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

[Pattern-chaser]

Please help stop the epidemic of mass murderers killing innocent people every day in the USA. Try to understand their mindset and why they enjoy and crave to kill as many people as possible. They all have the trifecta of evil and are truly demonic. To them, life in prison is not punishment. Only their death will stop the mass murderers.

If you really want to reduce the number of innocent Americans killed by *all* kinds of murderers, devote yourself to achieving gun control. Get rid of the weapons, and murders will fall precipitously. Then, when the crisis is under some sort of control, you will have the leisure to track down the tiny number of sadistic monsters that worry you so much.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Please help stop the epidemic of mass murderers killing innocent people every day in the USA. Try to understand their mindset and why they enjoy and crave to kill as many people as possible. They all have the trifecta of evil and are truly demonic. To them, life in prison is not punishment. Only their death will stop the mass murderers.

If you really want to reduce the number of innocent Americans killed by *all* kinds of murderers, devote yourself to achieving gun control.

If you mean disarming police and government agents, then that might work. If the Russian government had been disarmed, then many of Ukraine's citizens would still be alive, and Ukraine probably wouldn't have been invaded.

In any case, it's hard to interpret what you mean without knowing your answer to the 3-question poll I have about gun control.

The Soviet Union implemented extreme gun control measures, for example, and it corresponded to a drastic increase in murder.

Likewise, globally, the invention and adoption of guns is correlated with a decrease in killing, slavery, rape, and murder, as explained in more detail in this post.

[Belindi]

We need to deprive certain criminals of their liberty however we should do so apologetically and try to make prisons as humane as possible.

[Pattern-chaser]

Please help stop the epidemic of mass murderers killing innocent people every day in the USA. Try to understand their mindset and why they enjoy and crave to kill as many people as possible. They all have the trifecta of evil and are truly demonic. To them, life in prison is not punishment. Only their death will stop the mass murderers.

If you really want to reduce the number of innocent Americans killed by *all* kinds of murderers, devote yourself to achieving gun control.

If you mean disarming police and government agents, then that might work.

Yes and no. I mean disarming *everyone*. No guns at all. There is no good reason for their existence. All the supposed 'justifications' for gun ownership are disingenuous. There are no justified reasons. Even without guns, we are supremely capable of inflicting damage on one another, individually or collectively. A lack of guns wouldn't hold us back ... but it would slow us down, limiting the number of casualties. In practice, that's the best we could hope for, I think.

[Pattern-chaser]

We need to deprive certain criminals of their liberty however we should do so apologetically and try to make prisons as humane as possible.

Exactly. The 'punishment' for crimes is that we are held separate from the innocent members of society that we might otherwise harm in the future. This is not about the prisoner, it's about their victims, the future victims that can still be protected from the actions of that criminal. We need not revenge ourselves on prisoners, but only segregate them for the benefit of all.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Please help stop the epidemic of mass murderers killing innocent people every day in the USA. Try to understand their mindset and why they enjoy and crave to kill as many people as possible. They all have the trifecta of evil and are truly demonic. To them, life in prison is not punishment. Only their death will stop the mass murderers.

If you really want to reduce the number of innocent Americans killed by *all* kinds of murderers, devote yourself to achieving gun control.

If you mean disarming police and government agents, then that might work.

Yes and no. I mean disarming *everyone*. No guns at all. There is no good reason for their existence. All the supposed 'justifications' for gun ownership are disingenuous. There are no justified reasons. Even without guns, we are supremely capable of inflicting damage on one another, individually or collectively. A lack of guns wouldn't hold us back ... but it would slow us down, limiting the number of casualties. In practice, that's the best we could hope for, I think.

Why stop at guns? What about swords and knives? What about bows and arrows? What about crossbows? What about waterguns and bb guns? What about paintball guns? What about stunguns? What about hunting guns that are too weak to do much damage to humans but work well on birds or such? What about handheld tasers? What about brass knuckles? I'm assuming you want there to be an allegedly trustworthy huge powerful global government with a jurisdiction that spans the whole planet to violently enforce these laws that you want to exist so that those laws can be enforced (presumably via non-defensive violence) globally and the bows and arrows or such can be confiscated consistently from all people across the whole globe.

How many people do you think your global government will kill or murder to implement this unrealistic Orwellian plan to completely disarm everyone including police across the whole globe?

How's it going to be funded? Is that going to require non-defensive violence against peaceful people as well? In other words, does your plan involve not only (1) using violence against people who don't want to give up their weak little non-automatic low caliber weapons, but also (2) using violence against pacifists who simply don't want to pay for this huge agressively violent undertaking?

[Pattern-chaser]

If you really want to reduce the number of innocent Americans killed by *all* kinds of murderers, devote yourself to achieving gun control.

If you mean disarming police and government agents, then that might work.

Yes and no. I mean disarming *everyone*. No guns at all. There is no good reason for their existence. All the supposed 'justifications' for gun ownership are disingenuous. There are no justified reasons. Even without guns, we are supremely capable of inflicting damage on one another, individually or collectively. A lack of guns wouldn't hold us back ... but it would slow us down, limiting the number of casualties. In practice, that's the best we could hope for, I think.

Why stop at guns?

Good question!

What about swords and knives? What about bows and arrows? What about crossbows? What about waterguns and bb guns? What about paintball guns? What about stunguns? What about hunting guns that are too weak to do much damage to humans but work well on birds or such? What about handheld tasers? What about brass knuckles?

What about all things whose purpose is to injure or kill some other living creature, needlessly? Given their intended function, we could usefully do without them.

How many people do you think your global government will kill or murder to implement this unrealistic Orwellian plan to completely disarm everyone including police across the whole globe?

Right again. My plan is unrealistic. But there is a problem, and that is one solution. There may be others, but I can't think of them.

But I don't see how disarmament is "Orwellian". It could, in theory, take place voluntarily, although that expectation is equally unrealistic, I admit. But it's a solution to the problem, when there are few, if any, alternatives...?

[Belindi]

If you really want to reduce the number of innocent Americans killed by *all* kinds of murderers, devote yourself to achieving gun control.

If you mean disarming police and government agents, then that might work.

Yes and no. I mean disarming *everyone*. No guns at all. There is no good reason for their existence. All the supposed 'justifications' for gun ownership are disingenuous. There are no justified reasons. Even without guns, we are supremely capable of inflicting damage on one another, individually or collectively. A lack of guns wouldn't hold us back ... but it would slow us down, limiting the number of casualties. In practice, that's the best we could hope for, I think.

Why stop at guns?

Good question!

What about swords and knives? What about bows and arrows? What about crossbows? What about waterguns and bb guns? What about paintball guns? What about stunguns? What about hunting guns that are too weak to do much damage to humans but work well on birds or such? What about handheld tasers? What about brass knuckles?

What about all things whose purpose is to injure or kill some other living creature, needlessly? Given their intended function, we could usefully do without them.

How many people do you think your global government will kill or murder to implement this unrealistic Orwellian plan to completely disarm everyone including police across the whole globe?

Right again. My plan is unrealistic. But there is a problem, and that is one solution. There may be others, but I can't think of them.

But I don't see how disarmament is "Orwellian". It could, in theory, take place voluntarily, although that expectation is equally unrealistic, I admit. But it's a solution to the problem, when there are few, if any, alternatives...?

In view of the fact that inter -tribal hostility is set to continue we do need armed deterrence: it should not be too difficult to set international standards to prevent an arms race.
However it's absurd that a state would use weapons against its own citizens. It's even more stupid that fellow citizens have weapons ready to kill each other.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

However it's absurd that a state would use weapons against its own citizens.

In a sense, I agree, which is why I voted the way I did in my three-question poll about gun control. Perhaps, thus, you voted the same as me. I hope you do reply there to state which way you voted in that poll and why.

It's even more stupid that fellow citizens have weapons ready to kill each other.

I don't think it's "stupid" to have simple weapons (e.g. a sword, or brass knuckles, or a simple 7-round non-automatic low-caliber pistol) to engage in self-defense, especially if others have remotely similar weapons.

I think it's reasonable and not stupid for a kind-hearted short skinny young pretty lady to keep a sword, a bow and arrow, or a little weak 7-round non-automatic low-caliber pistol at home for self-defense, in case (among countless examples) a group of mean violent tall muscular men come to her house to rape and murder her.

It's not just big men against whom a little woman would be wise (or at least not "stupid") to be prepared to defend herself. When I visited Alaska, almost everyone had a rifle in the back of their trunk or the back of their truck, to protect themselves from bears. If anything, one would be "stupid" to go around in the Alaskan wilderness without a gun.

I wouldn't really call anything "stupid" as such, but insofar as behaviors or events themselves can be "stupid", then what would seem "stupid" to me would be the formation or support of big violent non-local government (or, worse, global government) and the expensive violent macro-criminalization (or, worse, global criminalization) of peaceful consensual behaviors, such as but not at all limited to consensual adult prostitution, homosexual civil unions, marijuana consumption, alcohol consumption, or gambling, or pacifistic tax protesting (i.e. a pacifist peacefully refusing to fund non-defensive violence by refusing to pay non-consensual taxes to a big violent non-local government).



Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your reply!

What about swords and knives? What about bows and arrows? What about crossbows? What about waterguns and bb guns? What about paintball guns? What about stunguns? What about hunting guns that are too weak to do much damage to humans but work well on birds or such? What about handheld tasers? What about brass knuckles?

What about all things whose purpose is to injure or kill some other living creature, needlessly? Given their intended function, we could usefully do without them.

Need is relative and conditional to some goal. Thus, the way you have used the word "needlessly" in the above sentence is thus incoherent. To make a meaningful statement, you would need to specify what goal of yours the need (or alleged needlessness) is relative to.

Everything is necessary for something.

A person may need a ticket to get into a concert. A bank robber might need a gun to do a bank robbery. A young skinny woman about to be raped by a couple big strong tall men might need to shoot at them with a little tiny weak low-caliber non-automatic pistol to successfully exercise self-defense (i.e. not get raped).

A need is simply a required means to some specific end, but without specifying that end, the concept of a means becomes meaninglessness incoherent nonsense.

Presumably, your proposed violent army of violent police and violent government agents would need a lot of ultra-powerful guns to enforce your Orwellian plan to create a huge expensive global government and ban (via the use of extreme aggressive violence) everyone everywhere from owning things as simple as a bow and arrow.

You would also presumably need to murder and/or imprison a lot of pacifists and other peace-lovers to implement your aggressively violent plan, which at least makes this discussion relevant to the topic, "Does Society Need Prisons?" To do what you want to do, society would need a lot of prisons. You would need to put a lot of pacifists and peaceful people in prison to implement your violent plan.

If you want to coerce pacifists and other peace-lovers to fund organized non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), you will typically need to threaten them with imprisonment, which would be the figurative if not literal gun you, Pattern-chaser, need to put to their head to coerce the peace-lovers into doing/funding the aggressively violent things you want them to do/fund.

How many people do you think your global government will kill or murder to implement this unrealistic Orwellian plan to completely disarm everyone including police across the whole globe?

Right again. My plan is unrealistic. But there is a problem, and that is one solution.

Well, an unrealistic/impossible would-be solution is not a solution. To be a real solution a would-be solution would need to be possible, and thus, in practice, realistic.

Incidentally, I think your plan is quite realistic, with the exception that I doubt the big huge violent global government would ever disarm itself and its own agents. But I do think it's quite realistic and likely that will see in our lifetimes the formation of a huge violent Orwellian global government that has well-armed agents with super powerful automatic guns that does its best to disarms citizens across the globe. Such a plan or occurrence would ultimately lead to there being a lot more guns and violence overall, but it would just be that the citizens are the ones are disarmed, while a huge global police force is created that makes the things #BlackLivesMatter complain about look a bee sting in comparison. For more on that concept, I suggest voting and replying also in my topic, Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

The above poll becomes even more interesting when you assume the "cops" are agents of a huge expensive one-world global government that sends its "cops" to go violently hunt down pacifists for illegally smoking marijuana or engaging in other peaceful consensual crimes.

Regardless, what would be most unrealistic about the plan is the expectation that the huge violent expensive Orwellian global government would act like a benevolent dictator and just do the things you think are desirable. Surely, it would also result in things like a global ban on marijuana smoking and committing massive amounts of violence against pacifists.

But I don't see how disarmament is "Orwellian".

What I was referring to as Orwellian was the massive organized commission of large-scale non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery) by a global government (or any huge non-local government for that matter), and/or the attempt or plan to create a violent global government that commits acts of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

Maybe you're sending well-armed government agents across the globe in mass to break into peace-loving people's house to take away their marijuana plants, or maybe you're doing it to take away their swords and bows and arrows. It's seems just as violently Orwellian to me one way or the other.

Of course, another way to look at it is to simply consider (1) the disarmament in Soviet Russia and (2) the non-coincidental similarities between that and what's described in Orwell's 1984, and then (3) the similarities between both of those and your endorsement of huge centralized non-local violent government (global government at that) and massive non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.) committed against unarmed citizens presumably well-armed government enforcers.

Granted, it would be easier to see and say just how Orwellian your plan to imprison pacifists and disarm peace-loving citizens via an aggressively violent global government is, if you clarify your answer to my three-answer poll about gun control.


Thank you,
Scott

[Belindi]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

However it's absurd that a state would use weapons against its own citizens.

In a sense, I agree, which is why I voted the way I did in my three-question poll about gun control. Perhaps, thus, you voted the same as me. I hope you do reply there to state which way you voted in that poll and why.

It's even more stupid that fellow citizens have weapons ready to kill each other.

I don't think it's "stupid" to have simple weapons (e.g. a sword, or brass knuckles, or a simple 7-round non-automatic low-caliber pistol) to engage in self-defense, especially if others have remotely similar weapons.

I think it's reasonable and not stupid for a kind-hearted short skinny young pretty lady to keep a sword, a bow and arrow, or a little weak 7-round non-automatic low-caliber pistol at home for self-defense, in case (among countless examples) a group of mean violent tall muscular men come to her house to rape and murder her.

It's not just big men against whom a little woman would be wise (or at least not "stupid") to be prepared to defend herself. When I visited Alaska, almost everyone had a rifle in the back of their trunk or the back of their truck, to protect themselves from bears. If anything, one would be "stupid" to go around in the Alaskan wilderness without a gun.

I wouldn't really call anything "stupid" as such, but insofar as behaviors or events themselves can be "stupid", then what would seem "stupid" to me would be the formation or support of big violent non-local government (or, worse, global government) and the expensive violent macro-criminalization (or, worse, global criminalization) of peaceful consensual behaviors, such as but not at all limited to consensual adult prostitution, homosexual civil unions, marijuana consumption, alcohol consumption, or gambling, or pacifistic tax protesting (i.e. a pacifist peacefully refusing to fund non-defensive violence by refusing to pay non-consensual taxes to a big violent non-local government).



Thank you,
Scott

Your scenario describes a collapse of civilised society where criminals routinely use violence unstopped by police or public disapproval. In that case the weak should be armed , every man for himself.

Indeed "every man for himself" is the present situation vis a vis non- violent crime where organised criminal bosses rob unsophisticated individuals of their money and peace of mind, or rob poor and desperate people of their small funds in exchange for dangerous and illegal immigration.

Crime is widespread and powerful and armed policemen would be or are only a smallish proportion of international intelligence collaboration needed to stop crime. Arming policemen is counter productive except in special cases such as an ongoing violent crime. In time of war it may be necessary to have martial law but in peace time trained and indoctrinated police dogs with weapons are not the image of peace keepers.

[amorphos_ii]

The poll needs an additional entry perhaps; the cops and citizens can have guns, but not on equal grounds. e.g. citizens can defend themselves with low calibre weapons or just pistols maybe - no spiper ripfles for sure, but cops can have better weapons to take down criminals.

[Samana Johann]

Does Society Need Prisons?

If one desires to go beyond the bond of societies in the world, one has to take on voluntary the prison of renouncing. Seldom would one recognize relations, societies as prison, deeply caught in.

[Pattern-chaser]

Granted, it would be easier to see and say just how Orwellian your plan to imprison pacifists and disarm peace-loving citizens via an aggressively violent global government is...

I have no plan, or intention, to "imprison pacifists and disarm peace-loving citizens". Sorry, that's a straw-man attack.

I would like to see universal disarmament, and I think it is fair to observe that those who own and use weapons are not "pacifists" or "peace-loving".

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your most recent reply!

First, please allow me to circle back to this older post that I think I misunderstood (and then thus presumably made an accidental strawman argument regarding):

If you really want to reduce the number of innocent Americans killed by *all* kinds of murderers, devote yourself to achieving gun control.

If you mean disarming police and government agents, then that might work.

Yes and no. I mean disarming *everyone*. No guns at all.



[...]

How many people do you think your global government will kill or murder to implement this unrealistic Orwellian plan to completely disarm everyone including police across the whole globe?

Right again. My plan is unrealistic. But there is a problem, and that is one solution.


[Emphasis Added.]

In the above post, I think I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote, "I mean disarming *everyone*. No guns at all."

Can you explain specifically what you meant by it?

Likewise, I think I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote "that is one solution", particularly the word "that". What did you mean by the word "that" in that sentence?

In any case, to be clear, let me ask: Are you proposing forcing taxpayers (via the threat of imprisonment if they refuse to pay) to pay for a global government--or other big non-local government(s)--to issues and enforce ban of all guns across the entire Earth? Will that not entail funding a militant police force or something very much like it to enforce that global ban or macro-criminalization of all guns including even tiny weak low-caliber non-automatic pistols that carry very few rounds (e.g. 5-round pistols) and evil single-round muskets that are over a hundred years old?

I would like to see universal disarmament,

Can you define "disarmament" as you use the term, in a way that I can understand both what non-universal disarmament and universal disarmament would each entail?

Does it have a financial cost?

Does it require the use of organized force? Does it require militant force? Will the agents doing the disarming be paid government agents? Will they themselves need to be armed with guns bought and paid for by taxpayers? Assuming you are proposing a plan that involves paid armed government agents going around enforcing your ban, will those guns be weak little low-caliber low-round non-automatic pistols or will they need bigger more powerful guns that have some real stopping power, perhaps even some automatics or armor-piercing ones?

I think it is fair to observe that those who own and use weapons are not "pacifists" or "peace-loving".

The pacifists to whom my earlier post referred were any pacifists who would refuse to help fund your plan, including if that means pacifistic tax protesting.

Incidentally, I consider myself to be an adamant peace-lover and peace-supporter, as I explain in this tweet. But I am not quite a pacifist though, in part because I support peace (and by extension oppose non-defensive violence) so much. Accordingly, I do own guns. And, likewise, as an adamant peace-lover and opposer of non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.), I do support defensive uses of force as a way to mitigate non-defensive violence and thereby protect would-be victims of non-defensive violence. For instance, if someone was attempting to rape or murder my children, I would use defensive force if needed to do my best to stop them, including lethal force if necessary to reliably stop the rapist or murderer from raping or murdering my children, or even me for that matter.

But, the above paragraph is merely an incidental aside. I am not a pacifist; I am just an adamant peace-lover who strongly and adamantly supports peace and opposes non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery, etc.). The pacifists you would need to imprison are the ones who would refuse to fund what you call "universal disarmament", which would presumably be a huge, extremely expensive, and extremely violent undertaking.

That takes us back to the titular question: Does society need prisons? It would indeed need a lot of prisons for a large or global government to issue and enforce a ban on all guns, including even weak little low-caliber non-automatic low-round pistols and ancient single-round muskets (or drugs like marijuana, or alcohol, or consensual adult prostitution, or any number of other things).

Granted, it would be easier to see and say just how Orwellian your plan to imprison pacifists and disarm peace-loving citizens via an aggressively violent global government is...

I have no plan, or intention, to "imprison pacifists and disarm peace-loving citizens".

Then I'm sorry; I must have misunderstood. So, to be clear, you are saying that you are not proposing a large and/or global government issue and enforce a ban of all all guns across the whole globe? Correct? If so, that's a nice significant relief for me to hear. It was scary to even just imagine. But then it raises the question, what are you proposing? Is it going to have financial cost? If so, how is it going to be funded? What happens if some of the people you expect to fund it (e.g. taxpayers) refuse?



Thank you,
Scott