Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta,

Here's a 2006 article from a Sydney newspaper:

https://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/stu ... 88302.html

Basically, you refuse to face the problem of school massacres squarely, reducing the issue to numbers. The US's morale and unity is being eroded further with every massacre.

Meanwhile, you want to claim that Australia would not have more gun massacres if it adopted the US approach, ignoring the growing divisions in Australian society in that period, plus a multitude of migrants making its population the fastest growing in the western world. That murders and suicides did not rise in that period is remarkable and seemingly a glowing testimony to by far John Howard's best moment as leader.

Meanwhile, the US is sick - you can claim ad hominem until you are blue in the face and it's still not anything like an ad hominem. The US is obviously a fading empire, just as other dominant nations have fallen from lofty peaks through hubris and internal divisions throughout history. That isn't any kind of ad hominem either (best to use the terms appropriately rather than splash them around meaninglessly for manipulative rhetorical effect).

Greta wrote: ↑March 25th, 2018, 9:48 pm Basically, you refuse to face the problem of school massacres squarely, reducing the issue to numbers. The US's morale and unity is being eroded further with every massacre.

Greta, reducing the issue to numbers is precisely how you "face the problem squarely." Without the numbers you have no means of assessing the effectiveness of any proposed policy.

But perhaps, in light of the second sentence there, you're arguing that the US should "do something," even if the something will be ineffective, in order to assuage public grief and angst and placate well-meaning but ignorant rabble-rousers. I.e., submit to mob rule. Well, that is what a republican form of government and an independent judiciary were designed to prevent.

As for unity, there is no unity in the US, and there never has been. That is an illusory goal and a wrong-headed one. A unified society is a stagnant one. Disagreements, tensions, competition, distrust, rivalries, animosities are the drivers of dynamism.

Meanwhile, you want to claim that Australia would not have more gun massacres if it adopted the US approach . . .

That is not what I am claiming. That is what the studies are showing.

Meanwhile, the US is sick - you can claim ad hominem until you are blue in the face and it's still not anything like an ad hominem. The US is obviously a fading empire, just as other dominant nations have fallen from lofty peaks through hubris and internal divisions throughout history.

*Sigh*

GE Morton wrote: ↑March 26th, 2018, 11:32 am

Greta wrote: ↑March 25th, 2018, 9:48 pmBasically, you refuse to face the problem of school massacres squarely, reducing the issue to numbers. The US's morale and unity is being eroded further with every massacre.

Greta, reducing the issue to numbers is precisely how you "face the problem squarely." Without the numbers you have no means of assessing the effectiveness of any proposed policy.

I'm sure that approach works well when, say, your house is on fire. Do the numbers and work out the rate of burn for each item, then maybe catalogue the carpet just before it burns ...

There is an obvious problem with an obvious answer here, but it's prevented from happening by corrupt vested interests and misguided zealots who are effectively puppets of cunningly arms companies.

GE Morton wrote:

Meanwhile, you want to claim that Australia would not have more gun massacres if it adopted the US approach . . .

That is not what I am claiming. That is what the studies are showing.

Studies don't "show" anything. They provide information. You ignored some of the most critical information - societal discord and rapid population growth, as noted above. Why did you ignore it? Convenience?

GE Morton wrote:

Meanwhile, the US is sick - you can claim ad hominem until you are blue in the face and it's still not anything like an ad hominem. The US is obviously a fading empire, just as other dominant nations have fallen from lofty peaks through hubris and internal divisions throughout history.

*Sigh*

Hard truths tend not to be well accepted. All great dynasties fall, and it's internal sickness and hubris that causes those falls. America will not be the only great power in history to avoid decline. Just accept it, GE, and then you can do something about it.

It's the denial that prevents the US from doing something to at least alleviate the effects of their fall.

Greta wrote: ↑March 26th, 2018, 3:59 pm
I'm sure that approach works well when, say, your house is on fire. Do the numbers and work out the rate of burn for each item, then maybe catalogue the carpet just before it burns ...

Yes, it does. Because someone did the numbers there is a fire station about 8 blocks away. And because I did the numbers I have fire insurance.

Hard truths tend not to be well accepted. All great dynasties fall, and it's internal sickness and hubris that causes those falls . . .

*Sigh*

It's clear that you have abandoned rational argument in favor of visceral but baseless certainty and ad hominems. A classic example of, "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts."

Time to end this dialogue.

GE Morton wrote: ↑March 27th, 2018, 1:05 pmIt's clear that you have abandoned rational argument in favor of visceral but baseless certainty and ad hominems. A classic example of, "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts."

Time to end this dialogue.

You have essentially been claiming that lethality of rapid-fire weapons is not greater than any other, and you support your arguments with biased interpretation of statistics. So I could have said exactly what you said to me a number of posts ago - aside from your continued incorrect use of the term "ad hominem". I'm glad to pull the plug - seemingly never the twain shall meet.

You deny the one measure that could most immediately impact on the numbers of deaths during school massacres - working to get as many automatic weapons out of communities as possible. You at least agreed with screening with associated regulation to ensure that obviously unsuitable people don't have such easy access to weapons.

It seems that mass shootings have become so commonplace, that fewer and fewer people are outraged by them.

Are mass shootings becoming the new normal? Is there going to become a point when the shooting lobby say that enough is enough, something must be done?

Rederic wrote: ↑May 21st, 2018, 7:26 am Are mass shootings becoming the new normal? Is there going to become a point when the shooting lobby say that enough is enough, something must be done?

Yes. I live in Australia but I used to be upset by the reports. Not any more. I instead just feel loathing for people trying to deflect by blaming these murders on abortions and video games when the obvious answer is the responsible regulation of lethal weapons.

A no brainer, one might think. However, the arms companies have the politicians in their pocket because the arms company shares are in the pockets of politicians' friends and allies.

Moral of the story: when constructing societies, note that whomever controls the energy, information and weapons controls the agenda. In hindsight, it would seem more logical and sustainable in terms of governance to leave energy, information and weapons with the people rather than feeding them off to foreign private interests for short term budgetary gain. PPPs at best.

Rederic wrote: ↑May 21st, 2018, 7:26 am Is there going to become a point when the shooting lobby say that enough is enough, something must be done?

Everybody is saying, "Something must be done." The trouble is finding something to do that is both effective and constitutional.

Like regulation?

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 21st, 2018, 8:47 pm

Rederic wrote: ↑May 21st, 2018, 7:26 am Is there going to become a point when the shooting lobby say that enough is enough, something must be done?

Everybody is saying, "Something must be done." The trouble is finding something to do that is both effective and constitutional.

The problem is that some folks equate "effective" with preventing 100% of possible events, then smugly claim victory when they make up a scenario where the proposal wouldn't work. As if other possible laws or regulations on any other issue are held up to that sort of scrutiny.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 2:23 am
The problem is that some folks equate "effective" with preventing 100% of possible events, then smugly claim victory when they make up a scenario where the proposal wouldn't work.

Who are these people? I know of no one who expects any measure to be 100% effective, or argues that they must be.

A petition drive has been launched in my state (Washington) to raise the minimum age for purchase of semi-auto rifles to 21 (from 18), and require completion of a firearms safety course and background checks before purchase of those weapons. This is another of those hand-waving exercises for allowing voters to think they're "doing something," but which will have no measurable effect on the problem

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 10:29 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 2:23 am
The problem is that some folks equate "effective" with preventing 100% of possible events, then smugly claim victory when they make up a scenario where the proposal wouldn't work.

Who are these people? I know of no one who expects any measure to be 100% effective, or argues that they must be.

A petition drive has been launched in my state (Washington) to raise the minimum age for purchase of semi-auto rifles to 21 (from 18), and require completion of a firearms safety course and background checks before purchase of those weapons. This is another of those hand-waving exercises for allowing voters to think they're "doing something," but which will have no measurable effect on the problem

Yes, I was exaggerating with the "100%" number, but I assume you are familiar with the cable news trick of modern "Whataboutism", especially it's use on the specific topic of gun control.

Hitting the video tab when you google "whataboutism gun control" gives >3500 clips.

As to the ineffectiveness of this or that gun control measure, you are right it won't eliminate all such events, but there is a clear correlation between states with more laws and lower gun death rates. Everyone knows the gun death rates in more regulated states isn't zero, but you said no one expects it to be.

https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/the ... s--A06.jpg

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 12:06 pm
As to the ineffectiveness of this or that gun control measure, you are right it won't eliminate all such events, but there is a clear correlation between states with more laws and lower gun death rates.

But it is not correlated with homicide rates. The correlation there is essentially zero.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... dd06393806

The Brady figures you cite are for all gun deaths, which includes suicides. And the actual correlation there is with the rate of gun ownership, not the state laws. If fewer households keep a gun in the house, guns will obviously be less likely to be used for suicides. The suicidal person will choose some different method. The state laws are relevant only to the extent they reduce the ownership rate.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 2:23 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 12:06 pm
As to the ineffectiveness of this or that gun control measure, you are right it won't eliminate all such events, but there is a clear correlation between states with more laws and lower gun death rates.

But it is not correlated with homicide rates. The correlation there is essentially zero.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... dd06393806

The Brady figures you cite are for all gun deaths, which includes suicides. And the actual correlation there is with the rate of gun ownership, not the state laws. If fewer households keep a gun in the house, guns will obviously be less likely to be used for suicides. The suicidal person will choose some different method. The state laws are relevant only to the extent they reduce the ownership rate.

"Yeah, but whatabout homicide rates separate from ownership rates?"

As you know some folks are lumpers and others are spliters. Some view deaths at school shootings separate from mall shootings from church shootings from robbery shootings from domestic violence shootings from accidental shootings from suicides by gun. Others lump them together into gun deaths. To me they are all tragedies that if decreased would be a victory, you are of course free to have a different perspective.

As to the idea that potential gun suicides are merely substituted (one for one) with other methods, the lethality of gun suicides vary from 65% for gunshot to abdomen (who does that?) to 98% (headshot, most common), whereas for non gun methods range from 6% (slit wrists, very common) to 97% for cyanide (rare).