Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fooloso4 wrote:

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.

Yeah, so, again... if American cops disarm will they be safer?

I don't have a firearm at this point. I have had one. I feel no safer without one. In fact, I willfully know it makes me a greater target for inner-city predators.

This is well understood in the inner-cities where phrases such as, "It is better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6," are made. A statement insinuating that felons themselves prefer to carry a gun and go to prison than to be caught without it and end up dead, carried in a casket. Another phrase is "to be caught slippin," meaning to be caught unarmed without a gun. That can go for non-felons and felons alike.

I like the option of legally buying a gun. Why? Because as fact the police don't protect me I protect myself. The police show up afterwards to use yellow tape to tape off a crime scene and ask if anyone saw who committed the stabbing, shooting, or homicide.

So, the police form a population. If they disarmed themselves then certainly their population would be safer. According to your reasoning because fewer guns would de facto be on the streets given hundreds of thousands of cops in the US disarmed themselves.

That does not mean that no one should have guns.

Oh really? Like the civilians in Syria you and your US Government under the liberal Obama and Hilary Clinton administration give military assault rifles and military bombs to and tell to go out and murder Syrian police, military personnel, and any civilian that staunchly supports the acting legitimate Government. Or as the US Government in its "secularism" says... it is in the interest of the US Government that Islamic Shia being stripped of power in Syria and replaced in power by the Sunni Muslims like Saudi Arabia is run by.

So, yeah, I understand that you and Hilary Clinton believe "some" 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.

American police have guns because American's, particularly violent American criminals, have guns. The police in the USA insinuate as much constantly on the news. They don't say "we face Islamic terrorist everyday," or "we face Russian Putin supporters everyday trying to destroy America and kill us," or "we face Syrians loyal to Assad everyday." No, they say they risk their lives everyday running into Americans, American scum bags.

The proliferation of guns in the hands of citizens does not restore balance between law enforcement and those persecuted by law enforcement.

I thought Black-Americans own fewer firearms than white Americans and that almost all the homicides in the USA are being carried out by Black-American males shooting other Black-American males. So, per capita white communities in the US have far more guns than black communities yet white communities are safer. Whites treat one another more respectfully and charitably than ethnic Black-Americans treat one another.

If I recall correctly gun ownership since the 1970s is down in Black-America yet their gun related homicides have shot through the roof astronomically since the 1970s.

Frankly, I could give a rats behind about "restoring some power balance" between cops and blacks. I'm concerned like the cops about protecting myself from Americans, particularly Black-Americans. I'm not worried about Muslim terrorists, Assad, Putin or whatever bogyman Americans create to spread the sell of arms around the world and stoke up wars for power grabs and financial greed.

That said, I have no problem turning rifles on the US Government if and when they attempt their great enslavement project, and blow the face off their armed troops in police and military uniforms when Hitlary Adolf Clinton or whatever US clowns start handing down legislation like, "Any male (not female) with tattoos can be constitutionally deprived of jobs but no transsexual or gender queer person can, and alpha males have a constitutional right to marry multiple women."

With other enraged ex-military men I will suggest we unite with violent male ex-cons, and target your banks, financial sectors and systems, your lines of communications, your roads and systems of transportation, and seek arms and other support from foreign powers.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: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.

You're partially correct. The second part of your statement is spot on, but the first part is just off the mark. Violence is the act of causing intentional harm/injury to another, either physical harm/injury or emotional harm/injury. I don't consider the means or methods of violence in the definition of violence itself. Violence is violence whether it is committed using threats, bare hands or battleship.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: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?

One may have violent thoughts and never act on them. No one is without anger. Thoughts are a form of potential violence, yes. However, violent potential is not violence enacted. Everyone has the potential for violence. If you're Human then you have a potential for violence. No one is immune to any given emotion.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: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.

Thoughts are not violence. In order for there to be violence there must be some physical action. One cannot commit violence on another by merely thinking of harming them. That would be absurd, as you said.

>>>

Spiral Out wrote: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:Tell it to the victims of gun violence.

OK, bring them to me. Do you think I'd be afraid to speak truth to anyone?

Do you really think I haven't known anyone who's been victim to violence using a gun??? I live in the US, the supposed "gun violence capital of the world". What do you think?

Bear in mind that Spiral's view tend towards the libertarian so he's also unlikely to support regulation of poisons, explosives and illegal drugs since they "don't kill people, people do". Accidents and disasters as a result of weak or non-existent regulation can be put down to natural selection.

Opinions please: From a practical standpoint, if gun control was enacted to disarm the United States population, would the various government agencies still be armed? Police, FBI, Constables, Secret Service, Bailiffs, U.S Marshals, etc?

Would private licensed security guards still be allowed to be armed?

Greta wrote:Bear in mind that Spiral's view tend towards the libertarian so he's also unlikely to support regulation of poisons, explosives and illegal drugs since they "don't kill people, people do". Accidents and disasters as a result of weak or non-existent regulation can be put down to natural selection.

I'm also unlikely to support selective outrage.

A truly advanced society is not one that requires no guns, drugs, etc., it is one that requires no regulations against guns, drugs, etc.

>>>

Gary S wrote:Opinions please: From a practical standpoint, if gun control was enacted to disarm the United States population, would the various government agencies still be armed? Police, FBI, Constables, Secret Service, Bailiffs, U.S Marshals, etc?

Would private licensed security guards still be allowed to be armed?

Any disarmament would have to be universal.

We don't allow kids to buy guns. We don't allow adults to buy machine guns, bazookas, and rocket launchers. As far as I know, the vast majority of the population agrees with these decisions.

Thus, it's not unreasonable to discuss under what conditions adults should be allowed to purchase and own handguns and rifles.

Spiral is right that even if we came to the perfect formula for managing guns that would not end violence. After all, violence existed long before the invention of firearms.

But it doesn't logically follow that we should therefore dismiss gun control as being irrelevant to the issue of violence in our society. Gun crimes don't have to be the sole form of violence to merit our attention.

A truly advanced society is not one that requires no guns, drugs, etc., it is one that requires no regulations against guns, drugs, etc.

Except that, um, there is no such society and most likely never will be, which raises the question of whether such comments can serve any constructive purpose.

Violence is the act of causing intentional harm/injury to another, either physical harm/injury or emotional harm/injury. I don't consider the means or methods of violence in the definition of violence itself. Violence is violence whether it is committed using threats, bare hands or battleship.

S. O. are you obfuscating? You are now saying that that violence is an act. But acts are used for certain purposes, aren't they? If an act is used to cause intentional harm/injury to another, then is not factually implied that this act is also the means to cause intentional harm/injury to another?

Of course, you can claim that you don't consider the means or methods of violence in the definition of violence itself. But how can you then go on with defining violence as a means "of causing ..." without flagrantly contradicting yourself?

So for you to say that you do not consider the means of violence in the definition of violence and then defining violence the way you do here is like saying or admitting that you put up a blindfold up in front of your eyes when you define violence. The act is the means, my friend. Please open your eyes. I don't believe that you have any mental health issue that may preclude you from doing so.

I think violence is best divided into 3 neat categories. This way we can then tell exactly which category of violence we are talking about so that we can know what it is that we are discussing.

Violence:
1) Scary natural eruption of natural elements with or without injury to others.
2) Scary, deliberate eruption of living beings with or without injury to others.
3) Any deliberate act or other means leading to the victimization of another/others.

In this thread, we're apparently mainly concerned about the third category of violence. But I have also noted that many of us systematically confuse the first category of violence with the second: Punching others with your fists would best fall into category of violence #2 whereas using a gun to fire shots would best fall into category one (since the gun powder is the natural element that erupts)
The thing about guns is that it is not a form of human violence (category 2); it is natural violence, (category 1) which is being utilized as a drug to change the apparent nature of the living being that is using it; it makes him/her dominant.
In light of all this, what we need is a form of systematic drug control, in my opinion. And unless we can view the problem in its proper light, I think we will never be able to deal with it effectively.

Spiral Out wrote: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.

Ah, you are more insightful. And, you are ahead of the curve. This is good to know.

Given that, could you please tell us what the real problem is, and share your effective ideas for addressing the real problem.

It's possible I've missed this earlier in the discussion, if so, it would be appreciated if you could link us to the post where you explain the analysis from your advanced position. Thank you.

Ormond, his solution, according to the OP, is based on a misconstrual of the second amendment to the U.S. constitution where he substitutes a well armed militia for the well regulated militia. In other words: if everyone is armed to the teeth the problem of violence will go away.

Inexplicably, although he denies that guns are part of the problem of violence they are somehow the whole of the solution.

Gary S wrote:Opinions please: From a practical standpoint, if gun control was enacted to disarm the United States population, would the various government agencies still be armed? Police, FBI, Constables, Secret Service, Bailiffs, U.S Marshals, etc?

Would private licensed security guards still be allowed to be armed?

Law enforcement would. So would private security guards (executive bodyguards at least) for the rich and/or celebrated.

Brazil has tough gun laws. It's hard for law abiding citizens in Brazil to legally purchase and own guns. The police, military, and gangs in Brazil have a monopoly on firearms. I'm sure some in law enforcement and in the underworld of the USA would love the USA to become the same way. Three guys entering a Mom and Pop store, demanding monthly extortion money, putting revolvers to the old couples daughter's head, that's a crime outfits wet dream.

Ormond, Spiral Out anticipated the truck attack in Nice. That does indeed give him boasting rights, in my opinion. Who else do you know that foresaw something like that? As soon as I heard about Nice, I reacted by thinking about Spiral Out. He knew, way ahead of the rest, with all due respect. That is good to know indeed.

As a side note, I wonder if every Frenchman had a gun if that would have saved life in the Nice attack. So many argue that guns are needed by everyone as they would save lives in mass murder events. This is one instance where the possession of a fire arm by many citizens would likely have made no difference what so ever in the outcome.

Going by the NRAs logic, everyone now has to go out and buy a refrigerated truck. Then we'll all be safe.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:S. O. are you obfuscating? You are now saying that that violence is an act. But acts are used for certain purposes, aren't they? If an act is used to cause intentional harm/injury to another, then is not factually implied that this act is also the means to cause intentional harm/injury to another?

I understand what you're saying Bruno, but I view the act and the means as individual factors. The act is separate from the means. The act is murder. The means can be anything. The means has nothing to do with the intent of the actor. It is merely a device used to achieve that intent.

>>>

Ormond wrote:Ah, you are more insightful. And, you are ahead of the curve. This is good to know.

Given that, could you please tell us what the real problem is, and share your effective ideas for addressing the real problem.

What causes some to commit acts of mass murder while others do not?

Is it the availability of guns? Hand anyone an assault rifle and they'll commit mass murder?

Is it environment? Place anyone in a particular environment and they'll commit mass murder?

Is it drugs? Get anyone on drugs and they'll commit mass murder?

Is it refrigerated trucks? Stick anyone in a refrigerated truck and they'll commit mass murder?

What do you think it is? I'll ask you to be insightful for a change.

>>>

Fooloso4 wrote:Ormond, his solution, according to the OP, is based on a misconstrual of the second amendment to the U.S. constitution where he substitutes a well armed militia for the well regulated militia. In other words: if everyone is armed to the teeth the problem of violence will go away.

Inexplicably, although he denies that guns are part of the problem of violence they are somehow the whole of the solution.

First, I did not write the OP. Second, that's not what I think about the second amendment. Third, you have misrepresented my position on guns.

>>>

Rederic wrote:Going by the NRAs logic, everyone now has to go out and buy a refrigerated truck. Then we'll all be safe.

Going by the logic of gun control, we must now ban refrigerated trucks. Then we'll all be safe.

Spiral Out wrote:I understand what you're saying Bruno, but I view the act and the means as individual factors. The act is separate from the means. The act is murder. The means can be anything. The means has nothing to do with the intent of the actor. It is merely a device used to achieve that intent.

Yes, this is all true, but so what? What is your BIG point here?? I can see you are taking some big stance, but it's not yet clear what that stance actually is.

What do you think it is? I'll ask you to be insightful for a change.

I'll ask you to stop dodging about and answer the question. WHAT is your point? You seem quite adamant about it whatever it is, so please share the solution you're suggesting.

Nuclear weapons are not the act, but merely the means someone might use to perform the act. Ok, ok, we get it, we get it. Now what?

Are you, for instance, suggesting we not regulate nuclear weapons? Are you suggesting that discussing nuclear weapons will somehow prevent us from understanding why someone might use a nuclear weapon? Are you suggesting that you Spiral Out understand what the source of human violence is and how to fix it?

For Christs sake, how many more times. Nobody is talking about banning guns. Just making gun control more effective. It amazes me that you can't find any merit in the idea. Or is it that you are more comfortable arguing about the banning of guns.

As someone said, do you think that the USA has a problem with mass killings using assault rifles or other firearms? If you don't then I'm afraid you're being particularly obtuse.

If you do, then what is your solution? Apart from throwing your hands in the air & saying "nothing can be done".