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

[Felix]

Mark1955 said: Sadly, I'd suggest that Switzerland disproves this (i.e., that gun ownership equals more gun deaths).

It does not - apples and oranges. Unlike the U.S., Switzerland has mandatory military service for men. A soldier who wants to buy his firearm after he finishes military service must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit. It will be refused if the applicant has a criminal record, an addiction or a psychiatric problem. A special permit is needed to carry a gun in public - and is usually issued only to people who work in security, once they have passed theoretical and practical exams.

Steve3007: Looking at Tysons comments as simple factual statements without trying to extrapolate anything from them, or read between the lines, or wonder why he chose to point out these particular facts, he's right isn't he?

What's right about it? It was an idiotic and insensitive comment, would he have posted it if one of his children was one of the shooter's victims? (if he has children). How smart is it to group accidents and errors with intentional acts of violence? - not exactly a sign of good judgment.

Steve3007: I agree that it's hard to argue against self defense altogether.

It wasn't hard before 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, unconnected with service in a militia - as is the case in Switzerland.

[GE Morton]

. . . your "corrections" are rubbish too . . .

No one is more dogmatic on this board than you are. . . .

No one even comes close, mate. Look in the mirror before throwing rubbish around,

I doubt you are even capable of recognising philosophical thought . . .

I let your dodgy gaming go for years in the hope that you would grow up and become honest . . .

Just another wannabe red cap politician . . .

Wow. A whole slew of ad hominems, not a single argument.

[GE Morton]

The chart GE Morton fears and will not post is the one that compares gun ownership and gun deaths in OECD countries.

Well, your claim, "The fact is that more gun ownership equals more gun deaths," was not limited to OECD countries. My links addressed that broad statement. But your claim is still false when limited to OECD countries:

"The relationship between homicide rates and the supposed measure of gun ownership provided the Small Arms Survey shows that even with their obviously biased measure of gun ownership, more guns ownership is associated with fewer homicides, though the relationship is not statistically significant."

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/up ... Survey.png

You might read the entire discussion on that site. It considers the difficulties inherent in drawing these comparisons between countries.

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/compa ... countries/

[GE Morton]

What's right about it? It was an idiotic and insensitive comment . . .

Ah, "insensitive" --- one of the mainstays in the political correctness lexicon. It means, "One must not tell the truth if it will hurt someone's feelings;" feelings trump facts."

Well, no, they don't.

[Sy Borg]

The chart GE Morton fears and will not post is the one that compares gun ownership and gun deaths in OECD countries.

Well, your claim, "The fact is that more gun ownership equals more gun deaths," was not limited to OECD countries. My links addressed that broad statement. But your claim is still false when limited to OECD countries:

"The relationship between homicide rates and the supposed measure of gun ownership provided the Small Arms Survey shows that even with their obviously biased measure of gun ownership, more guns ownership is associated with fewer homicides, though the relationship is not statistically significant."

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/up ... Survey.png

You might read the entire discussion on that site. It considers the difficulties inherent in drawing these comparisons between countries.

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/compa ... countries/

Disgraceful! You present this website as though it's "official". Look at that very official looking URL: crimeresearch.org

It so happens that the site and the owner that you cite is a proven fraud. You know he was a fraud but you quoted anyway, right?

Aside from not admitting that your source was a liar and a fraud, you didn't even make clear that the think tank is not actually about crime research and was established to promote guns.

https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-joh ... 6e83cf326/

The GOP’s favorite gun ‘academic’ is a fraud

John Lott [the person GE Morton quoted as the definitive voice in the debate] is, if not the most influential, certainly the most prolific “academic” in the gun debate ... his newest book The War on Guns has received rave reviews by prominent conservatives, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Newt Gingrich.

Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions.

An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. And a blogger revealed that Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia.

Despite his ethical failings, Lott rose from the ashes in the wake of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School to once more become a prominent voice in the gun debate.

Moving away from your dodgy alt right sources, what is actually happening?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... countries/

U.S. firearm death rate ten times higher than other high-income countries

When compared with people living in 22 other high-income nations, Americans are ten times more likely to be killed by a gun, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the University of Nevada, Reno.

The study appeared online February 3, 2016 in the American Journal of Medicine.

Analyzing World Health Organization mortality data, investigators found that despite having only half the population of the other 22 high-income nations combined, the U.S. accounted for 82% of all firearm deaths. In addition, the U.S. accounted for about 90% of all women, children, and youth age 24 and under, who were killed by firearms.

The study notes that gun homicide rates are 25 times higher in the U.S. than other high-income nations. And while suicide rates in the U.S. are similar to those in other high-income countries, Americans are eight times as likely to kill themselves with a gun.

“Many suicides are impulsive, and the urge to die fades away. Firearms are a swift and lethal method of suicide with a high case-fatality rate,” said study co-author David Hemenway, professor of health policy at Harvard Chan and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center.

[Felix]

GE Morton: Ah, "insensitive" - one of the mainstays in the political correctness lexicon. It means, "One must not tell the truth if it will hurt someone's feelings."

I would expect you to say that because you don't seem to have feelings.... For sure! A thoughtful person wouldn't mind at all if the preacher they hired to give the eulogy at a loved one's funeral got up and recited a list of the number of people who had died that day from various causes, and then said "this is just one more death, go home and get over it, people!"

[Steve3007]

What's right about it? It was an idiotic and insensitive comment...

It's right in the sense of being factually correct. You are stating here that, in your opinion, it was not morally right to choose to state those particular facts and not some others. That's a different thing.

...would he have posted it if one of his children was one of the shooter's victims?

I don't know. If they were, would that have changed the extent to which it is factually right or wrong? Or would it just have changed the sense in which it was, in your view, morally right or wrong to say it? Or would it simply make him less likely to say it?

How smart is it to group accidents and errors with intentional acts of violence? - not exactly a sign of good judgment.

Did I make any statements about his judgement in my post? If I did, how did I distinguish them from statements about the factual correctness or incorrectness of his words?

[Steve3007]

I agree that it's hard to argue against self defense altogether.

It wasn't hard before 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, unconnected with service in a militia - as is the case in Switzerland.

I don't follow your point here, if it's a reply to my comment, as it appears to be. My comment was part of a longer reply to GE Morton. In the particular part that you quoted I simply made the general point that it's hard to argue against self defence altogether. In other words, I offered the opinion that, regardless of any specific questions about specific methods of self defence using specific objects, it would be difficult to tell someone that they are never allowed to defend themselves in any way at all against anything. For example, if a person were about to be punched in the face I would find it difficult to admonish that person for raising their arms to protect their face or blinking their eyes.

In my reply to GE Morton, I went on to talk more specifically about the multiple possible uses of weapons (and other objects) as an attempted refutation of his second point, which was that, given that it's hard to argue against self defence altogether, people should have the right to use the most effective means of defence possible. He has now replied to that, so I'll reply to his reply later.

[Felix]

Steve3007: It's right in the sense of being factually correct.

I can't say whether it was or wasn't factually correct. The more important question is, why did he say it? How were his comments in any way constructive? How are those facts relevant to the mass murder that took place? Was his point that we shouldn't be concerned about incidents like this because, hey, lots of people die every day from all these other unpleasant causes so what's a few dozen more dead bodies? - because that's pretty much how it sounded.

Steve3007: In the particular part that you quoted I simply made the general point that it's hard to argue against self defence altogether.

I understand. At the time the second amendment was written, it was fairly common for citizens to own a gun or rifle, but these were practically bb guns compared to the firearms we have today. Obviously this needs to be considered when we talk about gun ownership rights.

[Steve3007]

The more important question is, why did he say it?

As I said in my post on the subject, I think if there is a philosophical point it is that we are not Utilitarian-style data analysing machines who simply add up the number of deaths and injuries regardless of how they happened and to whom they happened. There are all kinds of reasons why we regard some deaths/injuries as more significant and attention-worthy than others. As you've implied, one of those is if the injured party is closely related to us (e.g. if he/she is our own child).

[Steve3007]

But it strikes me that the question of whether any given weapon (or other device, like a shield) is well suited for the purpose of self-defence depends entirely on the environment in which one lives. The greater the number of other self-defensive weapons out there the greater the need for one to carry a weapon oneself, and this is true even if all parties refer to their weapons as defensive.

Oh, that is clearly not true. The number of weapons out there bears no relation to the risks posed by them, except perhaps for accidental shootings (for which owning one's own weapon would do little to prevent). For example, if 50% of people owned firearms, but the rate of gun crime was very low, the other 50% would have little incentive to acquire their own firearm. It is the rate of gun crime that spurs gun sales, not the mere rate of ownership.

If what I said above is clearly not true, as you've claimed here, then surely a very large proportion of the people around me where I live (a town in south east England) would feel a strong need to own a gun for their personal protection? But that doesn't appear to be true. The idea of feeling the need to carry a gun for personal protection would sound absurd to them. Why is that, I wonder?

I've read some research that says 44% of US citizens personally know somebody who has been a victim of gun crime and a further 25% say that they or their family have been threatened with a gun at least once. Are you really saying that this has absolutely nothing to do with the number of "self-defensive" weapons in the environment?

In London, as you may have read, there is a well publicised problem with knife crime, as a result of which many young people who move in certain circles feel the need to carry knives in order to protect themselves against the other young people who feel that same need to carry knives. Again, it seems like common sense to try to deal with this problem by, among other things, reducing the number of knives being carried, and not by advocating that more and more people should carry knives. Doesn't it?

I agree that it's hard to argue against self defence altogether. But it doesn't follow that there is a simple, unqualified right to the most effective means of self defence. Why? The main reason for this is that it's pretty difficult to manufacture an object whose only possible use is self defence.

That is true. But it is also true of almost everything else --- almost anything can be misused, including for criminal purposes, from prescription drugs to automobiles to computers to claw hammers. Do we ban everything that can, if misused, cause harm?

That's a commonly used argument, but I think it's largely a straw man because as far as I'm aware almost nobody in the US is advocating the complete banning of fireaems ownership in the US, and for good reason. There are already far too many guns in circulation for that. Similarly very few people advocate total unilateral nuclear disarmament. De-escalation in a conflict situation obviously needs to be gradual and proportionate.

The analogy [between nations and individuals] doesn't quite work. Reducing the numbers of missiles, tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, etc., may reduce the risks of war. Reducing the number of firearms will not necessarily reduce the risk of crime, for two reasons --- you will not likely be able to disarm the criminals; they will not voluntarily surrender their weapons, and we have no good information as to who has them and where they are.

If this were true then societies in which gun ownership among the law abiding public was relatively rare would be awash with criminals carrying guns and taking full advantage of their arms race lead. But this isn't the case. Of course some criminals in those societies use guns, but not as much as in societies where being armed with a gun is the norm. Criminals aren't a different species from law abiding citizens. They're subject to the same fears and motivations as the rest of us.

In the analogy with nation states and their militaries, one nation generally does regard the other as the equivalent of the criminal and themselves as the good guys. And nations will certainly seek to hide their stocks of weapons if they think they can. Yet negotiated arms reductions in which both sides gradually feel less of a need to arm themselves with the most destructive weapons are still not completely without use. If you think that the criminals will never reduce their use of weapons then you would have to conclude that the side we regard as the bad guys in arms limitation treaties wouldn't do so either.

So I don't agree that the analogy doesn't work.

Secondly, even if, assuming the impossible, all firearms could be confiscated, the criminals would still carry on their depredations with other weapons, and a firearm would remain the most effective means of defending against them.

Again, I think in the US it's very rare to hear anyone advocating the complete confiscation of all firearms. Just various de-escalation measures. Where I live, it's different because the environment is different. But, as I said, there is an analogous situation in some cities with knife crime. To solve that problem, nobody is advocating that more people should carry knives.

[GE Morton]

Disgraceful! You present this website as though it's "official". Look at that very official looking URL: crimeresearch.org

It so happens that the site and the owner that you cite is a proven fraud. You know he was a fraud but you quoted anyway, right?

Aside from not admitting that your source was a liar and a fraud, you didn't even make clear that the think tank is not actually about crime research and was established to promote guns.

https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-joh ... 6e83cf326/

Well, there is a spectacular example of selective quoting driven by ideological blindness, supported by a quote from a lefty mouthpiece suffering the same blindness.

* No one has substantively (meaning an accusation supported by facts, instead of mere name-calling) accused Lott of fraud, much less proven it.

* Lott's research on the relation between concealed-carry laws and murder has been affirmed by some scholars, disputed by others. In 2004 the National Academy of Science reviewed all available studies on the relation between gun laws and gun crime, including Lott's, and concluded:

" . . . with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.' The NRC report studied over 100 different types of gun control proposal and it reached this same non-conclusion for all these regulations. For all these regulations, the NRC panel only called for more research.

"Only right-to-carry laws had a dissent from this non-conclusion. The pre-eminent criminologist James Q. Wilson dissented from this non-conclusion. Wilson pointed out that committee's own findings showed 'that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate.'"

From the Wikipedia article:

"Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that 'Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.' As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: 'We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.'"

"A 2008 article in Econ Journal Watch surveyed peer-reviewed empirical academic studies, and found that 10 supported the proposition that right-to-carry reduces crime, 8 supported no significant effect and none supported an increase. The article was rebutted by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue in the same journal in 2009. By 2012, there were 18 peer-reviewed studies that supported right-to-carry reduces crime, 10 supported no significant effect and one supported an increase."

(These quotes from Wikipedia article on "John Lott").

But, of course, all of this anti-Lott diatribe is an ad hominem. It has no relevance to the issue at hand, i.e., whether there is a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates in OECD countries, as the tables I linked show. Attacks on the competence and character of John Lott will not refute that data, Greta.

Moving away from your dodgy alt right sources, what is actually happening?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... countries/

"U.S. firearm death rate ten times higher than other high-income countries."

The statement above --- "U.S. firearm death rate ten times higher than other high-income countries" --- is misleading. The "death rate" includes suicides. While the overall US suicide rate is comparable to those of other OECD countries, firearms are used much more often for that purpose --- not surprising, since more Americans have access to guns.

But the real interest is in the homicide rate. The OECD average is 1.82 per 100,000 people. The US rate is 3.82 per 100K. So about twice as high as the average, not 10 times as high.

https://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-ho ... art-2015-6

It should be noted that over half the homicides in the US are committed by blacks, who make up 13% of the population (now wait for the cries of "racism" from the PC crowd). The rate among whites alone is comparable to the OECD average --- yet that group has a much higher rate of gun ownership than either blacks or or any OECD country. Again, "More guns = more crime" is refuted.

[GE Morton]

PS: The OECD average quoted above excludes the US.

[Belindi]

It should be noted that over half the homicides in the US are committed by blacks, who make up 13% of the population (now wait for the cries of "racism" from the PC crowd).

Yes? Is that it?

Educational disadvantage

Poverty

Unemployment

Race prejudice

The above parameters of disadvantage apply to both white and black people. The causes of homicide should be established without reference to the criminal's appearance.

[Sy Borg]

GE, not only are you the forum's main exponent of the Gish Gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop fallacious debate tactic (hence my hostility) but now you stand by a PROVEN fraud and liar as a source. Here is a lengthy dismemberment of John Lott's dishonesty:

https://www.armedwithreason.com/shootin ... t-of-lies/

The article concludes:

12/1/15: Earlier this year, John Lott posted a rebuttal to our article (here is an archived copy: https://archive.is/j9otM). On social media, Lott has been touting his rebuttal as a decisive debunking of our points.

Nothing could be further from the truth. His lengthy article managed to find only one small error in our work, which we have since corrected by adding the word “initial” to a single sentence, with a star next to it to highlight the change.

We also discovered that we repeatedly misspelled Ted Goertzel’s name, which we have also corrected. Those are the only corrections we have made. Meanwhile, Lott’s “rebuttal” is filled with half-truths, errors, and outright lies, which we extensively detail in our own comprehensive counter-rebuttal: http://www.armedwithreason.com/john-lot ... nued-lies/

All we want from you is honesty.

PS. To all forum members. Be aware of any work backed by John Lott or crimestatistics.org suggesting that more guns equals greater safety. His work is full of misrepresentations and skews as per the above linked article - "A Lott of Lies".