Philosophy Discussion Forums

Maia wrote:
Because far fewer people get killed.

The correct statement would be. ''Because far fewer people get killed by their own citizens. However. The citizens are monkeys in a barrel because laws are imaginary and outlaws do not care about them nor do they care about us.''

By the way. The ONLY reason why a society with no gun-bearing would have less kills than a society with gun-bearing would because they wouldn't have any guns to begin with. Now. If I added stupid deaths (like slipping into a dishwasher with knifes face up, get punched to death after fighting over JB or sticking hand in a hole with a deadly spider) those deaths would be more than the deaths of people getting shot by someone who wasn't shooting them on purpose.

Naughtorious wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


The correct statement would be. ''Because far fewer people get killed by their own citizens. However. The citizens are monkeys in a barrel because laws are imaginary and outlaws do not care about them nor do they care about us.''

The correct statement is as I stated. Americans are about 32 times more likely to be shot to death than citizens of the UK. It's because there are so many guns washing around that outlaws can get hold of them so easily in America. That's how the gun companies make you paranoid, by saying that the criminals all have guns. But it's their fault that they do in the first place. So you buy more, and the vicious cycle continues. You are being suckered, hook line and sinker.

Maia wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


The correct statement is as I stated. Americans are about 32 times more likely to be shot to death than citizens of the UK. It's because there are so many guns washing around that outlaws can get hold of them so easily in America. That's how the gun companies make you paranoid, by saying that the criminals all have guns. But it's their fault that they do in the first place. So you buy more, and the vicious cycle continues. You are being suckered, hook line and sinker.

Another interesting perspective here is this comparison of the USA gun culture vs the UK knife culture.


http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

Maia wrote: But it's their fault that they do in the first place. So you buy more, and the vicious cycle continues.

How is it their fault? If your child pokes the eye out of a kid with their baby plastic scissors you gave them to use. Who is responsible?

-- Updated December 18th, 2012, 8:29 pm to add the following --

Grecorivera5150 wrote:

Another interesting perspective here is this comparison of the USA gun culture vs the UK knife culture.

15. Knife crime..

Knife crime in the UK means – for the most part "CARRYING A KNIFE"

That is what 88.4% of "Knife crime" in the UK is.

Look at DEATHS

273 knife deaths in un in 2008

23,145 gun deaths (over 80% homicide) in the USA

Don't mix apples and pears and pretend to come up with meaningful stats.

Carrying a knife is illegal in the UK. If you are searched (and people often are) and one is found. That is a knife crime.

Look at deaths..even injuries..not "crimes".

Hell if carrying a gun (anywhere other than a range) was a crime in the US how many millions would that add to your poorly researched figues ? Comment by Paul Clarke — 11 June 2009 @ 04:39

16. Oh and that means that nearly 90% of knife "crimes" in the UK don't have a victim as such. No -one needs be threatened, or even see the knife.

Even pretending to carry a knife, and (conversely) carrying a "pretend" knife are knife crimes in the UK

So your victim stats are so far out of skew they are laughable.

23,000+ gun DEATHS in USA each year – over 80% homocide

Try and justify it however you want, it is still massively out of proportion with all murders (no matter how committed) pro rata in the UK

Live with it (or get killed by it)

Don't worry..King George isn't planning to be reincarnated any time soon – the only thing that will happen to US citizens in your life time is that over one million of them will shoot and kill about one million others.

Put another way. That's about the same number of deaths EACH YEAR that actually occurred in the War of Independance. (just under 25,000)

Carry on and kill yourselves, but understand why you are doing it. Knifing someone is a terribly personal thing. You have to feel the flesh tear and probably end up covered in blood yourself. Not many people have the bottle for it.

Gun. Easy..do it from a good distance (both in reality and emotionaly) There's your difference !

The comment section in the link you've provided. #15 ~ #16 This guy sums up the OP's laughable analysis.

While those of you from nations such as England or Australia who have now decided to save us poor Americans from guns may not find this of interest as you have created a gun-free and safe paradise {except maybe not from terrorists, but don't worry, be happy} some of us unfortunate American realists might find this article interesting:

Mainstream media ignored the fact that a concealed carry permit holder was on hand during the Portland, OR shooting.

There was a crazy person shooting at the Clackamas Town Center in early December, 2012. He got off three shots, killing two people.

Nick Meli heard the shots and took cover. The 22-year old pulled out his own gun and never took his eyes off the shooter. He did everything right. He didn’t have a clear shot and he didn’t pull the trigger.

The shooter killed himself.

A Portland new station reported this information, however, it didn’t receive mainstream attention because someone carrying a gun for good doesn’t fit the narrative.

If Nick Meli had shot the criminal who opened fire at the Portland mall, he could have been arrested for harming another person. It would have cost him a minimum of $50,000, and yet, he pulled his weapon to save other lives, without thinking about himself and the consequences.

In Colorado, approximately 150,000 people have applied for concealed carry weapon permits over the past year. 4,200 applied for background checks to purchase weapons (legally) on Dec. 15th, a record number in Colorado in one day. Both numbers are out of 5 million residents of the state, a very small percentage.

Each of those CCW permit holders are willing to risk their life to save others. They are trained to carry their weapon and use it if the situation arises.

As it did in Colorado Springs, CO at the New Life Church when a gunman entered the building and started shooting. A parishioner with a CCW permit identified herself, engaged the criminal and took him down.

We can thank God for the teachers who saved the lives of countless children during the Connecticut school shooting. And we can thank God for the hundreds of thousands of people who are willing to be trained to carry a concealed weapon.

Whether you approve of guns or not, there are CCW permit holders all around and they will probably be there when the police are not.

If guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, who will be there when criminals try to kill innocent individuals?

-Politics | © 2006-2012 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com.

When guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns.

Grecorivera5150 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



Another interesting perspective here is this comparison of the USA gun culture vs the UK knife culture.


http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

A criminal armed with a gun is far more dangerous than a criminal armed with a knife.

-- Updated December 19th, 2012, 4:07 am to add the following --

Naughtorious wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


How is it their fault? If your child pokes the eye out of a kid with their baby plastic scissors you gave them to use. Who is responsible?

-- Updated December 18th, 2012, 8:29 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)



(Nested quote removed.)


The comment section in the link you've provided. #15 ~ #16 This guy sums up the OP's laughable analysis.

The gun companies also fund politicians.

-- Updated December 19th, 2012, 4:10 am to add the following --

UniversalAlien wrote:While those of you from nations such as England or Australia who have now decided to save us poor Americans from guns may not find this of interest as you have created a gun-free and safe paradise {except maybe not from terrorists, but don't worry, be happy} some of us unfortunate American realists might find this article interesting:


(Nested quote removed.)


-Politics | © 2006-2012 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com.

When guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns.

America isn't safe from terrorists either, so that's a complete red herring.

People from England, Australia etc. have as much right to comment on American society as you do on ours.

UniversalAlien wrote:While those of you from nations such as England or Australia who have now decided to save us poor Americans from guns may not find this of interest as you have created a gun-free and safe paradise {except maybe not from terrorists, but don't worry, be happy} some of us unfortunate American realists might find this article interesting:

You are insulting people who are trying to discuss with you, and that is not good style.

Western Europe is, in general, safer than the US. Belittling that fact does not make it go away.

On the topic at hand, I do agree that the guns themselves (as in the inanimate object "gun") are not the problem. Inanimate Objects seldom are social problems. But just saying that "guns don't kill people" and therefore have no bearing on the social problem is dishonest and masks the actual issue: Gun Culture.

Many people are saying that the assailant could just as easly have used explosions, poison or other means to kill as, or even more, efficiently. However, there is a reason "school shootings" are shootings and not "school-bombings". Using a gun to personally execute people is something very different psychologically than setting a bomb and remotely detonating it. People who commit school shootings are often people lacking social skills and self-confidence. Like all peole, they long for attention and affection, but cannot get it due to their lack of social skills. Culture, american culture specifically, often views the gun as the ultimate symbol of power. You don't need to be a psychologist to realize that wielding a symbol of power would be important for someone with confidence issues. Further, killing, or rather executing a helpless person face to face can be seen as an ultimate display of personal power. So killing with a gun induces a power trip that is crucial to these kinds of crimes. Those people are not terrorists bent on destroying america. They probably (of course I have no first hand insight into their motives) are mentally ill individuals trying to destroy the things they hate about themselves.

Guns aren't just the tool for that. The way the killings happen is important, that similar carnage can be caused by other means therefore misses the point.

Furthermore, the ease of acquiring a gun makes guns normal in everyday life. They are seen as a regular solution to problems. Even more: People advocating the right to bear arms specifically pose guns as a solution to social problems. It is not surprising that a person raised in such a gun culture would view a gun as an ample way to solve a conflict. Especially if, as was the case with Adam Lanza, they were specifically trained to use guns. Would Adam Lanza have killed people if his mother had not owned several firearms and taught him how to use them? Maybe. But it would have required more effort, more strength of will, and most importantly, more steps, each of which could have failed or lead to the discovery of his plan.

Gun control is not the ultimate solution to the problem of gun violence. But it is the first step away from a gun-culture. As such, it is a step in the right direction.

This is worth repeating and I will highlight the point about Switzerland. If any of you anti-gun folks believe the Swiss are alien beings from another planet and not normal humans please state your case.

"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~"

Based on these historical facts of the 20th Century the case can be made that gun control advocates and their lackeys are a much greater threat to freedom and often to life than the personal ownership of guns.

"God created men - Winchester made them equal"

So your argument now is that you need guns to defend yourself from the government?

That was not the initial topic of this thread, nor was it the argument you yourself started the thread with. The initial argument was that guns are needed to defend yourself from fellow citizens. Now it is that guns are needed to defend yourself from the government.

The two arguments are very much different. One is saying that strict gun laws do not help prevent gun crime and school shootings. The other argument is no matter what their effect on crime or school shootings, guns are necessary to protect the citizens from the government.Which is the one you are advancing in favor of guns?

UniversalAlien wrote:This is worth repeating and I will highlight the point about Switzerland. If any of you anti-gun folks believe the Swiss are alien beings from another planet and not normal humans please state your case.

"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~"

Based on these historical facts of the 20th Century the case can be made that gun control advocates and their lackeys are a much greater threat to freedom and often to life than the personal ownership of guns.

"God created men - Winchester made them equal"

Switzerland also has conscription, which may account for it's more disciplined population. Would you support such a thing in the USA?

Either way, if Switzerland is such a shining example, why has America done so badly?

UniversalAlien:

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

A few snapshots from a table that was mentioned in an earlier post:

USA: Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 2.97

Switzerland: Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 0.77

England and Wales: Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 0.07

Japan: Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population: 0.01


One of these two sources appears, on the face of it, to be lying. Does anybody know which one? I think it would be useful to know before trying to conclude anything.

God created men. Mutually Assured Destruction made them equal.

I still think to focus on new gun control laws are a waste of time , valuable resources and energy. This discussion is so reactionary to emotional stimuli that it in a way exposes the overall lack of attention American are paying to other aspects of our culture that are rife with contradictions and lack any type of cohesive system of human nurturing. Money and corporate culture have warped nearly every sector of public life in the modern US. Our consumer culture over the long term has created mush anxiety and compartmentalization of individuals due to its unsustainable nature.

If there is going to be a discussion about a lack of power in individuals who are emotionally stressed we should be addressing cultural issues as to why individuals feel this way. I believe it is an aggregate of many cultural quirks that are creating this erosion of the human condition. Competition and the predominance of nature over nurture as as national perspective mixed with a paternalistic global perspective send a constant mixed signal. What are we doing here.

Here is another compelling issue that is being looked into when it comes to these types of shootings. The overuse of psychoactive drugs and the effects they have on patients over the long term. I am thinking if these patients were getting hugs, THC and a bit of freedom to pursue their own interests when it comes to education rather then being the square pegs smashed into to little round wholes and medicated to the point of becoming anxiety ridden automatons that we would not be having this discussion.


http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-a ... opic-drug/

There is an awful lot of emotional reaction to an incident like this and that's to be expected. Many good and not so good points have been brought up on this thread, but like all debates the key issues get overrun by statistics trying to prove this or that policy in some other place has some relevance to this occurrence. The bottom line is the human family has been subject to violence since the beginning of time. The tools and methods of violent expression may ebb and flow but the violence itself is deeply rooted in the human animalistic organism. It finds expression in individual acts of terror and acts of state terror. The individual motives are not always identical but the actors all have one thing in common. Their will to act is all that matters, the consequences to their victims is of no consequence to them. We have organized ourselves into social groups to mitigate both violence from external sources and violence from within. We have devised all kinds of ways to try and give creative expression to violent impulses rather than let those impulses be expressed destructively. But we haven't eliminated local crime and we haven't eliminated global war.

There is a need for meaningful gun control that restricts the availability of weapons of mass destruction, like a fully automatic machine gun, we don’t allow people to walk around with hand grenades or flame throwers even though it might be fun to use them in an open field, because there are legitimate safety concerns and those weapons aren’t necessary for personal security. A hand gun on the other hand is a very effective personal safety device. I own a pistol, several rifles and a shotgun. I hunt with all of them at different times. I could do a lot of damage with them. As other posters have pointed out, I could also do a lot of damage with a can of gasoline or even a car if so inclined. This type of discussion is really very superficial to the problem. To focus on a “tool” is once again to focus on the wrong thing.

Human beings do these things. Human beings have always done terrible things. Animals do terrible things on a strictly human scale of ethics and morality. The destructive desire is there. The question is how to deal with it. Any discussion about school safety has to be a practical discussion about what could be done to limit the probability of these things from happening. A bank has a security system with guards and steel bars and safes, why? To protect what society deems valuable. Are our children valuable? Certainly we should protect them should we not? I heard a senator argue that “we don’t want are schools to look like prisons, that’s not the America we grew up in”. The alternative is the carnage we just witnessed. I wish the world was a happy friendly place where we didn’t need an Army and a Navy, where we don’t need a police department because everyone is a warm and decent human being.

Unfortunately until we figure out a way to neurologically engineer a wonderful moral and ethical center in the mind of every human being we will have to deal with the potential violent outburst of the worst of us. So let’s develop a sound and reasonable school defense system, whether it’s modeled after the school district in Texas where a certain number of school personnel in each school is trained and armed, or whether we place visibly armed guards in schools. If we want them to be “safe” zones then let’s make them safe. Passing Gun control legislation will be a largely symbolic gesture and let’s face it, that’s what politicians excel at, symbolism verses substance.

For everyone’s information, the deadliest school attack in the US where 38 elementary school children and 4 adults were killed, and 58 people were injured was in 1927 in Bath, Michigan. A man dynamited a school, no guns were involved. This type of thing is not unprecedented; we just seem to have short cultural memories. Admittedly, the only thing that would have prevented this was recognizing the man’s instability ahead of time. That’s where we need to focus our attention, early recognition and a sound defense mechanism. In the mean time pass your stricter gun laws and pretend you're safer until the next occurance.

it's funny how many people argue that the actual problem is in the mind of the Assailant and that we have to look for better psychology, not better gun control, yet ignore the fact that the tool used for such a crime has psychological effects.

You cannot on the one hand argue that we need to understand the psyche of these people better and on the other hand ignore the fact that using a gun to kill people is psychologically different from using dynamite or other tools.

The psychic instability is blamed on wrong psychological treatment, yet the fact that the society these individuals come from regards weapons not as a dangerous tool for killing but as a valuable tool of self-defence is ignored.

I don't think it's sensible to assume that an individual who grew up with guns, was trained at shooting with guns, and lived in a household where guns were considered just a regular tool like any other, would have just as easily used TNT instead of the guns.

Stricter gun laws alone won't help, true. One also needs to realize that guns are neither toys nor tools, but weapons. A weapon has the express purpose to harm or kill, and should be treated accordingly.

Cronos988 wrote: yet ignore the fact that the tool used for such a crime has psychological effects.

If people were to have guns. The mentally ill in forms of social ineptness would not find power when that power is placed on common grounds. However. If you persuade gun-control. People will be limited with power and the socially inept mental baskets would gladly exploit vulnerable people to extract their psychological dysfunctions.