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

[Spiral Out]

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

Don't your cherry-picked "statistics" tell you enough?

Funnier still how your own country's level of gun control seems to be just enough and just right. But can you justify why it is just enough and just right?

If it's not just another subjective judgment then explain objectively how it's precisely the magic and perfect level of restriction.

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?

As I've asked before, with only one person brave enough to answer, what is the proper kill limit? Because that's what this is really all about.

By the way, the US has 5 times the population the UK has.

[Teralek]

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

Don't your cherry-picked "statistics" tell you enough?

Funnier still how your own country's level of gun control seems to be just enough and just right. But can you justify why it is just enough and just right?

If it's not just another subjective judgment then explain objectively how it's precisely the magic and perfect level of restriction.

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?

As I've asked before, with only one person brave enough to answer, what is the proper kill limit? Because that's what this is really all about.

Jesus! talk about self projection!!! At least admit that we are both cherry picking because you seem to acknowledge there are 2 "competing" statistical sources!

I didn't say it is enough and that it is just right in the UK. I think for example laws in Canada regarding this subject are very good, not perfect but very good! What I say and I haven't because I lost most of my time laughing at this post is that:

gun control (background checks, permits, psychological test, banning of military grade weaponry e.g. AK47) will dramatically lower the rate of mass murder. Simply because you can only commit mass murder with a gun. It's quite hard with anything else, by comparison. Automatic gun helps you a lot here. It's better that violent people discharge their anger with other things. They kill less people without access to those.

The "kill limit" is background checks and no automatic weapons because they are not for self defence. If they are for self defence I argue I need an atomic bomb so I can feel safe, I and should get one without interference from the state.

I feel at a loss regarding your highway metaphor BTW. You can elaborate if you feel like it.

[Spiral Out]

At least admit that we are both cherry picking because you seem to acknowledge there are 2 "competing" statistical sources!

I will absolutely admit that, so we can toss out the "statistics war" and instead use common sense.

The "kill limit" is background checks and no automatic weapons because they are not for self defence. If they are for self defence I argue I need an atomic bomb so I can feel safe, I and should get one without interference from the state.

You've avoided answering this question because you know that answering it will reveal your hypocrisy.

I feel at a loss regarding your highway metaphor BTW. You can elaborate if you feel like it.

It's pretty clear that it's representative of how our own subjective judgement seems to be just right, and that everyone else's is just a bit off.

I didn't say it is enough and that it is just right in the UK. I think for example laws in Canada regarding this subject are very good, not perfect but very good!

Not even close, 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. You've only shifted the means, modes and tools of the violence because you haven't addressed the core problem which is why people are violent in the first place.

If people weren't violent and didn't feel they had to resort to violent acts then we wouldn't be having this discussion even if guns were everywhere. Without addressing the underlying issue of Human violence, and even if guns didn't exist, we would still be having this debate about knives, bats, or some other device used for violent means.

That is irrefutable.

[Teralek]

You've avoided answering this question because you know that answering it will reveal your hypocrisy.

I feel at a loss regarding your highway metaphor BTW. You can elaborate if you feel like it.

It's pretty clear that it's representative of how our own subjective judgement seems to be just right, and that everyone else's is just a bit off.

I didn't say it is enough and that it is just right in the UK. I think for example laws in Canada regarding this subject are very good, not perfect but very good!

Not even close, 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. You've only shifted the means, modes and tools of the violence because you haven't addressed the core problem which is why people are violent in the first place.

If people weren't violent and didn't feel they had to resort to violent acts then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Even if guns didn't exist, we would still be having this debate about knives, bats, or some other device used for violent means.

That is irrefutable.

Seriously... this is not the Spiral I knew... I think something happen to you man in the last few months since I been away... I already presented proof that crime rates in UK are at an all time low... don't know what else can I do since you are in denial.

I don't know what the hell you want me to answer. Maybe I don't know what you mean by the "kill limit".

Sometimes when I am driving in the motorway I look at my speed meter and decrease speed or when I want to have some fun I push it over the limit. At these situations I am not going at the right speed. All speeds in the motorway are correct as long as they are within the law... I don't own the right speed

What is really tiresome is that I talked about mass murdering which is an abomination and you are talking about brawling... I will keep talking about mass murders and you can rant about brawls but that's not the proper way to address a discussion. I actually don't know if you are talking about Canada or UK now when you refereed to petty crime...

I already told you that I rather have people resorting to "knife crime" than have access to automatic weapons because innocent people are killed.

I would actually like to know your opinion one the causes of violence...

-- Updated October 26th, 2014, 9:44 pm to add the following --

*because LESS innocent people are killed!

PS. Please put back the edit button...

[Spiral Out]

As far as the mass murder aspect of this debate goes, I've already addressed that:

"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."

People who wish to commit murder, especially mass murder, will do whatever they can to achieve their violent intents. Gun control and/or gun bans will not prevent this.

I would actually like to know your opinion one the causes of violence…

I've addressed this also:

"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."

[Teralek]

As far as the mass murder aspect of this debate goes, I've already addressed that.

"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?

Well I think ScottieX did a good job debunking these points. But I will try something else...

As a state of fact how many mass murders are commited by mowing people with SUVs and how many with automatic weapons? If as you say if would be better to do it with SUVs don't you wonder why mass murders are not committed more with SUVs?? Really you should see mass murdering keeping the same rate after weapon regulation in countries who applied it by using other means like SUVs as you pointed out... I wonder why this is not happening and only happens in your hypothetical fiction story...

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 the specific use and as is the case with guns they are merely a tool for the destruction these people wish to commit.

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.

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.

I can use the same argument to support the private use of atomic weapons. It's not the atomic weapon that kills, as you say, it's violent people... thus I should be able to access these weapons, also chemical weapons, rocket launchers, tanks and so on.

A car is not a weapon. A gun is, because is built with the purpose of killing. And in many countries, including yours, you have less checks and tests to pass to own a weapon than to own a car. I am not for banning weapons or cars, I am for regulating them. Cars are fine as they are, weapons need more regulation... this is really simple.

People who wish to commit murder, especially mass murder, will do whatever they can to achieve their violent intents. Gun control and/or gun bans will not prevent this.

Nope. It is a well known psychological phenomenon that the easier it is to commit offence the more offences there will be.

We have a saying in my country which basically says: "Opportunity makes thieves."

I would actually like to know your opinion one the causes of violence…

I've addressed this also:

"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."

LOL! this is funny!

If this is true why Europe has such a low crime rate compared to US? They have more of all these things?!

-- Updated October 26th, 2014, 10:26 pm to add the following --

Ok, here is more proof that US has more violent crime than UK (rate).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... violent-c/

Politifact has good reputation. It's a Pulitzer prize winner... you going to say it's false again, I know...

[ScottieX]

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

Laws need specific details otherwise it is difficult to see what their effects will be and they are subject to corruption.

Well of course. The USA is so utterly backwards and scary that people are fleeing by the millions!

The danger of being shot by someone with a gun is a risk one can consider together with all the other risks. But not a desirable risk.

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.

I admit you are better than Mexico. Probably better than most countries in Africa too.

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

Then you don't have a good explination.

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

I just realized one of my random sources is libertarian pro gun and still thinks your point is nonsense. http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/20 ... an-the-us/ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/20 ... ed-states/

You suppose wrong.

So you disagree that women are less violent than men? Or that being female is not genetic? I'm not sure as both take an amazing level of self deception.

-- Updated October 27th, 2014, 1:36 am to add the following --

It will probably be obvious that I made some errors in the use of the quote tags!

[Robert66]

' ... there is evidence that a lack of a structured system of [gun] law creates and supports criminal activity. ... strict laws won't stop all crime, but ... without the threat of punishment for certain activities there would be higher crime rates.'

Some would probably argue that even "strict laws" are an exercise in subjective line drawing, but I don't think a reasonable person would disagree with the statements above.

-- Updated September 4th, 2015, 9:28 pm to add the following --

I forgot - the quote in previous post comes from Spiral Out.

By the way, how is the whole gun control/murder thing going in the US?

Still happy with an armed, polite society?

Would-be gun controllers: still silent? (too scared to speak out?)

NRA members: Still feel the need to spread lies and propaganda, and quote the dodgiest statistics?

-- Updated September 4th, 2015, 9:30 pm to add the following --

I forgot - the quote in previous post comes from Spiral Out.

By the way, how is the whole gun control/murder thing going in the US?

Still happy with an armed, polite society?

Would-be gun controllers: still silent? (too scared to speak out?)

NRA members: Still feel the need to spread lies and propaganda, and quote the dodgiest statistics?

-- Updated September 5th, 2015, 12:58 am to add the following --

I forgot - the quote in previous post comes from Spiral Out.

By the way, how is the whole gun control/murder thing going in the US?

Still happy with an armed, polite society?

Would-be gun controllers: still silent? (too scared to speak out?)

NRA members: Still feel the need to spread lies and propaganda, and manipulate statistics?

[Steve3007]

This is just a placeholder post as I presume someone is now going to want to start up this old chestnut again.

[Atreyu]

You're right, Steve. And here I am. And the reason is because I live here in Orlando. I'm about 5 miles away from the nightclub where it went down.

All I want to say right now is that I haven't changed my views on gun control as a result of this shooting. I'm pro-gun rights.

But it certainly as made me think about other political considerations and legal matters, because we're going to have to take care of this problem....

[Steve3007]

Condolences to people in Orlando, Atreyu.

-- Updated Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:40 pm to add the following --

My message to any politicians commenting on this (because I'm sure they're reading this): Please don't call it terrorism and please don't call it "an act of war". In other words, don't legitimize it in the eyes of perpetrators, as you always seem to do. Call it what it is. The deliberate pre-planned mass-murder of a randomly chosen cross-section of innocent defenseless people. Most societies, rightly or wrongly, regard "war" as one of the few circumstances in which it is possible to kill human beings legitimately. I can never understand why politicians decide time and time again to hand mass-killers this get-out on a plate.

[Desertwisdom]

I wonder if UniversalAlien has his/her facts correct. I do believe there are very few mass murders anymore in Australia --- and I don't believe Australia has repealed any of its gun control laws. Please see a series of articles by a Professor from the University of Alabama who has researched mass killings in America. Please also note that the Second Amendment does not say simply that citizens have the right to bear arms. Far from it. The Second Amendment is concerned with a historical situation of a peoples attempting to form a government different from any known government on earth. The Second Amendment is concerned with the maintenance of a Militia to protect that government ... and a Militia is an orderly mass of gun-toters ... NOT a wild west scenario of individuals walking around town with semi-automatic weapons.

See a Mother Jones website (which I am not allowed to post) for more info about mass shootings in America. We Americans can expect a mass shooting approximately every one and a half months. Do we really want the NRA (NO REAL ANSWERS) to control our gun policies???

[Jklint]

Those who perpetrate these atrocities couldn't care less what you call it; they will just keep on doing it while we more enlightened ones keep on making the same preprogrammed responses. The West is afraid of its own shadow.

[Spiral Out]

If we investigate the motives behind these incidents then we see that there are more complex issues at work. There are political motivations (which is why some are labelled "terrorism"), there are social motivations and there are personal motivations. All are due to deficient mental health in the actor.

Mental health reforms are the only way to start resolving this problem.

[Sy Borg]

The same "dance" after each mass murder. Nothing changes.