Philosophy Discussion Forums

Supine wrote:I think it's splitting hairs. But that's fine we can use the phrase "violence using guns." In the end it's still categorizing the violence per the weapon or tool used.

The focus should be on the violence, not the guns. Calling it "gun violence" implies that the guns are the source/cause or reason for the violence.

>>>

Fooloso4 wrote:Two questions:

1. Do those who oppose gun control also oppose all regulation or are you claiming that this is a special case?

I don't oppose gun control. I oppose the idea that gun control is a valid or effective means of reducing Human violence.

Fooloso4 wrote:2. What objective evidence exists to support the claim that more guns results in greater safety?

I wouldn't imagine that any "objective" evidence exists to show that more guns equals greater safety.

The focus should be on the violence, not on the guns.

Hum. Questions for Spiral Out: Are volcanoes violent? No, because this violence isn't human?

Are you only interested in discussing human violence? If this is the case, why talk about guns since they are obviously non-violent?

Is pulling a trigger on a gun in circumstances where it will hurt someone a violent human act? But the human action of pulling on the trigger can be accomplished very softly and delicately. Could not one argue fairly that there is no human violence involved when someone is hurt by a human with a steel gun? Or perhaps violence isn't necessary always violent? Please explain to me and the others on the forum how our focus can possibly be on the violence without being also on the guns. Thank you.

So then what do you think the real problem is exactly?

The inherently divisive nature of thought.

Motor vehicles are even more powerful and vastly more convenient than guns. And as just proven, more deadly in an attack.

Ok, perhaps your right. That however is not a good argument against gun control.

Is it a good idea to have as few motor vehicles as possible for the same reason as nuclear weapons or guns?

Motor vehicles serve many useful purposes beyond killing people.

It appears that I was stating facts and asking questions. Are you denying the facts? It seems you're ignoring the main theme of my post, and I know precisely why.

Sorry, the main theme of your post is illogical. You're all wound up and that's obscuring your vision.

Fooloso4 wrote:Two questions:

1. Do those who oppose gun control also oppose all regulation or are you claiming that this is a special case?

2. What objective evidence exists to support the claim that more guns results in greater safety?

This morning in Milwaukee a police officer responding to a domestic violence call was shot in his squad car. This occurred in a relatively decent side of town made up primarily of white Americans.

Latest news reports are that the suspect (who committed suicide) is a 20 year-old male from the suburb of West Allis and he's a felon.

I think your question number 2 needs to be posed to American police pertaining to what objective evidence exists that them carrying firearms on them and in their squad cars results in greater safety for them? Therefore, why don't American cops disarm, of firearms, and only carry pepper spray instead.

Secondly, you might ask in what way did the American Federal law banning felons from owning or carrying or using firearms protect the safety of this cop and prevent this felon from shooting him or someone else?

New story and video: wisn.com/news/officer-shot-on-milwaukee ... e/40749004

MILWAUKEE —A Milwaukee police officer was shot in a "vicious" attack early Sunday as he sat in his squad car while colleagues investigated a domestic disturbance call, an official said.

The suspected shooter, identified by police as a 20-year-old West Allis man with two felonies on his record, was found dead in a nearby yard, they said.

Neighbor Katie Kalski said she heard two gunshots and expressed shock by the violence near her home.

"This neighborhood -- stuff like that doesn't happen. We live in a pretty safe neighborhood. So for something like this to happen -- it's bad. It's terrible," she said.

While making more laws on guns in the USA flooded with guns even in the hands of violent criminals, I suggest we make alcohol and marijuana illegal in the USA too, because as long as laws make something illegal no one will purchase those things on the black market. Worked during prohibition and I'm pretty sure there are few customers for marijuana in the USA given it's illegal in most states and cities.

I'm just hoping this 20 year-old West Allis dude was not a black dude. Or even a Latino. But especially not a black dude. Too many black dudes shooting people. It will just make it harder for black guys walking down the streets of white neighborhoods.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Please explain to me and the others on the forum how our focus can possibly be on the violence without being also on the guns.

It's easy. Define what violence means to you. I doubt you would limit your idea of violence to any particular device, be it hands, sticks, stones, knives, etc.

>>>

Ormond wrote:The inherently divisive nature of thought.

The "inherently divisive nature of thought" doesn't begin to explain why violence occurs. We are divided right now in our thoughts on this topic yet we are not being violent.

Ormond wrote:Ok, perhaps your right. That however is not a good argument against gun control.

It wasn't meant to be. I'm not against gun control, just the idea the idea that gun control is a valid or effective means of reducing Human violence. It is not. Gun control is merely the pacification of an unthinking populace, and that's all it really needs to be for those who think only in the short-term.

Ormond wrote:Motor vehicles serve many useful purposes beyond killing people.

Irrelevant. Serving many useful purposes doesn't preclude any criticism against its potential harmfulness. Vehicles also contribute greatly to ground pollution, climate change, unintentional deaths, etc.

Ormond wrote:Sorry, the main theme of your post is illogical. You're all wound up and that's obscuring your vision.

I'm not sure your grasp of the main theme of my post is adequate. Do you view facts as illogical?

Violence is anticedent to the means of violence. It does not then follow that more gun control means less violence. For the same reason it does not follow that less gun control would mean less violence. An increase is death via gun has followed an increase in the profliferation of high powered guns. This does not demonstrate a correlation, but when Y follows X it is reasonable to see if reducing X will decrease Y. This is an empirical rather than speculative question.

Spiral Out wrote:The focus should be on the violence, not the guns.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we both seek to better understand violence, while at the same time limiting access to tools being used to commit violence?

I don't oppose gun control. I oppose the idea that gun control is a valid or effective means of reducing Human violence.

If you don't feel gun control is effective, why are you agreeable to it?

The "inherently divisive nature of thought" doesn't begin to explain why violence occurs.

You asked for the source of human violence. I provided it.

We are divided right now in our thoughts on this topic yet we are not being violent.

I never claimed that all thought leads to violence.

Spiral Out wrote:

LuckyR wrote:Someone kills many people with a truck, therefore guns should be unregulated?

Nobody said that. Straw man.

LuckyR wrote:Gun availability is a real American problem.

Motor vehicle availability will soon become a real world problem.

LuckyR wrote:I don't think it is an accident that the truck mass killing was not in the US (with very high gun availability). Whether trucks or assault style weapons are more or less efficient at killing people is an ultimately fruitless argument.

You see it as a "fruitless argument" because you no longer have any rational logic to base your position on anymore. It's just been shown that using a motor vehicle to kill large numbers of people is more effective than any assault rifle. This is now fact. You may choose to ignore facts but the facts will remain nonetheless.

LuckyR wrote:The reason for gun control is NOT because it is the magic solution to all violence but because if gun violence were viewed as a Public Health epidemic (which it is) then it could be handled like any other epidemic, it would be rigorously studied as to causes and contributing factors. These factors would be scrutinized and an multifactorial plan would be made to attack this complex issue on many fronts, none of which being the "solution" but as a group would cut the number of injuries and deaths (not to zero, of course) but reduction is clearly possible.

The real reason for gun control is because Humans are generally lazy, emotional and not very resourceful (unless there is profit involved). The real reason for gun control is because it is thought to be a "quick fix" even if they will not admit it as such. But that's exactly what it is.

Guns have no useful necessary function in a modern Human society. This is fact. However, Human nature is why they are here. This is also fact.

Don't blame the guns, blame Human nature.

Why was this thread revived by recent events, if not to ponder the idea that "hey, you can kill folks without guns" duh... For those that didn't know that already, there is some enlightenment, for the rest of us the previous reality of the gun violence in the US continues unchanged.

Nope, still a fruitless argument, see the previous sentence: the discovery of weapon B does not eliminate concern about problems with weapon A.

If by "lazy" you mean getting the most effect for the least inconvenience and effort, yeah, humans are inherently lazy... or efficient.

In a way we speaking past one another, You are seeking what to blame and I am trying to solve problems, thus we're both right.

Fooloso4 wrote:Violence is anticedent to the means of violence. It does not then follow that more gun control means less violence. For the same reason it does not follow that less gun control would mean less violence. An increase is death via gun has followed an increase in the profliferation of high powered guns. This does not demonstrate a correlation, but when Y follows X it is reasonable to see if reducing X will decrease Y. This is an empirical rather than speculative question.

3 law enforcement agents were killed today and 4 wounded in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

So, you're saying if the Baton Rouge law enforcement agencies disarm then their lives will be better protected?

Your above conclusion about reducing X resulting in a decrease in Y is based on an assumption very few will illegally purchase alcohol is prohibition were set back in place, few will buy marijuana if marijuana is made illegal (which it is in most cities and states), and that few people will buy firearms illegally if guns are made illegal.

You may not realize it but it is against the law to point a gun at a cop and certainly a felony to shoot a cop. Pray tell why do people shoot cops when their are laws against doing so?

Maybe we should make it illegal to commit terrorist attacks in the USA and France. The laws alone should suffice in protecting Americans and the French.
I feel about guns like women that like to commit fetal homicide against their defenseless unborn children feel about abortion. Given the Catholic Bishops of America are pro-control and tell Catholics they must vote for gun control, as jihadi women for fetal homicide at the choice of mothers say, "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries," Well then I say keep your rosaries off my explicit Constitutional right to bear arms.

The US Constitution says zero about abortion, except that all humans have a right to life unless they are trying to deprive another of theirs, and the US Supreme Court Justices based Roe vs Wade decision on privacy rights.

They say if you don't want an abortion don't get one. Fathers kick rocks if the mother wants to contract doctors to carry out fetal homicide on your child. So, I say if you don't want a gun then buy one.

Get shot in the head because you're unarmed and another isn't or because you're too slow on the draw? Then that's your problem.

-- Updated July 17th, 2016, 12:14 pm to add the following --

Er... meant "if you don't want a gun then *don't* buy one."

Supine:

So, you're saying if the Baton Rouge law enforcement agencies disarm then their lives will be better protected?

That is not what I said. My initial question was about the relation between the proliferation of guns and greater safety. That does not mean that no one should have guns. This is one of those issues where people tend to argue in polarizing terms. My position is consistent with the claim that if only the police had guns then their lives would be better protected. That is not, however, what I am advocating. While guns clearly do help protect those in power and maintain law and order, these power relations also oppress groups of people.

The proliferation of guns in the hands of citizens does not restore balance between law enforcement and those persecuted by law enforcement. Whether carrying a gun will provide for your safety is not clear and depends largely on circumstances. Whether everyone walking around with a gun will provide for the greater safety of all of us is something that is now being put to the test. I do not think the results will be good.

I suggest we make alcohol and marijuana illegal in the USA too

Slippery slope arguments are notoriously unstable and can be used to argue both sides of a claim. The other side of the slope is that there be no regulation at all. But again you are misguidedly trying to frame the argument in terms of polar opposites. Increased gun regulation is not the same as making it illegal to own a gun.

Maybe we should make it illegal to commit terrorist attacks in the USA and France. The laws alone should suffice in protecting Americans and the French.

They are already illegal. It is obvious that laws alone are not enough to protect us, but that is not a good reason to do away with laws. After questioning the efficacy of law you go on to make claims about your Constitutional rights.

Fooloso4 wrote:Violence is anticedent to the means of violence. It does not then follow that more gun control means less violence. For the same reason it does not follow that less gun control would mean less violence. An increase is death via gun has followed an increase in the profliferation of high powered guns. This does not demonstrate a correlation, but when Y follows X it is reasonable to see if reducing X will decrease Y. This is an empirical rather than speculative question.

Nothing in relation to human behavior is linear. Gun control will only serve to reduce violence with guns. That isn't enough. It does not address the root cause.

Removing a particular means of violence from a person does not reduce the violence in that person any more than taking a dog's tail and stuffing it between its leg will elicit a fear response in the dog.

>>>

Ormond wrote:Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we both seek to better understand violence, while at the same time limiting access to tools being used to commit violence?

If you want to better understand the violence then we mustn't be distracted by the weapon used. It makes not one bit of difference what tool was used as to the source and nature of the violence which employed said tool. It's nothing more than a distraction.

Ormond wrote:If you don't feel gun control is effective, why are you agreeable to it?

I don't care either way. I am neither for it nor against it.

Ormond wrote:You asked for the source of human violence. I provided it.

You said the source is "the "inherently divisive nature of thought", which I showed to be false. You may elaborate on your vague concept if you'd like.

Ormond wrote:I never claimed that all thought leads to violence.

And I never claimed you did.

>>>

LuckyR wrote:Why was this thread revived by recent events, if not to ponder the idea that "hey, you can kill folks without guns" duh... For those that didn't know that already, there is some enlightenment, for the rest of us the previous reality of the gun violence in the US continues unchanged.

It's called insight. When we have the insight to realize the faults of a dead-end policy then we can address the reality of the situation instead of engaging in thoughtless knee-jerk reactions. Gun control is a dead-end policy. It will only serve to shift the means and methods of the unaddressed violence.

LuckyR wrote:Nope, still a fruitless argument, see the previous sentence: the discovery of weapon B does not eliminate concern about problems with weapon A.

It's not a "fruitless argument" for me, and it will no longer be a "fruitless argument" for you when weapon B takes the place of weapon A. While you're scurrying to get a handle on the "weapon B" problem, those of us who are more insightful will already be ahead of the curve and have effective ideas to address the real problem.

LuckyR wrote:If by "lazy" you mean getting the most effect for the least inconvenience and effort, yeah, humans are inherently lazy... or efficient.

No argument here.

LuckyR wrote:In a way we speaking past one another, You are seeking what to blame and I am trying to solve problems, thus we're both right.

If you are unable to think beyond the supposed "gun violence" paradigm then you are NOT trying to solve problems, you are just parroting the information you've been fed. Guns are not the problem. Violence is.

Spiral Out:

Gun control will only serve to reduce violence with guns. That isn't enough.

It is not enough but it is something. No difficult societal problem is ever solved in one step. Reducing violence with guns is at this point in time a large step in the right direction.

It does not address the root cause.

There are various root causes of violence but instead of addressing then you offered a problematic solution in the OP:

If we took the Second Amendment literally and allowed the the right of the people to bear arms, this mass murder scenario would end. If enough of the 'well armed militia' was in fact armed the public would no longer be subjected to mass murderers; they could be stopped before their carnage was complete. To quote a somewhat controversial politician of years past" "A well-armed society is a polite society" -G. Gordon Liddy

The amendment refers to a well-regulated militia, not a well-armed mob. A well-armed public is likely to be antithetical to a well-regulated militia. The Founders were well aware of the reality of the tyranny of the masses. On the one hand you would have those who want nothing at all to do with any kind of regulation, who want the right to bear arms so that no one can tell them what to do. On the other you would have competing “militias” all with their own self-interested, jingoistic, exclusionist, hate-filled, fear driven agenda.

If you want to better understand the violence then we mustn't be distracted by the weapon used.

The weapon used is at issue and has, historically, always been at issue. The arms race is an essential aspect of human existence. Taking it into consideration is not a distraction. If trucks are increasingly used as weapons then it is reasonable to consider ways of preventing trucks from entering certain places. Many towns and cities have erected barriers to keep vehicles from getting to close to buildings and pedestrian malls. It would make no sense to argue against such measures by claiming that we should not be distracted by trucks. If people are being killed by trucks then trucks are part of the problem. If people are being killed by guns then guns are part of the problem and must be addressed.

Spiral Out wrote:

LuckyR wrote:In a way we speaking past one another, You are seeking what to blame and I am trying to solve problems, thus we're both right.

If you are unable to think beyond the supposed "gun violence" paradigm then you are NOT trying to solve problems, you are just parroting the information you've been fed. Guns are not the problem. Violence is.

You are correct, guns are not THE problem. Though the current (non)policy on US guns is contributing to THE problem. Thus you are also correct that focusing on guns alone (Anyone advocating that? Anyone...?) may help a bit but will ultimately be inadequate.

As an aside the thing that is notable about the topic of guns in the US from a political standpoint is NOT the belief and behaviors of those who seek regulation (plenty of folks on plenty of topics seek governmental intervention), what is unique is the extent that the policymakers are so clearly in fear of (and thus in the pockets of) those who make money off of the manufacturing and sale of the items in question.

Guns are not the problem. Violence is.

S.O., I am detecting that to you, violence is any means to victimization. And you see guns as a specific means to victimization. Therefore, zeroing in on guns to get the violence problem under control ineffective because it doesn't address all the means to victimization which leaves so many other avenues left open for the violence to continue.

S.O. my issue with the above is not your logic, which makes sense. My issue is with your appreciation of what violence is: I had a friend who grew up in an orphanage where he and others were regularly abused sexually by Catholic priests. He told me that the one reason why the orphans didn't decide to get together to plan and kill one of the perverts is because the idea simply didn't cross their minds. Had someone suggested it, they would certainly have tried to murder one of them. S.O. the means to victimization in this case would have been the suggestion, the idea given to them to create a victim out of one of the priests by the group of orphans. S.O. if the orphans had had this violence, this means to victimization offered to them, one of the priests would have faced a murder attempt.

S.O. am I right? Am I right here to come to the conclusion that you view thinking as a potential form of violence? If I'm not right then, what am l missing here, please?

When you realize that this absurdity (thinking may be violence) is consistent with what you are saying, you may realize just how far away you have drifted with your inadequate take on violence. But don't worry, your inadequate take on violence is very common. What is uncommon is to take up issue with it and this is what I do now.

If you want to better understand the violence then we mustn't be distracted by the weapon used. It makes not one bit of difference what tool was used as to the source and nature of the violence which employed said tool. It's nothing more than a distraction.

Tell it to the victims of gun violence.

[...]

You said the source is "the "inherently divisive nature of thought", which I showed to be false. You may elaborate on your vague concept if you'd like.

You didn't show anything, and have no idea what you're talking about. I've elaborated on my "vague concept" all over the forum in extensive detail, as you already know.

[...]