Philosophy Discussion Forums

Again, why no mention of the recent Canadian gun-related shooting incident?

Do you really think that if you take away the guns then you also take away the anger, the frustration or the violence within these people? That's insanity.

All you're doing with gun bans or gun control is to remove one specific outlet for their rage, thus increasing their rage because you're not addressing the root cause of the rage, you're just treating the symptom.

Spiral Out wrote: All you're doing with gun bans or gun control is to remove one specific outlet for their rage, thus increasing their rage because you're not addressing the root cause of the rage, you're just treating the symptom.

I'd rather they used some other outlet for their rage than a gun.

But the guy in Canada used a gun and was a little harder to kill because of it... however not too hard - because it was just a Winchester .30-30 lever action rifle - one can only assume he could not get his hands on a better combat weapon.

He would have been a lot harder to take down if he was mowing people down in the streets with a Humvee H1, Ford F350, Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Sequoia or some other very large powerful SUV than with any assault rifle. Why is there no push for these vehicles to be banned?

If you are to argue that the reason nobody is pushing to ban these vehicles is because nobody is using them for the purposes of mass murder then that's completely irrelevant to the case because the potential is there for that specific use and as is the case with guns they are merely a tool for the destruction these people wish to commit.

We can all agree that there is at least an equal potential for mass harm through the misuse of either guns or vehicles, and that the associated control or banning of either would be due to the effective potential of each. Gun control and/or gun bans are based on the potential harm these devices can be used to inflict upon people.

Therefore, being that both possess equal potential, there must be some other factor involved for the push for extended controls or bans on firearms yet not for dangerous vehicles. That factor is not any current incident involving the use of firearms since the potential for future violent use has not yet been realized, that factor is a conditioned (irrational) fear of the devices themselves based on previous violent use, which is diverting the attention away from the real problem which is the mental states of the people using them for violent ends. It is merely a matter of perception.

The answer is not in limiting the tools (if this were really the strategy then they would have to push to ban all available tools, such as large powerful SUVs) that these violent people have at their disposal but to address the source of the core violence within these people.

Whomever thinks that people will not resort to hijacking these large powerful SUVs in order to commit their violence is quite naive indeed. There is just as much potential for mass murder with one of the powerful SUVs as with any assault rifle.

It's just that assault rifles are more scary to people because of the societal stigmatization that people reinforce and perpetuate through the parroting of misinformation.

You're immune to reason on this issue - that is what makes it so sad, and so scary. The USA is full of people denying the reality of the correlation between 'access to guns' and 'gun deaths'. You write walls of text to deny it, or compare it to something else, when it is as clear as daylight. As I say, 'immune to reason'. That is why the problem exists.

Not that the latest post from Quotidian has anything resembling a substantive argument to address but…

Quotidian wrote:You're immune to reason on this issue

Where is your evidence to support this claim? Making the claim doesn't automatically make it true. In fact, I've provided an abundance of reason on this issue, which you've yet to properly address.

Quotidian wrote:that is what makes it so sad, and so scary.

Scary? Have your irrational fears gotten the best of you? That would be sad indeed.

Quotidian wrote:The USA is full of people denying the reality of the correlation between 'access to guns' and 'gun deaths'.

Just the USA, or are you just more than a bit biased against that particular country? Why no mention of the recent Canadian gun-related shooting incident? Not that I expect an answer, because we already know why you've avoided any mention of that particular incident.

As far as the correlation between 'access to guns' and 'gun deaths' goes, well no **** there Captain Obvious. Nobody is denying that guns contribute to gun deaths. Vehicles contribute to vehicle deaths. Airplanes contribute to airplane deaths. You're avoiding the underlying issue.

A better idea would be for you to address this underlying issue and the arguments that I have made against extensive and unnecessary gun controls and/or bans.

Quotidian wrote:You write walls of text to deny it, or compare it to something else, when it is as clear as daylight.

When there is a massive amount of rational argument to be had against extensive and unnecessary gun controls and/or bans then you get these "walls of text". However, I see no counterarguments from you so I'll assume you've no ability to refute my arguments, or my "walls of text", as you say.

Quotidian wrote:As I say, 'immune to reason'. That is why the problem exists.

The real reason the problem exists is because of people who are only able to see the symptom but not the root cause, the cause being the fundamental reason these people commit their violence, not the modes, the methods, the tools nor the outlets of violence used, or who simply deny it in order to further some nationalist political agenda, or to attempt to shame or mislead others into a false phobia or to apply ineffective public policy.

Immune to reason? Yes, some people certainly are.

Spiral Out wrote:He would have been a lot harder to take down if he was mowing people down in the streets with a Humvee H1, Ford F350, Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Sequoia or some other very large powerful SUV than with any assault rifle. Why is there no push for these vehicles to be banned?

Not many people actually do that and cars are pretty useful for society. It is a bit like how H2O kills far more people than cyanide, but we don't ban H2O from our food.

We can all agree that there is at least an equal potential for mass harm through the misuse of either guns or vehicles, and that the associated control or banning of either would be due to the effective potential of each.

No I think the attitude towards a policy should be determined by how effective it is at making the overall situation better. The danger of guns or cars is just a contributing factor to that. In practice the model you propose would be very ineffective and probably difficult to manage.

which is diverting the attention away from the real problem which is the mental states of the people using them for violent ends. It is merely a matter of perception.

Dealing with one issue does not preclude dealing with the other issue. Otherwise 'the real problem is world hunger' (or for that matter 'smelly feet') might be a valid response to every discussion.

but to address the source of the core violence within these people.

Do you have a serious plan to achieve that? preemptive electro-shock therapy? I suspect you don't.

It's just that assault rifles are more scary to people because of the societal stigmatization that people reinforce and perpetuate through the parroting of misinformation.

So would you say that misinformation about the danger of guns is a useful tool for saving lives via controlling society (by diverting crazies away from other tools)? Interesting way of looking at it.

ScottieX wrote:Not many people actually do that and cars are pretty useful for society.

Guns are also useful to society. Just because an extremely small percentage of the population (violent criminals) can't control themselves doesn't justify penalizing the lawful gun owners who represent the overwhelming majority of the population. These lawful citizens represent the real gun owners of America, not the criminals using guns to commit their violence, who are not gun owners. These criminals steal weapons or otherwise obtain them unlawfully. They are not gun owners.

People who have a proven history of a lawful existence in society should be able to own whatever weapon they want, within reason of course. Owning an assault rifle is well within reason. Tanks, RPGs and nuclear missiles would not be within reason.

ScottieX wrote:No I think the attitude towards a policy should be determined by how effective it is at making the overall situation better.

Gun control and/or gun bans aren't making the situation any better. It didn't make it any better in the UK where they have a higher rate of knife crime and home invasions.

ScottieX wrote:Dealing with one issue does not preclude dealing with the other issue. Otherwise 'the real problem is world hunger' (or for that matter 'smelly feet') might be a valid response to every discussion.

No, I don't think world hunger is the underlying issue for violence using guns. Just because someone is hungry (or has smelly feet) doesn't mean they're going to commit violence using a gun.

ScottieX wrote:Do you have a serious plan to achieve that? preemptive electro-shock therapy? I suspect you don't.

Why would I? I'm not a professional who's trained to properly address the issue of Human violence. But that doesn't mean that I'm unable to recognize that it is the behavior of violent people that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the tools they use to commit their violence.

ScottieX wrote:So would you say that misinformation about the danger of guns is a useful tool for saving lives via controlling society (by diverting crazies away from other tools)?

The misinformation about guns is the selective focus on the extremely rare number of incidents of violence using guns (mass murder) in relation to the overwhelming number of non-violent incidents using guns.

There are millions upon millions (if not billions) of gun-related non-violent events and only a handful of gun-related mass murder incidents. The problem has been overblown by the media who live and die by the ratings that their stories draw.

Spiral Out wrote:Guns are also useful to society.

Do you mean in the sense that some people may want to do some inefficient vermin control? I can see there might be a benefit there - but I don't know anyone who suggests banning guns entirely.

It is generally just a matter of having a few more tests registration etc. A lot of countries have things like car registration fees, theory drivers tests, practical drivers tests, road side stops and alcohol/licence checks, restrictions on legitimate/road worthy vehicles etc.

not the criminals using guns to commit their violence, who are not gun owners. These criminals steal weapons or otherwise obtain them unlawfully. They are not gun owners.

Might as well keep their behavior illegal - you might want to catch them for it - before as opposed to after they shoot you.

People who have a proven history of a lawful existence in society should be able to own whatever weapon they want, within reason of course. Owning an assault rifle is well within reason. Tanks, RPGs and nuclear missiles would not be within reason.

What criteria are you using to define what is "with-in reason"?

Gun control and/or gun bans aren't making the situation any better. It didn't make it any better in the UK where they have a higher rate of knife crime and home invasions.

So you have 4.7 time higher murder rate and you celebrate your home invasion rate? Home invasion isn't that scary if you know the guy doesn't have a gun. Anyway I had a look at nation master and it indicated the US has a lot more burglaries than almost anyone else too so I can only assume that the statistic on home invasion is probably do do with different national definitions of "home invasion"?

Why would I? I'm not a professional who's trained to properly address the issue of Human violence. But that doesn't mean that I'm unable to recognize that it is the behavior of violent people that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the tools they use to commit their violence.

Maybe another example. Lets say your doctor tells you you are overweight. you determine the reason you are overweight is because you quit doing tennis. So you start again and are bewildered why you still don't loose weight. Sure you sleep for the rest of the day eat only lard 5 meals a day, are genetically predisposed to be large, have a medical condition you are not treating and have a dozen other obvious factors .... but you fixed the "real" reason....

Obviously if you are sensible you would consider all the factors.

ScottieX wrote:There are millions upon millions (if not billions) of gun-related non-violent events and only a handful of gun-related mass murder incidents.

That is one scary country you live in.

-- Updated October 26th, 2014, 12:16 am to add the following --

Also worth noting is that UK assault rates were much higher prior to gun control (as measured in wound or pure assault terms) and dropped dramatically after the UK tightened gun control.

Some interesting reading on the subject: telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord ... urope.html

ScottieX wrote:but I don't know anyone who suggests banning guns entirely.

Can the average citizen own guns there in the UK? What are the specific procedures and restrictions?

ScottieX wrote:It is generally just a matter of having a few more tests registration etc.

Why not just make people fill out endless paperwork and submit to intrusive investigations into their private lives every month, week or every day? If it was really about keeping guns out of the hands of anyone who might use it for purposes other than that of strict prescriptive uses then you would have to dig so deep into people's private lives that it would become unacceptably intrusive and counterproductive to absolutely everyone, hence a complete elimination of firearms.

ScottieX wrote:What criteria are you using to define what is "with-in reason"?

The same criteria everybody else uses: subjective judgment.

ScottieX wrote:Home invasion isn't that scary if you know the guy doesn't have a gun.

That statement is laughably absurd. Tell that to the single mother of two small children who has some guy in her home in the middle of the night. Did you think before you said that?

ScottieX wrote:Anyway I had a look at nation master and it indicated the US has a lot more burglaries than almost anyone else too so I can only assume that the statistic on home invasion is probably do do with different national definitions of "home invasion"?

As I've said before, statistics are manipulable ****, and provably so.

ScottieX wrote:Maybe another example.

That "example" is not an analogous to what we're talking about. My point was that violent people are the real cause of violence with guns. This is obvious as guns don't go around shooting people on their own. Taking the guns away only shifts the mode of violence in the individual. Taking things away from someone doesn't change their inherent nature. If someone is violent, then they're violent no matter what they can put in their hands.

I've already made this argument previously. Look back through my previous arguments. I've made all the logical arguments that can be made against gun bans and unnecessary controls.

ScottieX wrote:That is one scary country you live in.

Not at all, but maybe to those who form such judgments by relying on the media scaremongers who only report the negative side of life because that's what people love to watch vicariously. "If it bleeds it leads" is a popular media motto.

Which would you rather watch? Take a look at yourself. TOOL wrote a song titled "Vicarious" that puts such Human nature under the microscope; the type of Human behavior that most people try to deny to themselves.

ScottieX wrote:Also worth noting is that UK assault rates were much higher prior to gun control (as measured in wound or pure assault terms) and dropped dramatically after the UK tightened gun control.

So you're finally admitting that the culture in the UK is just as violent as everybody else. At least that's some progress.

But take a closer look at your statistics. Knife crime went up, home invasions went up, domestic abuse went up, public brawls went up, gang violence went up, etc., etc.

Reference: telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord ... urope.html

Make no mistake, people are the problem, violent people to be precise. Why are people violent? Probably due to either mental illness, emotional oversensitivity, perhaps they weren't treated with due respect, perhaps they weren't allowed a voice to be heard, perhaps they were bullied in school, perhaps they were sexually abused by a mentally ill pedophile, perhaps they were emotionally abused, perhaps they weren't given enough love and attention, perhaps they're being taxed into poverty, perhaps they're having things taken away from them without due cause, perhaps they're being harassed unnecessarily by authorities, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps if we as a society stop being assholes to each other then the violence might go away or at least be reduced to the point that we can have guns for recreational purposes and not use them as a means to try to demand respect or to force a commanding voice on those who would not listen.

Before I opened this post I already deduced your opinion on this subject... I was correct. Funny isn't it?

Spiral Out wrote:As I've said before, statistics are manipulable ****, and provably so.

Pretty much any statistics that doesn't agree with you is manipulated or there is some external factor skewing up the results... except if it agrees with you

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-a ... rol-2013-1

See! It works on other countries to have bans and control on hand guns! Here is the proof.

"Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co ... australia/

Furthermore I do not feel safe on the street if I know most people carry a firearm much like you don't feel safe to leave a child near someone accused of paedophilia. It is the same thing for me.

-- Updated October 26th, 2014, 6:24 pm to add the following --

Spiral Out wrote:Why not just make people fill out endless paperwork and submit to intrusive investigations into their private lives every month, week or every day? If it was really about keeping guns out of the hands of anyone who might use it for purposes other than that of strict prescriptive uses then you would have to dig so deep into people's private lives that it would become unacceptably intrusive and counterproductive to absolutely everyone, hence a complete elimination of firearms.

Are you serious?! ScottieX actually made very intelligent remarks and at points funny of your ideas... and all you can come up is with reductio to absurdum argument?

Spiral Out wrote:That "example" is not an analogous to what we're talking about. My point was that violent people are the real cause of violence with guns.

I agree but at the same time I would love to know the reason why crime is comparatively higher in the US than Europe. Indulge me.

ScottieX wrote:That is one scary country you live in.

Spiral Out wrote:Not at all

I don't pay attention to scaremongering, that's why I reject this new fad which is pedophelia hysteria... but anyway, I have been in the US, didn't like it. It's a very uncaring society and selfish self centred society. Prefer European culture.

Do you realize you are biased by mostly quoting the Telegraph... mostly.

Spiral Out wrote:Perhaps if we as a society stop being assholes to each other then the violence might go away or at least be reduced to the point that we can have guns for recreational purposes

Completely agree with you! I wonder when the time comes American culture will start to see itself in the mirror and see it's rotten way of doing Ethics.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... l-32-years

Pardon me, but if you can support your views on the Telegraph I can support mine on the Guardian

Spiral Out wrote:Can the average citizen own guns there in the UK? What are the specific procedures and restrictions?

you mean can you get a gun if you have a good reason, like putting down sick animals? yes. Easier if you just want a shotgun or an air rifle.

Why not just make people fill out endless paperwork and submit to intrusive investigations into their private lives every month, week or every day?

because the restrictions that the rest of the world have are sufficient to massively reduce gun related homicides.

The same criteria everybody else uses: subjective judgment.

That isn't a good basis for law and it also isn't a good basis for an argument in a forum.

That statement is laughably absurd. Tell that to the single mother of two small children who has some guy in her home in the middle of the night. Did you think before you said that?

It seems you just don't understand what it is like to live in a place where that isn't really very scary. It is like talking to people from South Africa. Somehow what would be minor events here, are life and death struggles there. It's just not like that anywhere that I have been aside from maybe the USA.

Burglaries have never happened to me - but my parents once had something stolen from their room. I think it was the scrawny little local thief who I could lift up with one arm. Have you ever been burglarized?

As I've said before, statistics are manipulable ****, and provably so.

yes and the ones you started with were the ones that - as I understand it - the authors themselves have admitted were manipulated.

That "example" is not an analogous to what we're talking about. My point was that violent people are the real cause of violence with guns. This is obvious as guns don't go around shooting people on their own.

You also don't go around getting fat if you have no genetics or if you don't eat anything, so i don't see your "not analogous" point..

Not at all, but maybe to those who form such judgments by relying on the media scaremongers who only report the negative side of life because that's what people love to watch vicariously. "If it bleeds it leads" is a popular media motto.

No I an relying on the large numbers of violent events you keep referring to. I've never been the victim of a violent event since school, and even then it was pretty much consensual.

So you're finally admitting that the culture in the UK is just as violent as everybody else. At least that's some progress.

More violent than a lot of places - less violent it would seem than the USA.

Make no mistake, people are the problem, violent people to be precise. Why are people violent?

Mostly genetics I suppose. After all, dropping a Y chromosome massively reduces the amount of violence.

ScottieX wrote:you mean can you get a gun if you have a good reason, like putting down sick animals? yes

That's a subjective judgment as far as what a "good reason" is. Funny how our own subjective judgments seem to take precedence over other's subjective judgments.

ScottieX wrote:because the restrictions that the rest of the world have are sufficient to massively reduce gun related homicides.

Funnier still how that seems to be just enough. But can you justify why that is just enough? Actually, it's just another subjective judgment.

Interesting how when we're driving down the highway we're always going just the right speed and everyone else is either going too fast or too slow (unless they're going the same speed as us, that is). Interesting huh?

ScottieX wrote:That isn't a good basis for law and it also isn't a good basis for an argument in a forum.

But that's exactly what it is, subjective line drawing and subjective judgement, just like everything else people do.

ScottieX wrote:It seems you just don't understand what it is like to live in a place where that isn't really very scary.

I live in a place that isn't scary at all, whatever you mean by "scary". Maybe you're just an overly fearful person.

ScottieX wrote:It's just not like that anywhere that I have been aside from maybe the USA.

Well of course. The USA is so utterly backwards and scary that people are fleeing by the millions! Please. If the US was as "scary" and violent as you foreigners make it out to be then people wouldn't be flocking here, risking their lives to get into the US. They would exiting the country en masse. That's just not occurring. Actually, the opposite is occurring. Why would all of these people be trying so desperately, risking their lives to get into such a "horrible" country? Please think before you comment.

ScottieX wrote:yes and the ones you started with were the ones that - as I understand it - the authors themselves have admitted were manipulated.

But you're own statistics are quite precise and unbiased, I'm sure. Please. We know better.

ScottieX wrote:You also don't go around getting fat if you have no genetics or if you don't eat anything, so i don't see your "not analogous" point..

I've already explained it to you. Did you miss it?

ScottieX wrote:No I an relying on the large numbers of violent events you keep referring to.

I've not made any references to any "large number of violent events".

ScottieX wrote:I've never been the victim of a violent event since school, and even then it was pretty much consensual.

Neither have I, what's your point?

ScottieX wrote:More violent than a lot of places - less violent it would seem than the USA.

The UK is the most violent place in Europe. More violent per capita than the US.

ScottieX wrote:Mostly genetics I suppose. After all, dropping a Y chromosome massively reduces the amount of violence.

You suppose wrong.

Spiral Out wrote:
The UK is the most violent place in Europe. More violent per capita than the US.

Says the conservative websites you see? They also say the Earth has 6000 years old you know?

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/data ... _rate.xlsx

Homicide rate US: 4.1

UK: 1.0

Teralek wrote:Says the conservative websites you see? They also say the Earth has 6000 years old you know?

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/data ... _rate.xlsx

Homicide rate US: 4.1

UK: 1.0

It seems you'll believe almost anything, except the truth.

You guys over in the UK can't even be trusted with pepper spray! That's pathetic!

Spiral Out wrote:
It seems you'll believe almost anything, except the truth.

Please send me your address as I want to give you this:



If I knew the forums here were so funny now I wouldn't be absent so long!

-- Updated October 26th, 2014, 8:50 pm to add the following --

actually I live here in the UK, but I am not from here. I lived most of my life in another European country. I have travelled a lot too... so I can compare a few things