I find it at a local merchant there’s no limit on how much I can buy, hmm, and I can reload it myself for as many rounds I want. Can someone who believes this is about reducing gun violence explain how any rational person would believe that simply not allowing me to order ammo online is anything but a red herring?

This is why responsible gun owners like myself who are willing to do what it takes to get properly trained, take mandatory safety courses, submit to fingerprinting and background checks, pay all the fees and get blessed by the “state” to hunt or otherwise use a gun, then get told that we need to pay more money and be further inconvenienced, not for any other apparent reason then political expediency, get so animated about this issue. As if the ability to get ammo online has anything to do with school children being shot. I’m tired of rhetoric aimed and making me feel somehow responsible for these awful tragedies because I enjoy hunting.

I’m not an NRA member but I’m starting to understand why someone might feel it necessary to stand up and point out that “the emperor has no clothes on”.

And this my friends is why I would like the powers that be to stop focusing on the tools and start focusing on the human beings behind the tools that commit these heinous acts.

Hi Universal Alien

Did you read my post to you a few posts back? I will try to repost if not.

UniversalAlien wrote:If England wants to disarm all its citizens and tell them they are safe and keep them in this delusional state so be it - but I do sympathise with the citizens of England who believe self-defense is a 'natural right of man'

I don't understand the last part? Do you mean that they dont believe it is a natural right, which would seem to follow on from your point?

UniversalAlien wrote:This forum is obviously being read in Britain should it be censored by your government to keep the people safe from dangerous ideas?

Going to extremes isn't really helpful. There are countries that censor the media and internet but England isn't one of them. If anything our media is quite savage to the politicians and the State.

UniversalAlien wrote:we won and England lost.

I could actually feel you stick your tongue out then! Congratulations for being young at heart- that must be why you have managed to live so long. What is it now, 250 years since you personally fought in the American Revolution, WITH french military backing?

UniversalAlien wrote:precursor of genocides

Genocides are surely caused by sociopathic dictators, not by guns. Its not guns that kill people remember, its people!

Philosch wrote:This is why responsible gun owners like myself who are willing to do what it takes to get properly trained, take mandatory safety courses, submit to fingerprinting and background checks, pay all the fees and get blessed by the “state” to hunt or otherwise use a gun, then get told that we need to pay more money and be further inconvenienced, not for any other apparent reason then political expediency, get so animated about this issue.

I agree but isn't this a symptom of modern life, not just re gun licensing? With such huge companies and such huge populations, there seems to be little real personal trust or contact anymore. Its all paperwork, risk assessments and insurance. Everything is recorded and what is written on their computer screen is taken as fact, no matter how many times I try to call up these damn customer service phone lines. Very frustrating. I guess this is just a side affect of some of the other benefits such as the raising of basic standards of living.

I'm not sure how to manage the nonsense that comes out of it- as you say it is often doing no good at all and just causes upset. There must be some sort of complaints procedure or forum for suggestions?

When there are more deaths when innocent bystanders have no firearms to protect themselves, than when they do have firearms, it's silly to speak with your heart, not your brain, about the supposed indications of gun violence over what is actually violence stemming from negligence of people's emotional drives.

Every type of violence is the result of emotional negligence - I'd like anyone to compete with my solid statement.

There are countless gun owners - when a few psychologically unstable ones go on a killing spree because of emotional negligence in their lives, being called aliens, weird, monsters, or some other form of abandonment - guns are to blame? Let's refrain from the blame game, as all blame is the result of reaction, not reason. The real issue is how we're raising our fellow people into emotionally withdrawn creatures that are lost without morals, and have no idea how to achieve civility within this cold despair we as a society have brought upon them with our self-entitlement, judgment and negligence. The gun is a symbol of not only power, but anger and loss of control - remember that the pain inflicted on these people, is the pain being reflected off of the gunman, as well. That pain, was brought upon them by our negligence.

There are three types of people in this world:

Those that make things happen.

Those that watch things happen.

And those that wonder what happened (every pro-gun control fits this description, as they never seem to put any effort in understanding the real circumstances, but rather act on feeling and reaction solely).

Lucylu wrote: I agree but isn't this a symptom of modern life, not just re gun licensing? With such huge companies and such huge populations, there seems to be little real personal trust or contact anymore. Its all paperwork, risk assessments and insurance. Everything is recorded and what is written on their computer screen is taken as fact, no matter how many times I try to call up these damn customer service phone lines. Very frustrating. I guess this is just a side affect of some of the other benefits such as the raising of basic standards of living.

I'm not sure how to manage the nonsense that comes out of it- as you say it is often doing no good at all and just causes upset. There must be some sort of complaints procedure or forum for suggestions?

Well it's really a symptom of government overreach and the notion that the government needs to respond immediately to every crisis with a knee jerk reaction. So you are pointing out the typical problems with bureaucracy in general, and while I agree they are annoying, I think this is deeper then that. The government can't just legislate away every problem, nor can it guarantee nothing bad will ever happen to anyone and so on and so forth. The Sandy Hook tragedy lead to a midnight backdoor deal in NY called the "Safe Act", parts of which have already been deemed unconstitutional. There's really nothing in the Safe Act that would have had any effect whatsoever on a Sandy Hook type situation but the Governor seized upon everyone's outrage to pass a hurried law for sheer political gain and although it may be standard operating procedure for various politicians I still find it disgusting that a politician would play off any tragedy to boost their own ratings. I'm not naïve, I know it's they way of things, I just don't like it. As I stated in an earlier post, IMO if we don't take the politics out of these very serious and real issues as much as we possibly can, we are doomed to bear witness to many more tragedies.

Thanks, Philosch, for your answers. Could you explain why a national gun registry wouldn't be a good thing, with penalties for those possessing weapons not recorded? Catch a felon with guns not registered and remove him from society for a while.

Lucylu wrote:I did finally think of a counterargument for the 'innocent until proven guilty stance' to being able to own guns (not that its really relevant anymore but I'm still keen to know your response):

By owning a gun for personal protection, aren't you treating the world as guilty until proven innocent?

Not at all. I'm not interfering in their lives or affecting their choices in any way, shape or form. That's the difference. I'll treat them as guilty when they act like they're guilty.

Lucylu wrote:Its true that you could also take a formula one race car and only drive it around the public streets, keeping to the speed limit, but that isn't really what the F1 car was designed to do.

A Formula 1 reference! I love it!

>>>

Philosch, if you haven't read any of my posts in this thread then I just wanted to let you know that I'm with you 100%.

Wilson,

It's not so much that a gun registry for handguns is a good or bad idea, it's that it's pretty much irrelevant to this mass murder discussion. I might concede in fact that it might be particularly useful for many cases of armed robbery and/or drive by type shootings where the criminal is trying to hide his identity. In the context of these mass shootings where the politicians often bring up this idea, it's quite frankly another red herring. What good is it going to do to stop a mass shooting, I've have no clue.

Lucylu,

If someone is threating you then they are guilty, they are guilty of threating you. No trial is necessary. Will or do people over react and jump to quick judgment and shoot people unnecessarily? Maybe, but to my knowledge that is not a recognized issue, it simply is so rare as to not be an issue. The recent case down in Florida was troubling but it was one case against a very many in Florida where the presence of a firearm has saved innocent people. Maybe additional safe guards with regards to the Florida law are in order but overall it has been very effective. Almost all the time a gun is used to thwart a criminal it turns out to be very legitimate.

Spiral Out,

I have read several of your posts and I'm with you as well. You certainly did not need my help but I just couldn't help myself given the fact that there is this "assumed" proportionality between gun control and the occurrence of "mass" shootings. The second false assumption is that those of us who enjoy hunting and carrying a gun are all NRA member, right wing fanatics who are against perfectly reasonable gun control. This issue just gets misrepresented and hijacked all the time by politicians with agendas. Thanks for the vote of confidence. ( I actually think the NRA has some good programs and for the most part is a safety minded organization, I just don't like their political arm, however I'm starting to understand why some think it's needed.)

Once again, I repeat my request of those who are pro-gun. Please answer these six questions, as Philosch did, so we all know where each other stand. For those you disagree with, explain why.

1. Are you in favor of universal background checks in the US, including gun shows?

2. Would you accept a national handgun registry?

3. Should there be penalties for owning guns not on said registry?

4. Should proof of competence be required before someone could legally own a gun?

5. Are there certain types of guns that should be outlawed?

6. Should the availability of bullets be strictly controlled?

Philosch wrote:If someone is threating you then they are guilty, they are guilty of threating you. No trial is necessary.

Threatening requires action - action fueled by emotion. Anger, frustration and confusion to be exact. There's a stereotype gunman that's a scared man which doesn't know who to shoot, but wants to shoot because "I have to; I have no choice". All murders are the result of a root motive - it's important for us to not deal with these situations emotionally, but empirically. Another tip to consider, is that love triangles are concluded to be the most ruthless and dangerous mission for any law enforcer. Serial killers, and historical machines of death are very few in between - even they have a root motive when you dig underneath their "perfectly normal childhood".

Wilson wrote:Once again, I repeat my request of those who are pro-gun. Please answer these six questions, as Philosch did, so we all know where each other stand. For those you disagree with, explain why.

1. Are you in favor of universal background checks in the US, including gun shows?

2. Would you accept a national handgun registry?

3. Should there be penalties for owning guns not on said registry?

4. Should proof of competence be required before someone could legally own a gun?

5. Are there certain types of guns that should be outlawed?

6. Should the availability of bullets be strictly controlled?

OK, Wilson I'll overcome my prejudice of your concepts and attempt a serious answer. One reason for this is an interesting pro-gun article got me thinking of a solution to the 'so-called gun control problem'. First here is the headlined article coming from another website with the PDF file source link:

Murder rates dropping as more states allow concealed weapons
PDf source: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.or ... States.pdf

I remember when Florida was the first state to allow easy ability to concealed weapons permits and the gun controllers pedicted all hell would break loose - didn't happen that way and in fact was instrumental in dropping crime rates - many states have followed suit and the licensed concealed weapons holders cause few problems and are instrumental in decliining crime rates where licenses are granted.

As we have seen gun bans and confiscations are both ineffective and as in many historical cases throughout the 20th Century facilitated genocide by some governments. So let us forget about the gun for a moment and consider the owner - isn't that what worries people most - guns in the wrong hands, such as homicidal lunatics?

So I come up with this solution based upon preserving the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

I will call it UniversalAlien's Universal Gun License.

It is issued in three stages.

Stage one of this license would allow any US citizen not so barred by law {ie. felons and those judged mentally incompetent} to own and collect guns but stage one of the license would limit use to non-lethal ammunition {ie. rubber or plastic bullets} mainly for target shooting.

Stage two would be right to use for self-defense and sporting purposes and would require a background check and a limited competency licensing procedure - It does not grant right to carry.

Stage three would be similar to the 'concealed carry permits' now being issued by many states and would require a more extensive background check and training in use of firearms - I believe all states that issue concealed gun licenses have such a procedure currently in place and it has been shown to be instrumental in reducing crime.

So that's it Wilson and even though the technicalities will have to be worked out, this is the best compromise I'm willing to give, and I know many on either side of the gun debate will not be happy with it but intelligent compromise built the US and if we are to still maintain a Constitution with its famous Second Amendment maybe this is the way to go.

Guns don't kill people - People misusing guns kill people.

UniversalAlien wrote:UniversalAlien's Universal Gun License

Hooray! A man with a plan!

I have been thinking all day that it would be lovely if the pro gun crowd 'took the bull by the horns' and laid out realistic licensing rules. After all, you guys are the ones who know what you're talking about and what will make a difference. This reluctance sometimes does feel like, as you said, little more than prejudice.

I do appreciate you all feel aggrieved by anti-gun people making arbitrary laws that don't really help the situation- but I'm sure everyone would be so relieved if the pro gun people themselves took affirmative action to stop irresponsible gun ownership.

The responsible gun owners, instead of being on the defensive, should be the ones taking the lead on this and saying that you are just as concerned and overwhelmed by what is happening in instances like the school shootings and be impressing people with the realistic, concrete changes that would minimise the risk of these things happening again. Whatever you come up with will be much better than what people like Cuomo (of NY's Safe Act) are suggesting.

If not, it seems the anti gun crowd will continue to desperately make up laws that they think may help, groping around in the dark.


...


Actually, I'll rephrase that. The responsible gun owners are probably not overwhelmed in the same sense. It is the people who don't know about guns and responsible gun ownership that are overwhelmed because they don't and can't know what the answer is, which (lets face it) leaves only the imagination. It stands to reason that it be the people who understand responsible gun ownership who are the ones to come up the most effective solution for all.

I think you may misconstrue the hysteria and ignorance as attack but really it is a desperate cry for a real solution.