Philosophy Discussion Forums

This Australian news headline today is one that Americans would just about be dreaming about by now: "Bourke Street Attack: Terrorist dead after stabbing rampage that killed one, injured two, in Melbourne's CBD"

By contrast, on the same day: "12 dead in California bar shooting: Live updates".

It's always strange when gun advocates claim that knives are just as bad. Try killing twelve people in a crowd with a knife.

GE Morton:

They shifted to that emphasis in response to increasing threats to the 2nd Amendment from left-wing political organizations.

It is not quite so simple. See the following on the “Revolt at Cincinnati”:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 7b1d8f0af2

The NRA didn’t like the 1968 law [Gun Control Act of 1968], viewing it as overly restrictive, but also didn’t see it as a slide toward tyranny. The top NRA officer, Franklin Orth, wrote in the association’s publication American Rifleman that “the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

But in 1977 things changed dramatically. A hard-line faction took over the NRA, forcing out the moderates and installed Harlon B. Carter, a convicted murderer (the conviction was later overturned on a technicality) and vigilante, as their leader. In a letter to the membership he wrote:

We can win it on a simple concept —No compromise. No gun legislation.

GE:

They're also aware that it is not NRA members pulling the homidical triggers.

Whether or not that is true, and you have not provided any evidence that it is, they pull the lever in the voting booth.

Those members do not want their constitutional rights violated to prevent violence they are not committing.

Those members, following Carter, took an absolutist position that any gun legislation is a violation of their second amendment right to own guns.

Gun advocates want to point their finger everywhere except the guns.

Not everywhere. They point them at the persons actually committing the crimes. As the NRA says, guns do not commit crimes. People do.

Let me rephrase it: wherever they point their finger it won’t be at guns. The problem is not people, the problem is people with guns. That does not mean that anyone with a gun is a problem, but that without the guns the crimes would not be so deadly and would not involve so many.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 7:09 pm
The problem is not people, the problem is people with guns. That does not mean that anyone with a gun is a problem, but that without the guns the crimes would not be so deadly and would not involve so many.

That is true. And if there were no automobiles there would be no traffic fatalities. If there were no electricity there would be no electrocutions. If there were no opiate drugs there would be no overdoses. Etc.

Greta wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 4:50 pm
It's always strange when gun advocates claim that knives are just as bad. Try killing twelve people in a crowd with a knife.

Mowing them down with an automobile works pretty well, as also happened in Melbourne a while back (6 dead).

Still not even in the ballpark, GEM, one incident this year. Not daily, as in the US.

I appreciate that significant gun regulation in the US is most unlikely and has to date been judged more potentially problematic than the status quo. However, the least you can do is agree to the very most obvious fact that more guns means more fatalities than other readily available means. Admitting that does not mean anything will change, or can change.

GE:

And if there were no automobiles there would be no traffic fatalities. If there were no electricity there would be no electrocutions. If there were no opiate drugs there would be no overdoses. Etc.

Good point. We should treat the purchase and use of guns as we do your examples. Driving a car legally requires passing a test and obtaining a licence. There are electrical codes and inspections. There are laws governing the prescribing and dispensing opiates.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 11:55 pm
Good point. We should treat the purchase and use of guns as we do your examples. Driving a car legally requires passing a test and obtaining a licence. There are electrical codes and inspections. There are laws governing the prescribing and dispensing opiates.

And despite those regulations there are still over 37,000 deaths annually from both drug overdoses and auto accidents, over 3 times as many as from gun homicides. Clearly the only solution is to ban them all.

Greta wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 9:58 pm
I appreciate that significant gun regulation in the US is most unlikely and has to date been judged more potentially problematic than the status quo. However, the least you can do is agree to the very most obvious fact that more guns means more fatalities than other readily available means. Admitting that does not mean anything will change, or can change.

Yes, I do admit that. One thing that can change is scrapping the revolving-door "justice" system and removing criminals from the streets permanently. That would reduce the homicide rate by 40-50% instantly.

GE Morton:

And despite those regulations there are still over 37,000 deaths annually from both drug overdoses and auto accidents, over 3 times as many as from gun homicides. Clearly the only solution is to ban them all.

The options are not banning them all or ignoring the problem. Gun advocates like to frame the argument as if any attempt to reduce gun deaths and injury by regulation means banning guns. Death and injury by drug overdose and auto accidents would be much higher without regulations.

Having established that school teachers should be carrying guns while at work, for protection from other people carrying guns, should this now be extended to doctors? Would it be best if every adult, in every occupation, at all times, packs a sidearm?

Why stop with adults? See this funny and disturbing piece from Sasha Baron Cohen's "Who Is America?":

https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk

In this segment Cohen disguises himself as an Israeli anti-terrorist expert and meets with members of the Republican Party.

I haven't watched it yet, but people have described it to me. Yes, funny and disturbing, I'm told. I'll watch it later tonight.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2018, 1:08 pmYes, funny and disturbing, I'm told.

It is mind boggling that such people and beliefs exist. That makes clear the kind of mentality being dealt with here. China won't stand for such shenanigans when they are in control.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 10th, 2018, 2:31 pm
The options are not banning them all or ignoring the problem. Gun advocates like to frame the argument as if any attempt to reduce gun deaths and injury by regulation means banning guns.

Yes, they do. Because banning guns is the only regulation that will have any appreciable impact on the problem, and where that approach must eventually lead.

GE Morton:

Because banning guns is the only regulation that will have any appreciable impact on the problem, and where that approach must eventually lead.

You do not know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact. There is only one way to find out. If they do not work that does not meant that banning guns is an inevitable step. Perhaps the real fear is that they will work, which will lend support to the effectiveness of increased regulations. But that is not an inevitable step that will lead to an outright ban either. Slippery slope arguments are inherently weak.